6834 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

date of service of the petition or cross 

petition. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 1201.154 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1201.154 Time for filing appeal; closing 

record in cases involving grievance 

decisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Where the appellant has been 

subject to an action appealable to the 

Board, he or she may either file a timely 

complaint of discrimination with the 

agency or file an appeal with the Board 

no later than 30 days after the effective 

date, if any, of the action being 

appealed, or 30 days after the date of the 

appellant’s receipt of the agency’s 

decision on the appealable action, 

whichever is later. 

(b) * * * 

(2) If the agency has not resolved the 

matter or issued a final decision on the 

formal complaint within 120 days, the 

appellant may appeal the matter directly 

to the Board at any time after the 

expiration of 120 calendar days. Once 

the agency resolves the matter or issues 

a final decision on the formal 

complaint, an appeal must be filed 

within 30 days after the appellant 

receives the agency resolution or final 

decision on the discrimination issue. 

* * * * * 

(d) This paragraph does not apply to 

employees of the Postal Service or to 

other employees excluded from the 

coverage of the federal labormanagement relations laws at chapter 

71 of title 5, United States Code. If the 

appellant has filed a grievance with the 

agency under a negotiated grievance 

procedure, he may ask the Board to 

review the final decision on the 

grievance if he alleges before the Board 

that he is the victim of prohibited 

discrimination. Usually, the final 

decision on a grievance is the decision 

of an arbitrator. A full description of an 

individual’s right to pursue a grievance 

and to request Board review of a final 

decision on the grievance is found at 5 

U.S.C. 7121 and 7702. The appellant’s 

request for Board review must be filed 

within 35 days after the date of issuance 

of the decision or, if the appellant 

shows that he or she received the 

decision more than 5 days after the date 

of issuance, within 30 days after the 

date the appellant received the decision. 

The appellant must file the request with 

the Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems 

Protection Board, Washington, DC 

20419. The request for review must 

contain: 

(1) A statement of the grounds on 

which review is requested; 

(2) References to evidence of record or 

rulings related to the issues before the 

Board; 

(3) Arguments in support of the stated 

grounds that refer specifically to 

relevant documents, and that include 

relevant citations of authority; and 

(4) Legible copies of the final 

grievance or arbitration decision, the 

agency decision to take the action, and 

other relevant documents. Those 

documents may include a transcript or 

tape recording of the hearing. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 1201.182 as follows: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) and 

(c)(4) as paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) 

respectively. 

■ b. Add new paragraph (c)(3) and 

revise newly redesignated paragraph 

(c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 1201.182 Petition for enforcement. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Under § 1201.37(e) of this part, a 

nonparty witness who has obtained an 

order requiring the payment of witness 

fees and travel costs may petition the 

Board for enforcement of the order. 

* * * * * 

(5) A petition for enforcement under 

paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) or (c)(4) of 

this section must be filed promptly with 

the regional or field office that issued 

the order or, if the order was issued by 

the Board, with the Clerk of the Board. 

The petitioner must serve a copy of the 

petition on each party or the party’s 

representative. If the petition is filed 

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 

the motion to intervene must be filed 

and served with the petition. 

PART 1207—[AMENDED] 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 1207 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 794. 

■ 8. Amend § 1207.170 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1207.170 Compliance procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) An allegation of discrimination in 

the adjudication of a Board case must be 

raised within 10 days of the alleged act 

of discrimination or within 10 days 

from the date the complainant should 

reasonably have known of the alleged 

discrimination. If the complainant does 

not submit a complaint within that time 

period, it will be dismissed as untimely 

filed unless a good reason for the delay 

is shown. The pleading must be clearly 

marked ‘‘5 CFR part 1207 allegation of 

discrimination in the adjudication of a 

Board case.’’

* * * * * 

(4) If the judge to whom the case was 

assigned has issued the initial decision, 

recommended decision, or 

recommendation by the time the party 

learns of the alleged discrimination, the 

party may raise the allegation in a 

petition for review, cross petition for 

review, or response to the petition or 

cross petition. The petition for review, 

cross petition for review or response to 

the petition or cross petition must be 

clearly marked ‘‘5 CFR part 1207 

allegation of discrimination in the 

adjudication of a Board case.’’

* * * * * 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

William D. Spencer, 

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E8–2104 Filed 2–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 915 

[Docket No. AO–254–A10; AMS–FV–06–

0220; FV06–915–2] 

Avocados Grown in South Florida; 

Order Amending Marketing Order No. 

915 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS), USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

Marketing Order No. 915 (order), which 

regulates the handling of avocados 

grown in South Florida. The 

amendments are based on those 

proposed by the Florida Avocado 

Administrative Committee (committee), 

which is responsible for local 

administration of the order. The 

amendments will: Add authority for the 

committee to borrow funds; revise 

voting requirements for changing the 

assessment rate; allow for District 1 

nominations to be conducted by mail; 

and, add authority for the committee to 

accept voluntary contributions. All of 

the proposals were favored by avocado 

growers in a mail referendum, held July 

23 through August 6, 2007. The 

amendments are intended to improve 

the operation and functioning of the 

marketing order program. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 7, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc McFetridge or Melissa 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6835 

Schmaedick, Marketing Specialists, 

Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

Marketing Order Administration Branch 

(MOAB), AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Marc.McFetridge@usda.gov or 

Melissa.Schmaedick@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on this proceeding by 

contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, 

Washington, DC 20250–0237; 

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

720–8938, E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior 

documents in this proceeding: Notice of 

Hearing issued on July 18, 2006, and 

published in the July 24, 2006 issue of 

the Federal Register (71 FR 41740); 

Recommended Decision issued on 

March 23, 2007 and published in the 

March 30, 2007 issue of the Federal 

Register (72 FR 15056); and, a 

Secretary’s Decision and Referendum 

Order issued on July 9, 2007, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 12, 2007 (72 FR 38027). 

This action is governed by the 

provisions of sections 556 and 557 of 

title 5 of the United States Code and is 

therefore excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

Preliminary Statement 

This final rule was formulated on the 

record of a public hearing held in 

Homestead, Florida on August 16, 2006. 

Notice of this hearing was issued on 

July 18, 2006, and published in the July 

24, 2006 issue of the Federal Register 

(71 FR 41740). The hearing was held to 

consider the proposed amendment of 

Marketing Order No. 915, hereinafter 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘order.’’

The hearing was held pursuant to the 

provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act,’’ and the applicable rules of 

practice and procedure governing the 

formulation of marketing agreements 

and marketing orders (7 CFR part 900). 

The Notice of Hearing contained four 

proposals submitted by the Avocado 

Administrative Committee (committee), 

which is responsible for local 

administration of the order. 

Upon the basis of evidence 

introduced at the hearing and the record 

thereof, the Administrator of AMS on 

March 23, 2007, filed with the Hearing 

Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, a 

Recommended Decision and 

Opportunity to File Written Exceptions 

thereto by April 30, 2007. None were 

filed. 

That document also announced 

AMS’s intent to request approval of new 

information collection requirements to 

implement the program. Written 

exceptions on the proposed information 

collection requirements were due by 

May 29, 2007. None were filed. 

A Secretary’s Decision and 

Referendum Order was issued on July 9, 

2007, directing that a referendum be 

conducted during the period of July 23, 

2007 to August 6, 2007, among growers 

of avocados in South Florida to 

determine whether they favored the 

proposed amendments to the order. To 

become effective, the amendments had 

to be approved by at least two-thirds of 

those growers voting, or by voters 

representing at least two-thirds of the 

volume of avocados represented by 

voters voting in the referendum. Voters 

voting in the referendum favored all of 

the proposed amendments. 

The amendments favored by voters 

and included in this order will: Add 

authority for the committee to borrow 

funds; revise voting requirements for 

changing the assessment rate; allow for 

District 1 nominations to be conducted 

by mail; and, add authority for the 

committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. 

USDA also made such changes as 

were necessary to the order so that all 

of the order’s provisions conform to the 

effectuated amendments. 

The amended marketing agreement 

was subsequently mailed to all avocado 

handlers in the production area for their 

approval. The marketing agreement was 

not approved by handlers representing 

more than 50 percent of the volume of 

avocados handled by all handlers 

during the representative period of 

April 1, 2006, through March 31, 2007. 

Small Business Consideration 

Pursuant to the requirements set forth 

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

AMS has considered the economic 

impact of this action 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 so that 

small businesses will not be unduly or 

disproportionately burdened. Marketing 

orders and amendments thereto are 

unique in that they are normally 

brought about through group action of 

essentially small entities for their own 

benefit. 

Small agricultural growers have been 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $750,000. Small agricultural 

service firms, which include handlers 

regulated under the order, are defined as 

those with annual receipts of less than 

$6,500,000. 

Avocado Industry Background and 

Overview 

The record indicates that there are an 

estimated 352 growers of avocados in 

the production area and 32 handlers 

subject to regulation under the order. 

According to the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

and committee data, the average price 

for Florida avocados during the 2005–06 

season was around $46.75 per 55-pound 

bushel container, and total shipments 

were near 470,000 55-pound bushel 

equivalent. Using this average price and 

shipment information, the majority of 

avocado handlers could be considered 

small businesses under the SBA 

definition. In addition, based on 

avocado production, grower prices, and 

the total number of Florida avocado 

growers, the average annual grower 

revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the 

majority of Florida avocado growers 

may also be classified as small entities. 

The NASS reported that in 2005, total 

Florida avocado bearing acres were 

5,300 and the average yield per acre was 

2.26 tons. The total Florida production 

reported in 2005 was 12,000 tons, with 

growers receiving an average (farm gate) 

price of $940/ton. The estimated total 

value of 2005 Florida avocado 

production was $11.28 million. 

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. 

avocado industry has seen many 

changes. According to NASS, the total 

U.S. production acres for avocados have 

decreased by 13 percent, from 78,000 

acres in 1982 to 67,600 acres in 2005. 

Prices have trended upward from 1959 

to 2005, although there has been 

significant variability in prices from 

year to year. The average grower price 

for the U.S. in 1959 was $109 per ton 

and in 2005 the average grower price 

was $1,280 per ton. The total value of 

U.S. avocado production has increased 

dramatically since 1959, reaching a peak 

of $394 million in 2003. The per capital 

consumption of fresh avocados has risen 

significantly since 1970. Between 1970 

and 2004, per capital consumption 

increased almost five-fold to 2.9 pounds 

per person in 2004. According to the 

hearing record, one of the factors that 

may be contributing to this increase is 

the new year-round availability of 

avocados due to the volume of imported 

avocados in addition to domestically 

produced avocados. 

Comparatively, Florida’s avocado 

industry has seen similar trends. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
6836 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

According to NASS, the production 

acreage has decreased by 53 percent 

over the last three decades. According to 

record evidence, the rapid decrease in 

Florida production acreage compared to 

that of U.S. acreage can be directly 

associated with crop damage resulting 

from hurricanes. Florida’s production 

trended upward to 34,700 tons in the 

early 1980’s and has shown great 

variability since. Production in 2005 

was at a 10 year low of 12,000 tons. 

Prices for Florida avocados have also 

trended upward from 1959 to 2005. The 

average grower price for Florida 

avocados in 1959 was $88 per ton and 

in 2005 the average grower price was 

$940 per ton, which was the highest 

average grower price over the time span. 

The total value of Florida avocado 

production was $620,000 in 1959. After 

Hurricane Andrew, which affected the 

value of production in 1992 and 1993, 

the value of Florida’s production has 

ranged from a high of $17.2 million in 

2003 to a low of $11.3 million in 2005. 

Material Issues 

This action amends the order to: Add 

authority for the committee to borrow 

funds; revise voting requirements for 

changing the assessment rate; allow for 

District 1 nominations to be conducted 

by mail; and, add authority for the 

committee to accept voluntary 

contributions. 

These amendments will streamline 

program organization, but are not 

expected to result in a significant 

change in industry production, handling 

or distribution activities. In discussing 

the impacts of the amendments on 

growers and handlers, record evidence 

indicates that the changes are expected 

to be positive because the 

administration of the programs would 

be more efficient, and therefore more 

effective, in executing committee duties 

and responsibilities. There would be no 

significant cost impact on either small 

or large growers or handlers. 

Interested persons were invited to 

present evidence at the hearing on the 

probable regulatory and informational 

impact of the proposed amendments to 

the order on small entities. The record 

evidence shows that the amendments 

are designed to increase efficiency in 

the functioning of the order. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed rule. These 

amendments are designed to enhance 

the administration and functioning of 

the order to the benefit of the Florida 

avocado industry. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the information collection 

continued in this action was submitted 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and has been approved under 

OMB No. 0581–0243, Avocados Grown 

in South Florida. The burden and 

associated forms in this collection were 

also included in the renewal submission 

of OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic OMB 

Fruit Crops, currently at OMB for 

review. Upon approval of OMB No. 

0581–0189, a discontinuation notice 

will be submitted to OMB to retire OMB 

No. 0581–0243. 

The amendment authorizing mail 

nominations for District 1 requires a 

nomination form and ballot to conduct 

mail nominations. It is estimated that 

there are 384 growers and handlers who 

will be entitled to vote by mail ballot 

once every two years. The estimated 

burden to each grower and handler is 

0.083 hour per response. 

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. 

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. 

Civil Justice Reform 

The amendments to Marketing Order 

No. 915 proposed herein have been 

reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform. They are not 

intended to have retroactive effect. If 

adopted, the proposed amendments 

would not preempt any State or local 

laws, regulations, or policies, unless 

they present an irreconcilable conflict 

with this proposal. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United Sates in any district in which the 

handler is an inhabitant, or has his or 

her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

no later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

Order Amending the Order Regulating 

the Handling of Avocados Grown in 

Florida 

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth are supplementary 

and in addition to the findings and 

determinations previously made in 

connection with the issuance of the 

order; and all of said previous findings 

and determinations are hereby ratified 

and affirmed, except insofar as such 

findings and determinations may be in 

conflict with the findings and 

determinations set forth herein. 

(a) Findings and Determinations Upon 

the Basis of the Hearing Record. 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

and the applicable rules of practice and 

procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR 

part 900), a public hearing was held 

upon the proposed amendments to the 

Marketing Order No. 915 (7 CFR part 

915), regulating the handling of 

avocados grown in Florida. 

Upon the basis of the evidence 

introduced at such hearing and the 

record thereof, it is found that: 

(1) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby further amended, and all 

of the terms and conditions thereof, will 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act; 

(2) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby further amended, 

regulates the handling of avocados 

grown in the production area in the 

same manner as, and is applicable only 

to persons in the respective classes of 

commercial and industrial activity 

specified in the marketing order upon 

which hearings have been held; 

(3) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby further amended, is 

limited in application to the smallest 

regional production area which is 

practicable, consistent with carrying out 

the declared policy of the Act, and the 

issuance of several orders applicable to 

subdivision of the production area 

would not effectively carry out the 

declared policy of the Act; 

(4) The marketing order, as amended, 

and as hereby further amended, 

prescribes, insofar as practicable, such 

different terms applicable to different 

parts of the production area as are 

necessary to give due recognition to the 

differences in the production and 

marketing of avocados grown in the 

production area; and, 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 6837 

(5) All handling of avocados grown in 

the production area is in the current of 

interstate or foreign commerce or 

directly burdens, obstructs, or affects 

such commerce. 

(b) Additional findings. 

It is necessary and in the public 

interest to make these amendments to 

the order effective not later than one day 

after publication in the Federal 

Register. A later effective date would 

unnecessarily delay implementation of 

the amendments for the new crop year. 

These amendments should be in place 

as soon as possible as the new crop year 

begins April 1. Therefore, making the 

effective date one day after publication 

in the Federal Register will allow the 

amendments, which are expected to be 

beneficial to the industry, to be 

implemented as soon as possible. 

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby 

found and determined that good cause 

exists for making these amendments 

effective one day after publication in the 

Federal Register, and that it would be 

contrary to the public interest to delay 

the effective date for 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (Sec. 

553(d), Administrative Procedure Act; 5 

U.S.C. 551–559). 

(c) Determinations. It is hereby 

determined that: 

(1) Handlers (excluding cooperative 

associations of growers who are not 

engaged in processing, distributing, or 

shipping avocados covered by the order 

as hereby amended) who, during the 

period April 1, 2006, through March 31, 

2007, handled 50 percent or more of the 

volume of such avocados covered by 

said order, as hereby amended, have not 

signed an amended marketing 

agreement; 

(2) The issuance of this amendatory 

order, further amending the aforesaid 

order, is favored or approved by at least 

two-thirds of the growers who 

participated in a referendum on the 

question of approval and who, during 

the period of April 1, 2006, through 

March 31, 2007 (which has been 

deemed to be a representative period), 

have been engaged within the 

production area in the production of 

such avocados, such growers having 

also produced for market at least twothirds of the volume of such commodity 

represented in the referendum; and 

(3) In the absence of a signed 

marketing agreement, the issuance of 

this amendatory order is the only 

practical means pursuant to the 

declared policy of the Act of advancing 

the interests of growers of avocados in 

the production area. 

Order Relative to Handling of Avocados 

Grown in South Florida 

It is therefore ordered, That on and 

after the effective date hereof, all 

handling of avocados grown in Florida, 

shall be in conformity to, and in 

compliance with, the terms and 

conditions of the said order as hereby 

amended as follows: 

The provisions of the proposed 

marketing agreement and order further 

amending the order contained in the 

Secretary’s Decision issued by the 

Administrator on July 9, 2007, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 12, 2007, shall be and are the terms 

and provision of this order amending 

the order and are set forth in full herein. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915 

Avocados, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN 

SOUTH FLORIDA 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Title 7 of Chapter XI of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

by amending part 915 as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 915 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 915.11, paragraphs (a) and (b) 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 915.11 District. 

* * * * * 

(a) District 1 shall include MiamiDade County. 

(b) District 2 shall include all of the 

production area except Miami-Dade 

County. 

■ 3. In § 915.22, paragraph (b)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 915.22 Nomination. 

* * * * * 

(b) Successor members. (1) The 

committee shall hold or cause to be held 

a meeting or meetings of growers and 

handlers in each district to designate 

nominees for successor members and 

alternate members of the committee; or 

the committee may conduct 

nominations in Districts 1 and 2 by mail 

in a manner recommended by the 

committee and approved by the 

Secretary. Such nominations shall be 

submitted to the Secretary by the 

committee not later than March 1 of 

each year. The committee shall 

prescribe procedural rules, not 

inconsistent with the provisions of this 

section, for the conduct of nomination. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 915.30, paragraph (c) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 915.30 Procedure. 

* * * * * 

(c) For any recommendation of the 

committee for an assessment rate 

change, a quorum of seven committee 

members and a two-thirds majority vote 

of approval of those in attendance is 

required. 

■ 5. In § 915.41, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 915.41 Assessments. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Secretary shall fix the rate of 

assessment per 55-pounds of fruit or 

equivalent in any container or in bulk, 

to be paid by each such handler. At any 

time during or after a fiscal year, the 

Secretary may increase the rate of 

assessment, in order to secure sufficient 

funds to cover any later finding by the 

Secretary relative to the expense which 

may be incurred. Such increase shall be 

applied to all fruit handled during the 

applicable fiscal year. In order to 

provide funds for the administration of 

the provisions of this part, the 

committee may accept the payment of 

assessments in advance, or borrow 

money on an emergency short-term 

basis. The authority of the committee to 

borrow money is subject to approval of 

the Secretary and may be used only to 

meet financial obligations as the 

obligations occur or to allow the 

committee to adjust its reserve funds to 

meet such obligations. 

■ 6. Add a new § 915.43 to read as 

follows: 

§ 915.43 Contributions. 

The committee may accept voluntary 

contributions. Such contributions shall 

be free from any encumbrances by the 

donor and the committee shall retain 

complete control of their use. 

■ 7. Revise § 915.45 to read as follows: 

§ 915.45 Production research, marketing 

research and development. 

The committee may, with the 

approval of the Secretary, establish or 

provide for the establishment of 

production research, marketing research 

and development projects designed to 

assist, improve or promote the 

marketing, distribution, and 

consumption or efficient production of 

avocados. Such products may provide 

for any form of marketing promotion, 

including paid advertising. The 

expenses of such projects shall be paid 

from funds collected pursuant to the 

applicable provisions of § 915.41, or 

from such other funds as approved by 

the USDA. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES
6838 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: February 1, 2008. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–536 Filed 2–4–08; 9:46 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27824; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–NE–12–AD; Amendment 39–

15364; AD 2006–11–05R2] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce 

plc RB211 Series Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211–22B series, 

RB211–524B, –524C2, –524D4, –524G2, 

–524G3, and –524H series, and RB211–

535C and –535E series turbofan engines 

with high pressure compressor (HPC) 

stage 3 disc assemblies, part numbers 

(P/Ns) LK46210, LK58278, LK67634, 

LK76036, UL11706, UL15358, UL22577, 

UL22578, and UL24738 installed. That 

AD currently requires removing from 

service certain disc assemblies before 

they reach their full published life if not 

modified with anticorrosion protection. 

This AD requires the same actions but 

relaxes the removal compliance time for 

certain disc assemblies that have a 

record of detailed inspection. This AD 

results from the FAA allowing certain 

affected disc assemblies that have a 

record of a detailed inspection, to 

remain in service for a longer period 

than the previous AD allowed. We are 

issuing this AD to relax the compliance 

time for disc assemblies manufactured 

both ‘‘before and after 1990’’ by 

providing an option to track the disc life 

based on a record of a detailed 

inspection rather than by its entry into 

service date, while continuing to 

prevent corrosion-induced uncontained 

disc assembly failure, resulting in 

damage to the airplane. 

DATES: Effective February 21, 2008. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

previously approved the incorporation 

by reference of certain publications 

listed in the regulations as of February 

24, 2004 (69 FR 2661, January 20, 2004). 

We must receive any comments on 

this AD by April 7, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to comment on this AD. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: U.S. Docket Management 

Facility, Department of Transportation, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Contact Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, 

Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 

011–44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44–

1332–245–418, for the service 

information identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian 

Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; 

e-mail: ian.dargin@faa.gov; telephone 

(781) 238–7178; fax (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

15, 2006, the FAA issued AD 2006–11–

05, Amendment 39–14609 (71 FR 

29586, May 23, 2006). We also issued a 

correction to that AD on September 26, 

2006 (71 FR 58254, October 3, 2006) and 

a revision to that AD on April 9, 2007 

(72 FR 18862, April 16, 2007). That AD 

revision requires removing from service 

certain disc assemblies before they 

reach their full published life if not 

modified with anticorrosion protection. 

That AD was the result of the 

manufacturer’s reassessment of the 

corrosion risk on HPC stage 3 disc 

assemblies that have not yet been 

modified with sufficient application of 

anticorrosion protection. That 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in corrosion-induced uncontained disc 

assembly failure, resulting in damage to 

the airplane. 

Actions Since AD 2006–11–05R1 Was 

Issued 

Since AD 2006–11–05R1 was issued, 

we discovered that the population of 

affected disc assemblies identified in 

that AD was incorrect. That AD allowed 

affected disc assemblies that entered 

into service ‘‘before 1990’’ that have a 

record of a detailed inspection, to 

remain in service for a longer period 

than the previous AD, AD 2006–11–05, 

allowed. This revised AD allows disc 

assemblies manufactured both ‘‘before 

and after 1990’’ that have a record of a 

detailed inspection, to remain in service 

for 17 years from last overhaul 

inspection date. But the discs are not to 

exceed the manufacturer’s published 

cyclic limit in the time limits section of 

the manual. We are issuing this AD to 

relax the compliance time for certain 

disc assemblies by providing an option 

to track the disk life based on a record 

of a detailed inspection rather than by 

its entry into service date, while 

continuing to prevent corrosion-induced 

uncontained disc assembly failure, 

resulting in damage to the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed and approved the 

technical contents of RR MSB No. 

RB.211–72–9661, Revision 5, dated 

December 22, 2006. That MSB allows 

affected disc assemblies and that have a 

record of detailed inspection: 

• To remain in service for 17 years 

from last overhaul inspection date; but 

• Not to exceed the manufacturer’s 

published cyclic limit in the time limits 

section of the manual. 

We do not incorporate by reference this 

MSB, but we list it in the Related 

Information section. 

Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement 

This engine model is manufactured in 

the United Kingdom (UK), and is type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of section 

21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. Under this bilateral 

airworthiness agreement, the Civil 

Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the 

airworthiness authority for the UK, has 

kept the FAA informed of the situation 

described above. We have examined the 

findings of the CAA, reviewed all 

available information, and determined 

that AD action is necessary for products 

of this type design that are certificated 

for operation in the United States. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This AD 

The unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

on other RR RB211–22B series, RB211–

524B, –524C2, –524D4, –524G2, 

–524G3, and –524H series, and RB211–

535C and –535E series turbofan engines 

of the same type design. We are issuing 

this AD to relax the compliance time for 

certain disc assemblies by providing an 

option to track the disk life based on a 

record of a detailed inspection rather 

than by its entry into service date, while 

continuing to prevent corrosion-induced 

uncontained disc assembly failure, 

resulting in damage to the airplane. This 

AD requires the following for affected 

HPC stage 3 rotor disc assemblies: 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with RULES