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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

21157 

Vol. 75, No. 78 

Friday, April 23, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 

1030, 1032, 1033, 1124, 1126, and 1131 

[Doc. No. AMS–DA–09–0007; AO–14–A78, 

et al.; DA–09–02] 

Milk in the Northeast and Other 

Marketing Areas; Order Amending the 

Orders 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

producer-handler definitions of all 

Federal milk marketing orders to limit 

exemption from pooling and pricing 

provisions to those with total route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk products to other plants of 3 

million pounds or less per month. The 

exempt plant definition will continue to 

limit disposition of Class I milk 

products to 150,000 pounds or less per 

month. A referendum was held and the 

required number of producers approved 

the issuance of the orders as amended. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gino M. Tosi or Jack Rower, Senior 

Marketing Specialists, Order 

Formulation and Enforcement Branch, 

USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, STOP 

0231–Room 2971, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0231, (202) 720–2357, e-mail addresses: 

gino.tosi@ams.usda.gov and 

jack.rower@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule amends the producer-handler 

provisions of all Federal milk marketing 

orders to limit exemption from pooling 

and pricing to those with total route 

disposition and packaged sales of fluid 

milk products to other plants of 3 

million pounds or less per month. The 

exempt plant definition will continue to 

limit disposition of Class I milk 

products to 150,000 pounds or less per 

month. 

Accordingly, this final rule adopts 

proposed amendments detailed in the 

final decision (75 FR 10122). 

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. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have a retroactive effect. 

The Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674) (AMAA), provides that 

administrative proceedings must be 

exhausted before parties may file suit in 

court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the 

AMAA, any handler subject to an order 

may request modification or exemption 

from such order by filing with the 

Department of Agriculture (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, USDA would rule on the 

petition. The AMAA 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 has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities and has certified 

that this rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. For 

the purposes 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 marketing 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. 

Producer-handlers are dairy farms 

that process their own milk production. 

These entities must operate one or more 

dairy farms as a pre-condition to 

operating processing plants as producerhandlers. The size of the dairy farm(s) 

determines the production level of the 

operation and is a controlling factor in 

the capacity of the processing plant and 

possible sales volume associated with 

the producer-handler entity. 

Determining whether a producerhandler is considered a small or large 

business is therefore dependent on the 

capacity of its dairy farm(s), where a 

producer-handler with annual gross 

revenue in excess of $750,000 is 

considered a large business. 

The amendments to the producerhandler provisions will obligate some 

large producer-handlers under the 

Federal milk marketing order system to 

the same terms as other fully regulated 

handlers of their respective orders 

provided they meet the criteria for 

qualification as fully regulated plants. 

Entities currently defined as producerhandlers under the terms of their order 

will be subject to the pooling and 

pricing provisions of the order if their 

total route disposition of fluid milk 

products and sales of packaged fluid 

milk products to other plants exceeds 3 

million pounds per month. 

Producer-handlers with total route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk products to other plants of 3 

million pounds or less during the month 

will not be subject to the pooling and 

pricing provisions of any order as a 

result of this rulemaking. To the extent 

that current producer-handlers have 

route disposition of fluid milk products 

and sales of packaged fluid milk 

products to other plants outside of the 

order’s marketing areas, such route 

disposition and sales to other plants 

will be subject to the pooling and 

pricing provisions of the orders if total 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

21158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

route disposition and sales to other 

plants cause them to become fully 

regulated. 

If current producer-handlers have 

total route disposition and packaged 

sales of fluid milk products of more 

than 3 million pounds during a month, 

such producer-handlers will be 

regulated under the pooling and pricing 

provisions of the orders like other fully 

regulated handlers. Such large 

producer-handlers will account to the 

pool for their uses of milk at the 

applicable minimum class prices and 

pay the difference between their usevalue of milk and the blend price of the 

order to that order’s producer-settlement 

fund. 

While this may cause an economic 

impact on those entities with more than 

three million pounds of route sales and 

sales to other plants that are currently 

considered producer-handlers under the 

Federal order system, the impact is 

offset by the benefit to other small 

businesses. With respect to dairy farms 

whose milk is pooled on Federal 

marketing orders, such dairy farms who 

have not heretofore shared in the 

additional revenue that accrues from the 

marketwide pooling of Class I sales by 

producer-handlers will share in such 

revenue. All producer-handlers who 

dispose of more than three million 

pounds of fluid milk products per 

month will account to all market 

participants at the announced Federal 

order Class I price for such use. 

To the extent that some large 

producer-handlers become subject to the 

pooling and pricing provisions of 

Federal milk marketing orders, such 

will be determined by their capacity as 

handlers. Such entities will no longer 

face the restrictions necessary to 

maintain producer-handler status and 

the resulting exemption from the 

pooling and pricing provisions of the 

orders. In general, this includes being 

able to buy or acquire any quantity of 

milk from dairy farmers or other 

handlers instead of being limited by the 

current constraints of the orders. 

Additionally, the burden of balancing 

their milk production is relieved. Milk 

production in excess of what is needed 

to satisfy their Class I route disposition 

and sales to other plants may receive the 

minimum price protection established 

under the terms of the Federal milk 

marketing orders. The burden of 

balancing milk supplies will be borne 

by all producers and handlers under the 

terms of the orders. 

During May 2009, the month in which 

the public hearing was held, the 

Northeast order had 57 pool distributing 

plants, 10 pool supply plants, 16 

partially regulated distributing plants, 

13 producer-handler plants and 40 

exempt plants. Of the 83 regulated 

plants, 49 plants or 59 percent were 

considered large businesses. Of the 

13,050 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 628 farms or 5 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 12,422 farms or 95 

percent of dairy farms in the Northeast 

order were considered small businesses. 

Most of these dairy farms, large and 

small, could benefit by receiving a 

higher blend price, if the monthly limit 

of 3 million pounds of total Class I route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk to other plants is adopted for 

producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Appalachian 

order had 21 pool distributing plants, 1 

pool supply plant, 2 partially regulated 

distributing plants, 1 producer-handler 

plant and 4 exempt plants. Of the 24 

regulated plants, 21 plants or 88 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

2,516 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 159 farms or 6 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 2,357 farms or 94 

percent of dairy farms in the 

Appalachian order were considered 

small businesses. Most of these dairy 

farms, large and small, could benefit by 

receiving a higher blend price, if the 

monthly limit of 3 million pounds of 

total Class I route disposition and sales 

of packaged fluid milk to other plants is 

adopted for producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Florida order 

had 11 pool distributing plants, 5 

partially regulated distributing plants 

and 2 exempt plants. The order had no 

pool supply plants or producer-handler 

plants as of May 2009. Of the 16 

regulated plants, 12 plants or 75 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

249 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 105 farms or 42 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 144 farms or 58 percent 

of dairy farms in the Florida order were 

considered small businesses. Most of 

these dairy farms, large and small, could 

benefit by receiving a higher blend 

price, if the monthly limit of 3 million 

pounds of total Class I route disposition 

and sales of packaged fluid milk to other 

plants is adopted for producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Southeast order 

had 22 pool distributing plants, 3 pool 

supply plants, 6 partially regulated 

distributing plants and 12 exempt 

plants. The order had no producerhandler plants as of May 2009. Of the 

31 regulated plants, 28 plants or 90 

percent were considered large 

businesses. Of the 2,992 dairy farmers 

whose milk was pooled on the order, 

187 farms or 6 percent were considered 

large businesses and 2,805 farms or 94 

percent of dairy farms in the Southeast 

order were considered small businesses. 

Most of these dairy farms, large and 

small, could benefit by receiving a 

higher blend price, if the monthly limit 

of 3 million pounds of total Class I route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk to other plants is adopted for 

producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Upper Midwest 

order had 24 pool distributing plants, 53 

pool supply plants, 2 partially regulated 

distributing plants, 5 producer-handler 

plants and 11 exempt plants. Of the 79 

regulated plants, 37 plants or 47 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

15,336 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 1,001 farms or 7 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 14,335 farms or 93 

percent of dairy farms in the Upper 

Midwest order were considered small 

businesses. Most of these dairy farms, 

large and small, could benefit by 

receiving a higher blend price, if the 

monthly limit of 3 million pounds of 

total Class I route disposition and sales 

of packaged fluid milk to other plants is 

adopted for producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Central order 

had 30 pool distributing plants, 12 pool 

supply plants, 1 partially regulated 

distributing plant, 7 producer-handler 

plants and 19 exempt plants. Of the 43 

regulated plants, 35 plants or 81 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

3,600 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 413 farms or 11 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 3,187 farms or 89 

percent of dairy farms in the Central 

order were considered small businesses. 

Most of these dairy farms, large and 

small, could benefit by receiving a 

higher blend price, if the monthly limit 

of 3 million pounds of total Class I route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk to other plants is adopted for 

producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Mideast order 

had 22 pool distributing plants, 2 pool 

supply plants, 4 partially regulated 

distributing plants, 1 producer-handler 

plant and 17 exempt plants. Of the 28 

regulated plants, 8 plants or 29 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

7,238 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 504 farms or 7 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 6,734 farms or 93 

percent of dairy farms in the Mideast 

order were considered small businesses. 

Most of these dairy farms, large and 

small, could benefit by receiving a 

higher blend price, if the monthly limit 

of 3 million pounds of total Class I route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk to other plants is adopted for 

producer-handlers. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 21159 

During May 2009, the Pacific 

Northwest order had 15 pool 

distributing plants, 8 pool supply 

plants, 13 partially regulated 

distributing plants, 5 producer-handler 

plants and 2 exempt plants. Of the 36 

regulated plants, 20 plants or 56 percent 

were considered large business. Of the 

657 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 326 farms or 50 

percent were considered large 

businesses. Because the Pacific 

Northwest order already fully regulates 

producer-handlers with monthly route 

distribution in excess of three million 

pounds per month, the action will have 

a minimal effect on small farmers whose 

milk is pooled on the order. 

During May 2009, the Southwest 

order had 19 pool distributing plants, 2 

pool supply plants, 1 partially regulated 

distributing plant, 5 producer-handler 

plants and 2 exempt plants. Of the 79 

regulated plants, 19 plants or 86 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

588 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 318 farms or 54 

percent were considered large 

businesses and 270 farms or 46 percent 

of dairy farms in the Southeast order 

were considered small businesses. Most 

of these dairy farms, large and small, 

could benefit by receiving a higher 

blend price, if the monthly limit of 3 

million pounds of total Class I route 

disposition and sales of packaged fluid 

milk to other plants is adopted for 

producer-handlers. 

During May 2009, the Arizona order 

had 5 pool distributing plants, 1 pool 

supply plant, 15 partially regulated 

distributing plants and 1 exempt plant. 

The order had no producer-handler 

plants as of May 2009. Of the 21 

regulated plants, 13 plants or 62 percent 

were considered large businesses. Of the 

100 dairy farmers whose milk was 

pooled on the order, 95 farms or 95 

percent were considered large 

businesses. Because the Arizona order 

already fully regulates producerhandlers with monthly route 

distribution in excess of 3 million 

pounds, the action will have a minimal 

effect on small farmers whose milk is 

pooled on the order. 

As of May 2009, in their capacity as 

producers, 15 producer-handlers would 

be considered large producers as their 

annual marketings exceed 6 million 

pounds of milk (500,000 pounds per 

month). During the same month, 22 

producer-handlers would be considered 

small producers. Record evidence 

indicates that as of March 2009, seven 

large producer-handlers had total route 

sales of two million pounds or more per 

month. Therefore, seven or fewer large 

producer-handlers could potentially 

become subject to the pooling and 

pricing provisions of Federal milk 

marketing orders because of route 

disposition of more than three million 

pounds per month. 

This final rule amends the producerhandler provisions of all Federal milk 

marketing orders to limit exemption 

from pooling and pricing to those with 

total route disposition and packaged 

sales of fluid milk products to other 

plants of 3 million pounds or less per 

month. The exempt plant definition 

continues to limit disposition of Class I 

milk products to 150,000 pounds or less 

per month. Based on the above analysis, 

USDA has concluded that the 

amendments will not have a negative 

impact on small entities and may in fact 

benefit small and large dairy producers. 

The Agricultural Marketing Service 

(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 

these amendments would have minimal 

impact on reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements for 

entities currently considered producerhandlers under Federal milk marketing 

orders because they would remain 

identical to the current requirements 

applicable to all other regulated 

handlers who are subject to the pooling 

and pricing provisions. No new forms 

are proposed and no additional 

reporting requirements would be 

necessary. 

This notice does not require 

additional information collection that 

needs clearance by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) beyond 

currently approved information 

collection. The primary sources of data 

used to complete the forms are routinely 

used in most business transactions. 

Forms require only a minimal amount of 

information that 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 April 3, 

2009; published April 9, 2009 (74 FR 

16296). 

Recommended Decision: Issued 

October 15, 2009; published October 21, 

2009 (74 FR 54383). 

Final Decision: Issued February 18, 

2010; published March 4, 2010 (75 FR 

10122). 

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth supplement those 

that were made when the orders were 

first issued and when they were 

amended. The previous findings and 

determinations are hereby ratified and 

confirmed, except where they may 

conflict with those set forth herein. 

The following findings are hereby 

made with respect to the Northeast and 

other marketing orders: 

(a) Findings Upon the Basis of the 

Hearing Record 

A public hearing was held with regard 

to certain proposed amendments to the 

tentative marketing agreements and to 

the orders regulating the handling of 

milk in the Northeast and other 

marketing areas. The hearing was held 

pursuant to the provisions of the AMAA 

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 orders as hereby 

amended, and all of the terms and 

conditions thereof, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the 

AMAA; 

(2) The parity prices of milk, as 

determined pursuant to section 2 of the 

AMAA, 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 

areas. The minimum prices specified in 

the orders 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; 

(3) The said orders, as hereby 

amended, regulate the handling of milk 

in the same manner as, and are 

applicable only to persons in the 

respective classes of industrial or 

commercial activity specified in, the 

marketing agreements upon which a 

hearing has been held; and 

(4) All milk and milk products 

handled by handlers, as defined in the 

tentative marketing agreements and the 

orders as hereby amended, are in the 

current of interstate commerce or 

directly burden, obstruct, or affect 

interstate commerce in milk or its 

products. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

21160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Additional Findings 

The amendments to these orders are 

known to handlers. The final decision 

containing the proposed amendments to 

this order was issued on February 18, 

2010 and published in the Federal 

Register on March 4, 2010 (75 FR 

10122). 

The changes that result from these 

amendments 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 these amendments effective 

following June 1, 2010. (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 Northeast and other 

orders 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 Northeast and other 

orders 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 Parts 1001, 

1005, 1006, 1007, 1030, 1032, 1033, 

1124, 1126, and 1131 

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 Northeast and 

other marketing areas shall be in 

conformity to and in compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the orders, 

as amended, and as hereby amended, as 

follows: 

■ For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

7 CFR parts 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 

1030, 1032, 1033, 1124, 1126, and 1131 

are amended as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

parts 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1030, 

1032, 1033, 1124, 1126, and 1131 

continues to read as follows: 

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

PART 1001—MILK IN THE 

NORTHEAST MARKETING AREA 

■ 2. Amend § 1001.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1001.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1005—MILK IN THE 

APPALACHIAN MARKETING AREA 

■ 3. Amend § 1005.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1005.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1006—MILK IN THE FLORIDA 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 4. Amend § 1006.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1006.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1007—MILK IN THE SOUTHEAST 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 5. Amend § 1007.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1007.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1030—MILK IN THE UPPER 

MIDWEST MARKETING AREA 

■ 6. Amend § 1030.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1030.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1032—MILK IN THE CENTRAL 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 7. Amend § 1032.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1032.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1033—MILK IN THE MIDEAST 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 8. Amend § 1033.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1124—MILK IN THE PACIFIC 

NORTHWEST MARKETING AREA 

■ 9. Revise § 1124.10 introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1124.10 Producer-handler. 

Producer-handler means a person 

who operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

from which total route disposition and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 78 / Friday, April 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 21161 

packaged sales of fluid milk products to 

other plants during the month does not 

exceed 3 million pounds, and who the 

market administrator has designated a 

producer-handler after determining that 

all of the requirements of this section 

have been met. 

* * * * * 

PART 1126—MILK IN THE 

SOUTHWEST MARKETING AREA 

■ 10. Amend § 1126.10 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1126.10 Producer-handler. 

* * * * * 

(a) Operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

and from which total route disposition 

and packaged sales of fluid milk 

products to other plants during the 

month does not exceed 3 million 

pounds; 

* * * * * 

PART 1131—MILK IN THE ARIZONA 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 11. Revise § 1131.10 introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1131.10 Producer-handler. 

Producer-handler means a person 

who operates a dairy farm and a 

distributing plant from which there is 

route disposition in the marketing area, 

from which total route disposition and 

packaged sales of fluid milk products to 

other plants during the month does not 

exceed 3 million pounds, and who the 

market administrator has designated a 

producer-handler after determining that 

all of the requirements of this section 

have been met. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 19, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9402 Filed 4–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0502; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NE–02–AD; Amendment 39– 

16273; AD 2010–09–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company (GE) CJ610 Series 

Turbojet Engines and CF700 Series 

Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for GE 

CJ610 series turbojet engines and CF700 

turbofan engines with AFT 

Technologies combustion liners, part 

number (P/N) AFT–5016T30G02. This 

AD requires removing from service, AFT 

Technologies combustion liners, P/N 

AFT–5016T30G02. This AD results from 

a report of an AFT Technologies 

combustion liner that released a large 

section of the inner combustion liner 

and reports of six combustion liners 

with premature cracks. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent premature cracks in 

the combustion liner, which could 

release pieces of the inner combustion 

liner. A release of pieces of the inner 

combustion liner could cause an 

uncontained failure of the engine 

turbine and damage to the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 

28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations 

office is located at Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Norman Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, 

New York Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; e-mail: 

norman.perenson@faa.gov; telephone 

(516) 228–7337; fax (516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

a proposed AD. The proposed AD 

applies to GE CJ610 series turbojet 

engines and CF700 turbofan engines 

with AFT Technologies combustion 

liners, P/N AFT–5016T30G02 installed. 

We published the proposed AD in the 

Federal Register on September 9, 2009 

(74 FR 46395). That action proposed to 

require replacing combustion liners, P/ 

N AFT–5016T30G02: 

• Before they accumulate 200 hourssince-new (HSN) or 300 cycles-sincenew (CSN), or 

• Within 15 hours-in-service or 10 

cycles-in-service, after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs first, if the 

combustion liner has already exceeded 

200 HSN or 300 CSN. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office 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 street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is provided in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Agrees With the Proposed AD 

One commenter agrees with the AD. 

Request To Replace ‘‘* * * Other 

Products of the Same Type Design’’ 

One commenter, AFT Technologies, 

asks us to replace ‘‘* * * other products 

of the same type design’’ with ‘‘* * * 

other products of the same 

manufacture.’’ The commenter feels 

‘‘The A.D. inadvertently suggests that 

despite PMA approval to manufacture 

the subject part, it’s failure or potential 

for failure is the result of a design 

defect, as opposed to an equally 

possible manufacturing or assembly 

defect.’’ And that the AD requires 

clarification. 

We do not agree that there is any need 

to distinguish between design and 

manufacture in the AD. The regulation 

that controls type design, 14 CFR part 

21.31, defines type design as design and 

manufacture. In addition, we didn’t 

make any conclusion as to the cause of 

the excessive cracking. Determination of 

the cracking is the responsibility of the 

PMA holder. As stated in the discussion 

of the proposed rule, ‘‘The PMA holder 

has not been able to determine the cause 

of the premature combustion liner 

failure.’’ Also, the statement ‘‘* * * 

other products of the same type design’’ 

appears only in the NPRM preamble 

section ‘‘FAA’s Determination and 

Requirements of the Proposed AD.’’ That 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES