Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 50681 

employee(s) conducting the review. 

This charge applies only to requesters 

who are seeking documents for 

commercial use, and only to the review 

necessary at the initial administrative 

level to determine the applicability of 

any relevant FOIA exemptions, and not 

at the administrative appeal level of an 

exemption already applied. 

(4) Duplication of records. Twentyfive cents per page for paper copy 

reproduction of documents, which the 

Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel and the IG determined is the 

reasonable direct cost of making such 

copies, taking into account the average 

salary of the operator and the cost of the 

reproduction machinery. For copies of 

records prepared by computer, such as 

tapes or printouts, the Authority, the 

General Counsel, the Panel or the IG 

shall charge the actual cost, including 

operator time, of production of the tape 

or printout. 

(5) Forwarding material to 

destination. Postage, insurance and 

special fees will be charged on an actual 

cost basis. 

(e) Aggregating requests. When the 

Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel or the IG reasonably believes that 

a requester or group of requesters is 

attempting to break a request down into 

a series of requests for the purpose of 

evading the assessment of fees, the 

Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel or the IG will aggregate any such 

requests and charge accordingly. 

(f) Charging interest. Interest at the 

rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 may be 

charged those requesters who fail to pay 

fees charged, beginning on the 30th day 

following the billing date. Receipt of a 

fee by the Authority, the General 

Counsel, the Panel or the IG, whether 

processed or not, will stay the accrual 

of interest. 

(g) Advanced payments. The 

Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel or the IG will not require a 

requester to make an advance payment, 

i.e., payment before work is commenced 

or continued on a request, unless: 

(1) The Authority, the General 

Counsel, the Panel or the IG estimates 

or determines that allowable charges 

that a requester may be required to pay 

are likely to exceed $250. Then the 

Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel or the IG will notify the requester 

of the likely cost and obtain satisfactory 

assurance of full payment where the 

requester has a history of prompt 

payment of FOIA fees, or require an 

advance payment of an amount up to 

the full estimated charges in the case of 

requesters with no history of payment; 

or 

(2) A requester has previously failed 

to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion 

(i.e., within 30 days of the date of the 

billing), in which case the Authority, 

the General Counsel, the Panel or the IG 

requires the requester to pay the full 

amount owed plus any applicable 

interest as provided in this section or 

demonstrate that the requester has, in 

fact, paid the fee, and to make an 

advance payment of the full amount of 

the estimated fee before the agency 

begins to process a new request or a 

pending request from that requester. 

When the Authority, the General 

Counsel, the Panel or the IG acts under 

paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section, 

the administrative time limits 

prescribed in subsection (a)(6) of the 

FOIA (i.e., 20 working days from receipt 

of initial requests and 20 working days 

from receipt of appeals from initial 

denial, plus permissible extension of 

these time limits) will begin only after 

the Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel or the IG has received fee 

payments described in this section. 

(h) When a person other than a party 

to a proceeding before the agency makes 

a request for a copy of a transcript, 

diskette, or other recordation of the 

proceeding, the Authority, the General 

Counsel, the Panel or the IG, as 

appropriate, will handle the request 

under this part. 

(i) Payment of fees shall be made by 

check or money order payable to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

§ 2411.14 Record retention and 

preservation. 

The Authority, the General Counsel, 

the Panel, and the IG shall preserve all 

correspondence pertaining to the 

requests that it receives under this 

subpart, as well as copies of all 

requested records, until such time as 

disposition or destruction is authorized 

by title 44 of the United States Code or 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration’s General Records 

Schedule 14. Records will not be 

disposed of while they are the subject of 

a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit 

under the FOIA. 

§ 2411.15 Annual report. 

On or before February 1 annually, the 

Chief FOIA Officer of the Authority 

shall submit a report of the activities of 

the Authority, the General Counsel, the 

Panel, and the IG with regard to public 

information requests during the 

preceding fiscal year to the Attorney 

General of the United States. The report 

shall include those matters required by 

5 U.S.C. 552(e), and shall be made 

available electronically. 

Dated: September 25, 2009. 

Carol Waller Pope, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. E9–23553 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6727–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 981 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–08–0045; FV08–981–2 

FIR] 

Almonds Grown in California; Revision 

of Outgoing Quality Control 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim final rule 

as final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting as a 

final rule, without change, an interim 

final rule that revised the outgoing 

quality control regulations issued under 

the California almond marketing order 

(order). The interim final rule revised 

the term ‘‘validation’’ under the 

Salmonella bacteria (Salmonella) 

treatment program by specifying that 

validation data must be both submitted 

to and accepted by the Almond Board 

of California’s (Board) Technical Expert 

Review Panel (TERP) for all treatment 

equipment prior to its use under this 

program. The interim final rule was 

necessary to ensure that all treatment 

equipment meets a 4-log reduction of 

Salmonella in almonds. 

DATES: Effective Date: Effective October 

2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing 

Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional 

Manager, California Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or E-mail: 

Terry.Vawter@ams.usda.gov, or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may obtain 

information on complying with this and 

other marketing order regulations by 

viewing a guide at the following Web 

site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.

do?template=TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide; 

or by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing 

Order Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 

0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

50682 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202) 

720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

981, as amended (7 CFR part 981), 

regulating the handling of almonds 

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.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

The order is administered locally by 

the Board. Under the order, handlers are 

required to treat shipments of almonds 

to reduce the potential for Salmonella 

contamination, with limited exceptions. 

Various equipment systems must be in 

place and must be ‘‘validated’’ by the 

Board’s TERP to ensure that treatments 

meet a required 4-log reduction of 

Salmonella in almonds destined for 

consumers in the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico. The TERP consists of four 

scientists, with a representative from the 

Food and Drug Administration serving 

as an ex-officio member. 

In an interim final rule published in 

the Federal Register on June 18, 2009, 

and effective on June 19, 2009 (74 FR 

28872, Doc. No. AMS–FV–08–0045; 

FV08–981–2 IFR), § 981.442 was 

amended by specifying that validation 

means that the treatment technology 

and equipment have been demonstrated 

to achieve in total a minimum 4-log 

reduction of Salmonella bacteria in 

almonds. Validation data must be both 

submitted to and accepted by the TERP 

for each piece of equipment used to 

treat almonds prior to its use under the 

program. Prior to the change, the 

regulation did not specify that 

validation data must be both submitted 

to and accepted by the TERP for each 

piece of equipment prior to its use 

under the program. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

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 the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 6,200 

producers of almonds in the production 

area and approximately 100 handlers 

subject to regulation under the 

marketing order. Additionally, the 

Board estimates there are about 15 

process authorities and 30 almond 

manufacturers under the Salmonella 

treatment program. Small agricultural 

producers are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000, and small 

agricultural service firms are defined as 

those whose annual receipts are less 

than $7,000,000. 

Data for the most recently-completed 

crop year indicate that about 50 percent 

of the handlers shipped under 

$7,000,000 worth of almonds. Dividing 

average almond crop value for 2006–07 

reported by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service of $2.258 billion by 

the number of producers (6,200) yields 

an average annual producer revenue 

estimate of about $364,190. Based on 

the foregoing, about half of the handlers 

and a majority of almond producers may 

be classified as small entities. While 

data regarding the size of the process 

authorities and almond manufacturers is 

not available, it may be assumed that 

some process authorities and 

manufacturers may be classified as 

small entities. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that revised § 981.442(b)(3)(i) of 

the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations specifying that the term 

‘‘validation’’ under the Salmonella 

treatment program means that 

validation data must be both submitted 

to and accepted by the TERP for each 

piece of treatment equipment prior to its 

use under the program. This revision 

will help ensure that all treatment 

equipment meets the program’s 4-log 

requirement prior to its use. Authority 

for this action is provided in § 981.42(b) 

of the order. 

Regarding the overall impact of this 

action on the affected entities, it is 

expected to be minimal. Validation data 

had previously been submitted to the 

Board’s TERP for review. This interim 

final rule simply specified that such 

data must be accepted by the TERP for 

all treatment equipment prior to its use 

under the program. 

The Board’s Food Quality and Safety 

Committee (committee) met prior to the 

board meeting to consider this change. 

The committee considered the 

alternative to this action, which 

maintained the status quo whereby 

equipment could be used under the 

program that had completed validation 

testing, but had not been accepted by 

the TERP. The committee, and 

subsequently the Board, concluded that 

acceptance by the TERP was important 

in order to help ensure that all treatment 

equipment consistently meets the 4-log 

requirement of the program. 

The Board, with the expertise of 

various committees and subcommittees, 

makes recommendations regarding the 

revisions to the marketing order rules 

and regulations after consideration of all 

available information, including 

comments received by Board staff. At 

the meetings, the impact of and 

alternatives to these recommendations 

are deliberated. The Board and its 

committees and subcommittees consist 

of individual producers and handlers 

with many years of experience in the 

industry, who are familiar with industry 

practices and trends. All Board, 

committee, and subcommittee meetings 

are open to the public and comments 

are widely solicited. In addition, 

minutes of all meetings are distributed 

to Board, committee, and subcommittee 

members and others who have 

requested them, and are also posted on 

the board’s Web site, thereby increasing 

the availability of this critical 

information within the industry. 

This rule will not impose any 

additional reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements on California almonds 

handlers, process authorities, or almond 

manufacturers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. In addition, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this rule. 

Further, the subcommittee, 

committee, and Board meetings where 

this issue was discussed were widely 

publicized throughout the California 

almond industry, and all interested 

persons were encouraged to attend the 

meetings and participate in 

deliberations on all issues. The issue 

was discussed at two Food Quality and 

Safety Committee meetings in April 

2008 and at two Board meetings, one in 

April and one in May 2008. All of these 

meetings were public meetings, and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. 

Comments on the interim final rule 

were required to be received on or 

before August 17, 2009. No comments 

were received. Therefore, for the reasons 

given in the interim final rule, we are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 189 / Thursday, October 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 50683 

adopting the interim final rule as a final 

rule, without change. 

To view the interim final rule, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/

Regs/home.html#documentDetail?

R=09000064809d2903. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim final rule 

concerning Executive Orders 12866 and 

12988, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act 

(44 U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim final rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (74 FR 28872, June 18, 2009) 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 981 

Almonds, Marketing agreements, 

Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 981—ALMONDS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

Accordingly, the interim final rule 

that amended 7 CFR part 981 and that 

was published at 74 FR 28872, on June 

18, 2009, is adopted as a final rule, 

without change. 

Dated: September 25, 2009. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–23648 Filed 9–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0521; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–187–AD; Amendment 

39–16034; AD 2009–20–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–300, –400, and –500 Series 

Airplanes Equipped With a Digital 

Transient Suppression Device (DTSD) 

Installed in Accordance With 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST00127BO 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 737–300, –400, and –500 

series airplanes. This AD requires 

revising the maintenance program to 

include new fuel system limitations for 

airplanes modified in accordance with 

STC ST00127BO. This AD also requires 

inspections and checks of the DTSDs 

and corrective actions, if necessary. This 

AD results from fuel system reviews 

conducted by the manufacturer. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent a potential of 

ignition sources inside fuel tanks, 

which, in combination with flammable 

fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank 

fire or explosion and consequent loss of 

the airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective November 5, 

2009. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of November 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Goodrich 

Corporation, Fuel and Utility Systems, 

100 Panton Road, Vergennes, Vermont 

05491–1008; telephone 802–877–4476; 

e-mail 

lgd.TechPubs.Oakville@goodrich.com; 

Internet http://www.goodrich.com/ 

TechPubs. 

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 (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the 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: 

Marc Ronell, Aerospace Engineer, ANE– 

150, FAA, Boston Aircraft Certification 

Office, 12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7776; fax (781) 

238–7170. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an airworthiness 

directive (AD) that would apply to 

certain Boeing Model 737–300, –400, 

and –500 series airplanes. That NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27254). That 

NPRM proposed to require revising the 

maintenance program to include new 

fuel system limitations for airplanes 

modified in accordance with 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST00127BO. That NPRM also proposed 

to require inspections and checks of the 

digital transient suppression devices 

and corrective actions, if necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comment received. 

Boeing supports the NPRM. 

Actions Since NPRM was Issued 

Since we issued the NPRM, we have 

determined that it is necessary to clarify 

the AD’s intended effect on spare and 

on-airplane fuel tank system 

components, regarding the use of 

maintenance manuals and instructions 

for continued airworthiness. 

Section 91.403(c) of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)) 

specifies the following: 

No person may operate an aircraft for 

which a manufacturer’s maintenance manual 

or instructions for continued airworthiness 

has been issued that contains an 

airworthiness limitation section unless the 

mandatory * * * procedures * * * have 

been complied with. 

Some operators have questioned 

whether existing components affected 

by the new CDCCLs must be reworked. 

We did not intend for the AD to 

retroactively require rework of 

components that had been maintained 

using acceptable methods before the 

effective date of the AD. Owners and 

operators of the affected airplanes 

therefore are not required to rework 

affected components identified as 

airworthy or installed on the affected 

airplanes before the required revisions 

of the maintenance program. But once 

the CDCCLs are incorporated into the 

maintenance program, future 

maintenance actions on components 

must be done in accordance with those 

CDCCLs. 

We have added Note 2 to this AD to 

clarify the intended effect of the AD on 

spare and on-airplane fuel tank system 

components. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

including the comment received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the change described previously. 

We also determined that this change 

will not increase the economic burden 

on any operator or increase the scope of 

the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 12 

airplanes of U.S. registry. The following 

table provides the estimated costs for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES