Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47923

volume, not the amount of small sizes

shipped early in the season. The

Department recognizes that there are

several factors contributing to the

current problems facing the grapefruit

industry. However, this rule is not an

attempt to fix every potential problem.

Rather, this rule seeks to slow the

drastic price decline that occurs during

the 11 weeks regulated hereunder. The

early season crop tends to have a greater

percentage of small sizes. The large

volume of smaller, lower priced fruit

drives down the price for all sizes.

Larger sized fruit commands a

premium price early in the season. The

f.o.b. for these sizes can be $4 to $6 a

carton more than for the smaller sizes.

In early October, the f.o.b. for a size 27

averages around $10.00 per carton,

compared to an average f.o.b. of $5.50

per carton for size 56. By the end of the

11 week period in this rule, the f.o.b. for

large sizes has dropped to within two

dollars of the price for small sizes. In

addition, during the 11 week period,

prices of red seedless grapefruit have

fallen from a weighted average f.o.b. of

$7.80 per carton to an average f.o.b. of

$5.50 per carton, the f.o.b. for size 56,

for the past three seasons.

Later in the season the crop tends to

naturally limit the amount of smaller

sizes available for shipment. However,

the price structure in the market has

already been negatively affected, and

the f.o.b. price for all sizes remains

around $5.00 to $6.00 per carton for the

rest of the season.

In addition, the committee examined

shipment information detailing the

amounts and percentages of sizes 48 and

56 shipped during the 11 week

regulatory period for the last four

seasons. They compared this

information with tables outlining

weekly f.o.b. figures for each size. Based

on this statistical information from past

seasons, the committee members believe

there is an indication that once

shipments of sizes 48 and 56 reach

levels above 250,000 cartons a week,

prices decline on those and most other

sizes of red seedless grapefruit. The

committee believes that if shipments of

small sizes can be maintained at around

250,000 cartons a week, prices should

stabilize and demand for larger, more

profitable sizes should increase.

Utilizing these procedures contributes

to the Act’s objectives of orderly

marketing and improving producers’

returns. According to EAB, since sizes

48 and 56 red grapefruit are a small part

of the total supply of Florida red

grapefruit, limiting shipments of these

sizes will have a moderate effect on the

total quantity shipped. It may, however,

help to prevent the average price for all

Florida red grapefruit from being

reduced to below the cost of production.

This rule limitation provides a sufficient

supply of small sized red seedless

grapefruit to meet market demand,

without saturating all markets with

these small sizes. This should help

stabilize prices for all sizes.

After thoroughly analyzing the

comments received and other available

information, including the additional

recommendation by the committee, the

Department has concluded that this

interim final rule is appropriate.

A 10-day comment period is provided

to allow interested persons to respond

to this proposal. Ten days is deemed

appropriate because the regulation

period begins on September 15, 1997,

and continues for 11 weeks. Adequate

time will be necessary so that any

changes made to the regulations based

on comments filed could be made

effective during the 11-week period. All

written comments timely received will

be considered before a final

determination is made on this matter.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

submitted by the committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

It is further found and determined

upon good cause that it is impracticable,

unnecessary, and contrary to the public

intent to give preliminary notice prior to

putting this rule into effect and that

good cause exists for not postponing the

effective date of this rule until 30 days

after publication in the Federal Register

(5 U.S.C. 553) because this rule needs to

be in place when handlers begin

shipping grapefruit in September. This

rule is necessary to help stabilize the

market and to improve grower returns.

Further, handlers are aware of this rule,

which was recommended at public

meetings. Also, a 15-day comment

period was provided for in the proposed

rule and a 10-day comment period is

provided in this rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements,

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 905 is amended as

follows:

PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT,

TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS

GROWN IN FLORIDA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 905 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

2. In § 905.306, paragraphs (a) and (b),

the word ‘‘During’’ is removed and the

words ‘‘Except as otherwise provided in

§ 905.601, during’’ are added in its

place.

3. A new § 905.601 is added to read

as follows:

Note: The following section will not appear

in the Code of Federal Regulations.

§ 905.601 Red seedless grapefruit

regulation 101.

The schedule below establishes the

weekly percentages to be used to

calculate each handler’s weekly

allotment of small sizes. If the minimum

size in effect under section 905.306 for

red seedless grapefruit is size 56,

handlers can fill their allotment with

size 56, size 48, or a combination of the

two sizes such that the total of these

shipments are within the established

weekly limits. If the minimum size in

effect under section 905.306 for red

seedless grapefruit is 48, handlers can

fill their allotment with size 48 red

seedless grapefruit such that the total of

these shipments are within the

established weekly limits. The weekly

percentages for sizes 48 and/or 56 red

seedless grapefruit grown in Florida,

which may be handled during the

specified weeks are as follows:

Week

Weekly

percentage

(a) 9/15/97 through 9/21/97 ............ 50

(b) 9/22/97 through 9/28/97 ............ 50

(c) 9/29/97 through 10/5/97 ............ 50

(d) 10/6/97 through 10/12/97 .......... 35

(e) 10/13/97 through 10/19/97 ........ 35

(f) 10/20/97 through 10/26/97 ......... 35

(g) 10/27/97 through 11/2/97 .......... 30

(h) 11/3/97 through 11/9/97 ............ 30

(i) 11/10/97 through 11/16/97 ......... 30

(j) 11/17/97 through 11/23/97 ......... 30

(k) 11/24/97 through 11/30/97 ........ 30

Dated: September 9, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–24307 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 1011

[DA–97–09]

Milk in the Tennessee Valley Marketing

Area; Termination of the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.
47924 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Final rule; termination order.

SUMMARY: This rule terminates all but

certain administrative provisions of the

Tennessee Valley Federal milk

marketing order. The remaining

administrative provisions will be

terminated at a later date. On the basis

of public hearings held in May and

December 1996 on proposed

amendments to 4 southeastern milk

orders, including the Tennessee Valley

milk order, the Department concluded

that each of the 4 orders should be

similarly amended. Although the

amended orders were approved by

producers in 3 of the 4 marketing areas,

the issuance of the proposed amended

order for the Tennessee Valley

marketing area did not receive the

required two-thirds mandate. After

reviewing the comments filed in

response to a notice of proposed

termination of the order published on

July 3, 1997, the Department has

concluded that the present Tennessee

Valley order should be terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,

USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order

Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South

Building, PO. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, (202) 690–1932, e-mail

address NicholaslMemoli@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior

documents related to this proceeding:

Notice of Hearing: Issued May 1,

1996; published May 3, 1996 (61 FR

19861).

Tentative Partial Final Decision:

Issued July 12, 1996; published July 18,

1996 (61 FR 37628).

Interim Amendment of Orders: Issued

August 2, 1996; published August 9,

1996 (61 FR 41488).

Extension of Time for Filing

Comments: Issued August 16, 1996;

published August 23, 1996 (61 FR

43474).

Extension of Time for Filing

Comments: Issued October 18, 1996;

published October 25, 1996 (61 FR

55229).

Notice of Reopened Hearing: Issued

November 19, 1996; published

November 25, 1996 (61 FR 59843).

Partial Final Decision: Issued May 12,

1997; published May 20, 1997 (62 FR

27525).

Notice of Proposed Termination:

Issued June 30, 1997; published July 3,

1997 (62 FR 36022).

Extension of Time for Filing

Comments to the Proposed Termination:

Issued July 9, 1997; published July 14,

1997 (62 FR 37524).

Order Amending the Orders: Issued

July 17, 1997; published July 23, 1997

(62 FR 39737).

Partial Recommended Decision:

Issued July 17, 1997; published July 23,

1997 (62 FR 39470).

The Department is issuing this rule in

conformance with 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. This rule

will not preempt any state or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule.

The Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7

U.S.C. 601–674), 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 the Secretary

a petition stating that the order, any

provision of the order, or any obligation

imposed in connection with the order is

not in accordance with the law. A

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After a

hearing, the Secretary would rule on the

petition. The Act provides that the

district court of the United States in any

district in which the handler is an

inhabitant, or has its principal place of

business, has jurisdiction in equity to

review the Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, provided a bill in equity is

filed not later than 20 days after the date

of the entry of the ruling.

Small Business Consideration

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the

Agricultural Marketing Service 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 $500,000, 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 $500,000 per

year criterion was used to establish a

production guideline of 326,000 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 farmers. 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 the representative month of

February 1997, the milk of 1,469

producers was pooled on the Tennessee

Valley order. Of these producers, 1,442

are considered as small businesses.

There were 7 handlers operating 8

pool distributing plants regulated under

the Tennessee Valley milk order for

February 1997. Of these handlers, 3 are

considered small businesses.

Upon termination of the Tennessee

Valley order, it is likely that all but 2 of

the handlers currently regulated under

the order will become regulated under

the Carolina, Southeast, or LouisvilleLexington-Evansville Federal milk

orders. The regulations under these

other orders are, for the most part,

comparable to those of the Tennessee

Valley order, but each of these 4 orders

has a different price structure and a

unique uniform price to producers that

is computed each month. The impact of

these regulatory changes on producers

will depend upon which order the

former Tennessee Valley handlers

become regulated under. In some cases,

the uniform price paid to producers will

be somewhat higher, but in other cases

it will be a little lower.

Those handlers who will become

regulated under other Federal orders

will continue to be responsible for the

recordkeeping, reporting, and

compliance requirements of those

orders.

Preliminary Statement

This order of termination is issued

pursuant to the provisions of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

and of the order regulating the handling

of milk in the Tennessee Valley

marketing area.

Notice of proposed rulemaking was

published in the Federal Register on

July 3, 1997 (62 FR 36022), concerning

a proposed termination of the order.

Interested persons were afforded

opportunity to file written data, views

and arguments thereon.

In total, 11 comments were received,

3 supporting the termination, 3 opposed

to it, and 5 taking no position on the

termination but offering comments on

questions raised by the Department in

the notice of proposed termination.

After consideration of all relevant

material, including the proposal in the

notice, the comments received, and

other available information, it is hereby

found and determined that the current

order regulating the handling of milk in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47925

the Tennessee Valley marketing area (7

CFR part 1011) does not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Statement of Consideration

This rule terminates the Tennessee

Valley Federal milk marketing order

effective October 1, 1997. On May 12,

1997, the Department issued a partial

final decision on proposed amendments

to the Carolina, Southeast, Tennessee

Valley, and Louisville-LexingtonEvansville milk orders (i.e., Orders 5, 7,

11, and 46) which was published on

May 20, 1997 (62 FR 27525). The final

decision document contained proposed

amended orders for the 4 southeast

marketing areas, including the

Tennessee Valley order, and directed

the respective market administrators of

the 4 orders to ascertain whether

producers approved the issuance of the

amended orders. The final decision

concluded that amended orders were

needed to effectuate the declared policy

of the applicable statutory authority.

Less than two-thirds of the producers

whose milk is pooled in the Tennessee

Valley marketing area approved the

issuance of the proposed amended

order. The Act requires approval by at

least two-thirds of the producers before

an amended order may be issued.

In the Department’s Notice of

Proposed Termination of the Order,

interested parties also were requested to

specifically address two issues: (1) The

disposition of the Tennessee Valley

order transportation credit balancing

fund (TCBF) and (2) transportation

credit ineligibility on milk of producers

located in the area comprising the

Tennessee Valley marketing area under

Orders 5, 7, and 46.

Comments submitted by two

handlers, Mayfield Dairy Farms, Inc.,

and Land-O-Sun Dairies, Inc., both of

which operate pool plants currently

regulated under the Tennessee Valley

order, support the Department’s

recommendation that funds

accumulated in the Tennessee Valley

order’s TCBF be transferred prorata to

the respective orders where such

handlers will become regulated, based

on each handler’s contribution to the

Tennessee Valley order’s TCBF.

A comment submitted by Barber Pure

Milk Company (Barber) and Dairy Fresh

Corporation (Dairy Fresh), handlers

regulated under the Southeast milk

order, states that the handlers support

the Department’s proposal to transfer

the money in the Tennessee Valley

order’s TCBF to the TCBFs of the orders

under which Tennessee Valley order

handlers become regulated. Barber and

Dairy Fresh also state that it would be

unfair to return the money that

Tennessee Valley order handlers have

contributed to the Order 11 TCBF to

those handlers and then permit these

handlers to draw credits out of the

TCBFs in the Carolina, Southeast, or

Louisville-Lexington-Evansville orders

without having ever contributed to such

funds. Additionally, the commentors

support the Department’s position that

the milk of producers located

geographically within the Tennessee

Valley marketing area be ineligible for

transportation credits under the other 3

southeastern milk orders.

The Fleming Companies, Inc.

(Fleming), a handler operating a pool

plant regulated under the Southeast

order, submitted a comment urging the

Department to speedily complete the

process of termination of the Tennessee

Valley milk marketing order. The

handler contends that termination will

result in handlers becoming regulated

along competitive lines rather than

artificial geographic lines.

Fleming supports the

recommendation that funds in the

Tennessee Valley order’s TCBF be

transferred prorata into the comparable

funds of markets under which the Order

11 handlers will become regulated.

Fleming states that the prorated share of

any transportation credit balancing

funds to follow each handler should be

based on that handler’s proportionate

share of Class I milk marketed under the

Tennessee Valley order. The handler

also supports the interpretation that

milk of producers located

geographically within the Tennessee

Valley marketing area should be

ineligible for transportation credits

subsequent to its termination.

A comment filed on behalf of MidAmerica Dairymen, Inc. (Mid-Am), a

cooperative association with producers

on the 4 southeastern orders, states that

Mid-Am supports the Department’s

proposal concerning the disbursement

of the Tennessee Valley’s TCBF and

contends that a prorata transfer of funds

is the most equitable method of

disbursement. The cooperative states

that in the event that two of the

handlers that are currently regulated

under Order 11 become unregulated,

these handlers should be reimbursed for

their contributions. Mid-Am also

recommends the adoption of the

Department’s interpretation concerning

the ineligibility for transportation

credits for milk of producers located

within the geographic boundaries of the

Tennessee Valley marketing area.

Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

(AMPI), stated that the Tennessee Valley

order should be terminated since the

order, as amended, was not approved by

the producers voting in the referendum.

AMPI also contends that since the major

handlers on Order 11 will become

regulated under Orders 5, 7, or 46, all

of which provide similar transportation

credit provisions, it is only fair and

reasonable that the transportation credit

assessments which have been

contributed by those Order 11 handlers

follow them to their new market of

regulation and be added to the fund

balance of that market.

AMPI concurs with the Department’s

determination that milk of producers

located within the boundaries of the

Tennessee Valley marketing area should

be ineligible to receive transportation

credits.

A comment submitted by Peeler

Jersey Farms, Inc. (Peeler), a handler

with distributing plants regulated under

the Carolina and Southeast milk orders,

states that a termination of the

Tennessee Valley milk order may not be

in the best interest of the Federal milk

order program if an environment is

created in which regulated milk

competes with unregulated milk. Peeler

states that to prevent this inequity the

Department should modify pooling

standards so that all handlers currently

regulated under the Tennessee Valley

milk order will be regulated under one

of the other 3 southeastern milk orders.

Peeler supports the Department’s

proposal to transfer the funds in the

Tennessee Valley order’s TCBF to the

TCBF of the respective order where

handlers will become regulated based

upon their contributions to the Order 11

TCBF. Additionally, the handler states

that the milk of dairy farmers pooled on

the Tennessee Valley milk order should

not be eligible for transportation credits

if the order is terminated.

A comment submitted by CarolinaVirginia Milk Producers Association,

Inc. (Carolina-Virginia), a cooperative

association representing producers

whose milk is pooled on the Carolina,

Southeast, and Tennessee Valley milk

orders, states that Carolina-Virginia

takes no position on the proposed

termination of the Tennessee Valley

milk order. However, the cooperative

association does favor the Department’s

proposal to transfer prorated funds

accumulated in the Tennessee Valley

order’s TCBF to each of the TCBFs of

the respective orders where the former

Tennessee Valley handlers become

regulated. Carolina-Virginia also

supports the return of the prorata share

of the TCBF to the 2 handlers who will

likely become unregulated and

recommends the adoption of the

Department’s interpretation concerning

the reference to the Tennessee Valley

marketing area as it pertains to

transportation credit ineligibility.
47926 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Southeastern Graded Milk Producers

Association, a cooperative association

with nearly 300 producers located in

Kentucky, filed a comment in

opposition to the termination of the

Tennessee Valley order as proposed.

Southern Belle Dairy, a handler

operating a pool distributing plant in

Somerset, Kentucky, regulated under

the Tennessee Valley milk order, also

filed a comment opposing the

termination of the Tennessee Valley

milk marketing order. Southern Belle

states that the current Tennessee Valley

milk order continues to effectuate the

declared policy of the Act and,

therefore, should not be terminated. In

addition, the handler argues that since

less than 50% of the producers

requested termination, the Secretary is

not required to terminate the order.

According to the handler, any

termination of the order will create the

very disorderly marketing of milk and

plant price inequities the Act tends to

eliminate.

Southern Belle maintains that in the

event that Order 11 is terminated and

Southern Belle becomes regulated under

Order 7, the handler would be placed at

a competitive disadvantage. The handler

states that the disadvantage in the

milkshed resulting from termination

will require Southern Belle to pay

significantly more for milk in order to

secure a supply. According to the

handler, despite the lower Class I price

that Southern Belle would be

responsible for under regulation of the

Southeast order, the blend price at the

plant’s location would be reduced

relative to the blend price of nearby

Order 46 handlers competing for milk

supplies and, therefore, interfere with

Southern Belle’s procurement of milk.

The handler also requests that if the

Tennessee Valley order is terminated

the funds paid into the Order 11 TCBF

be returned to Southern Belle since it

did not receive transportation credits in

1996 and does not intend to apply for

credits in 1997 or thereafter. Southern

Belle states that such reimbursement is

the only equitable method of

distribution of the TCBF.

Milk Marketing Inc. (MMI), a regional

cooperative representing 7,500

producers whose milk is pooled under

8 different Federal milk orders,

submitted a comment fully supporting

the continuation of the Tennessee

Valley order. MMI believes that the

Federal Order Program has served the

public very well and states there is no

reason to terminate the Tennessee

Valley order.

According to MMI, many businesses

would encounter severe economic

hardship if the Tennessee Valley order

were terminated. MMI indicated that

Southern Belle, which is supplied in

part by MMI, would be financially

harmed. MMI stated that Southern Belle

would most likely become regulated

under the Southeast Order. Were this to

happen, it states, Southern Belle would

experience a 32.5 cents reduction in its

Class I price, but this reduction would

be more than offset by a substantial

increase in its procurement cost for all

milk received at the Southern Belle

plant because its blend price under

Order 7 would be well below (e.g., 41

cents during 1996) the blend price at

Somerset under Order 46. Thus, the

cooperative noted, the prices received

by producers servicing this plant would

be severely reduced.

MMI agreed with the Department’s

interpretation that milk of producers

located in the Tennessee Valley

marketing area should still be ineligible

for a transportation credit under Orders

5, 7, and 46.

Conclusion. The Department has

determined that the Tennessee Valley

milk order must be terminated since the

existing order does not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

The comments that were filed in

response to the notice of proposed

termination provide no basis for

questioning the validity of the vote on

the proposed amended order or the

determination that the existing order

needed to be amended.

The Act specifically prohibits the

issuance of any milk order that is not

favored by more than two-thirds of

producers by number or by volume of

milk marketed. Accordingly, since less

than two-thirds of the producers, by

number and volume of milk marketed,

approved of the proposed new amended

Tennessee Valley order, it cannot be

issued. No comments disputed this

point.

Several comments suggested that the

Secretary was not required to terminate

the existing Tennessee Valley marketing

order. In the Partial Final Decision,

however, the Secretary determined that

recent experience under the existing

marketing order demonstrated there

were certain serious problems with the

order that needed to be corrected (62 FR

27532–27536). The Secretary

determined that the new proposed

amended order was ‘‘the detailed and

appropriate means of effecting’’ these

corrections, and he specifically rejected

the previous findings and

determinations for the existing

marketing order in this regard (62 FR

27537–27538). Thus, the existing

marketing order does not tend to

effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

None of the comments dispute the

Secretary’s conclusions on this point.

The comments essentially just claim

that a particular handler may feel

competitive pressure if it is pooled

under Order 7. Under Federal marketing

orders, a handler located in an

unregulated area is pooled under the

particular marketing order where it has

most of its sales. This is the main area

where it chooses to compete with other

handlers. If such a handler does not

wish to be regulated under a particular

order, it is free to sell its milk in a

different geographic area and, thus,

effectively choose the marketing order

under which it is regulated. Similarly,

any handler is free to purchase its milk

supply from any producers wherever

located. But certainly the existence or

boundaries of Federal marketing orders

should not be controlled by the

marketing or procurement strategies of

one particular milk plant. Furthermore,

as noted above, such a claim is not even

directly relevant to the question of

whether the existing marketing order

required certain changes in order to

continue to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

The termination of the Tennessee

Valley order will not result in a

regulatory void in the Tennessee Valley

marketing area. In fact, it appears that

all but two of the handlers now

regulated under Order 11 will continue

to be fully regulated under Order 5,

Order 7, or Order 46. The two handlers

likely to become unregulated have very

limited distribution areas. Virtually all

of the producers whose milk is priced

under the Tennessee Valley order will

continue to receive the benefits of a

Federally mandated minimum price,

albeit under a different order.

As requested, many of the comments

received addressed the issue of

disbursement of the Order 11 TCBF. A

majority of the commentors support the

Department’s proposal to transfer the

funds prorata based upon handlers’

contributions to the funds of the orders

that they will become regulated under.

Since the handlers will be eligible to

request transportation credits once they

become regulated under the Carolina,

Southeast or Louisville-LexingtonEvansville orders, it is the most

equitable means for disbursement in

accordance with 7 CFR 1000.4.

It is also reasonable, and fully

supported by the comments received, to

continue to exclude transportation

credits under Orders 5, 7, and 46 for

milk received from a dairy farm within

the defined area known as the

Tennessee Valley marketing area.

Accordingly, there will be no change in

the interpretation of Section 82(c)(2)(iii)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47927

of Orders 5, 7, and 46 after Order 11 is

terminated.

It is hereby found and determined

that the Tennessee Valley milk

marketing order should be terminated

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 608(c)(16)(A).

It is hereby found and determined

that thirty days’ notice of the effective

date hereof is impractical, unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest in

that:

(a) The termination is necessary to

reflect current marketing conditions and

to assure orderly marketing conditions

in the marketing area;

(b) This termination does not require

of persons affected substantial or

extensive preparation prior to the

effective date; and

(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking

was given interested parties and they

were afforded opportunity to file written

data, views or arguments concerning

this termination.

Therefore, good cause exists for

making this order effective less than 30

days from the date of publication in the

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1011

Milk marketing orders.

Order

It is therefore ordered, That the terms

and provisions of the order, as

amended, regulating the handling of

milk in the Tennessee Valley marketing

area, (7 CFR part 1011) except § 1011.1

which incorporates the General

Provisions in part 1000, are hereby

terminated effective October 1, 1997.

PART 1011—MILK IN THE TENNESSEE

VALLEY MARKETING AREA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 1011 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1–19, 48 Stats. 31, as

amended; 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§§ 1011.2 through 1011.86 [Removed]

2. Part 1011 is amended by removing

§§ 1011.2 through 1011.86.

Dated: September 5, 1997.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24174 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–180–AD; Amendment

39–10128; AD 97–19–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747

series airplanes, that currently requires

ultrasonic inspection of certain engine

strut diagonal brace lugs for cracks, and

replacement, if necessary. This

amendment requires new repetitive

inspections to detect discrepancies of

the diagonal brace lugs, and rework of

the diagonal brace lug, if necessary. In

lieu of accomplishing the rework for

certain cases, this amendment provides

for an option to defer the rework by

accomplishing repetitive inspections

and resealing the bushing. This

amendment also provides for an

optional terminating modification for

repetitive inspections. This amendment

is prompted by additional reports of

fatigue cracking in the diagonal brace

lug. The actions specified in this AD are

intended to prevent such fatigue

cracking, which could result in failure

of the strut and consequent separation

of the engine from the airplane.

DATES: Effective September 29, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of September

29, 1997.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

November 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 97–NM–

180–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Boeing

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tamara L. Dow, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2771;

fax (425) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

14, 1989, the FAA issued AD 89–07–15,

amendment 39–6167 (54 FR 11693,

March 22, 1989), applicable to certain

Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, to

require ultrasonic inspection of certain

engine strut diagonal brace lugs for

cracks, and replacement, if necessary.

That action was prompted by reports of

cracked diagonal braces. The actions

required by that AD are intended to

prevent overloading of the remaining

strut attach points and possible

structural damage.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of that AD, the

FAA has received several reports of six

additional diagonal braces with cracks

in one lug of the aft clevis on Boeing

Model 747 series airplanes. These

incidents occurred following

accomplishment of the optional

terminating action specified in AD 89–

07–15.

One diagonal brace, which had 3,386

flight cycles, had a crack from the bore

to the part edge in the aft lug. The

second diagonal brace, which had 5,206

flight cycles, had one lug in the aft

clevis completely fractured. The third

diagonal brace, which had 13,964 flight

cycles, had a crack less than 0.10 inch

in the aft lug bore. The fourth diagonal

brace, which had 1,275 flight cycles,

had a crack from the bore to the part

edge in the aft lug. The fifth diagonal

brace, which had approximately 3,360

flight cycles, had a through thickness

crack in the lug. The sixth diagonal

brace, which had approximately 8,350

flight cycles, had a crack in the aft lug.

The length of the cracks for the fifth and

sixth diagonal braces is not known. (The

above mentioned flight cycles refer to

cycles following accomplishment of the

rework.)

Investigation revealed that the

apparent cause of these cracks was

attributed to fatigue, which may initiate

at lug bore corrosion pits or other lug

surface anomalies. Fatigue cracking in

the diagonal brace lugs, if not detected

and corrected in a timely manner, could

result in failure of the strut and

consequent separation of the engine

from the airplane.

Discussion of Relevant Service

Information

Subsequent to the finding of this new

cracking, the manufacturer issued, and