Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 20759

(ii) 10 percent for fresh prunes which

fail to meet the minimum diameter

requirement;

(iii) 10 percent for fresh prunes which

fail to meet the remaining requirements

of the grade: Provided, That not more

than one-half of this amount, or 5

percent, shall be allowed for defects

causing serious damage, including in

the latter amount not more than 1

percent for decay.

(2) [Reserved]

(b) The importation of any individual

shipment which, in the aggregate, does

not exceed 500 pounds net weight, of

fresh prunes of the Stanley or Merton

varieties, or 350 pounds net weight, of

fresh prunes of any variety other than

the Stanley or Merton varieties, is

exempt from the requirements specified

in this section.

(c) The grade, size and quality

requirements of this section shall not be

applicable to fresh prunes imported for

consumption by charitable institutions,

distribution by relief agencies, or

commercial processing into products,

but such prunes shall be subject to the

safeguard provisions in § 944.350.

(d) The term U.S. No. 1 shall have the

same meaning as when used in the

United States Standards for Grades of

Fresh Plums and Prunes (7 CFR 51.1520

through 51.1538); the term ‘‘purplish

color’’ shall have the same meaning as

when used in the Washington State

Department of Agriculture Standards for

Italian Prunes (April 28, 1978), and the

Oregon State Department of Agriculture

Standards for Italian Prunes (October 5,

1977); the term ‘‘diameter’’ means the

greatest dimension measured at right

angles to a line from the stem to the

blossom end of the fruit.

(e) The term Prunes means all

varieties of plums, classified botanically

as Prunus domestica, except those of the

President variety.

(f) The term importation means

release from custody of the United

States Customs Service.

(g) Inspection and certification service

is required for imports and will be

available in accordance with the

regulation designating inspection

services and procedure for obtaining

inspection and certification (7 CFR

944.400).

(h) Any lot or portion thereof which

fails to meet the import requirements,

and is not being imported for purposes

of consumption by charitable

institutions, distribution by relief

agencies, or commercial processing into

products, prior to or after reconditioning

may be exported or disposed of under

the supervision of the Federal or

Federal-State Inspection Service with

the costs of certifying the disposal of

such fresh prunes borne by the

importer.

(i) It is determined that fresh prunes

imported into the United States shall

meet the same minimum grade, size and

quality requirements as those

established for fresh prunes under

Marketing Order No. 924 (7 CFR part

924).

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Eric M. Forman,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11459 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 1160

[DA–96–07]

Fluid Milk Promotion Order; Invitation

To Submit Comments on Proposed

Amendments to the Order

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document invites written

comments on a proposal to amend the

Fluid Milk Promotion Order to modify

the term of the chairperson of the

National Fluid Milk Processor

Promotion Board. The proposal was

submitted by the National Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Board which

contends the action is necessary to

enable it to operate more effectively.

DATES: Comments are due no later than

May 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies)

should be filed with the USDA/AMS/

Dairy Division, Promotion and Research

Staff, Room 2734, South Building, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene E. Krueger, Head, Promotion

and Research Staff, USDA/AMS/Dairy

Division, Room 2734, South Building,

P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456, (202) 720–6909.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601–612) requires the Agency to

examine the impact of a proposed rule

on small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Agricultural Marketing

Service has certified that this rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The proposed amendment

would modify the term of the

chairperson of the National Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Board and would

not have an economic effect on any

entity engaged in the dairy industry.

The Department is issuing this

proposed rule in conformance with

Executive Order 12866.

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have a retroactive effect. This

proposed rule would not preempt any

state or local laws, regulations, or

policies unless they present an

irreconcilable conflict with this rule.

The Fluid Milk Promotion Act of

1990, as amended, authorizes the Fluid

Milk Promotion Order. The Act

provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

section 1999K of the Act, any person

subject to a Fluid Milk Promotion Order

may file 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 and request a

modification of the order or to be

exempted from the order. A person

subject to an order 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 person is an inhabitant, or has his

principal place of business, has

jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s

ruling of the petition, provided a

complaint is filed not later than 20 days

after the date of the entry of the ruling.

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35),

the forms and reporting and

recordkeeping requirements that are

included in the Fluid Milk Promotion

Order have been approved by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) and

were assigned OMB No. 0581–0093,

except for Board members’ nominee

information sheets that were assigned

OMB No. 0505–0001.

Statement of Consideration

Section 1160.209(a) of the Fluid Milk

Promotion Order currently provides that

the National Fluid Milk Processor

Promotion Board meet at least once a

year and elect from among its members

a chairperson to serve a term of one year

and not more than two consecutive

terms. The proposed amendment would

modify, from one year to a fiscal period,

the term of the chairperson and provide

that such chairperson may serve not

more than two consecutive fiscal

periods.

Currently, a term of office for the

chairperson of the National Fluid Milk

Processor Promotion Board is based on

an annual period, which expires on July

27, 1996, rather than a fiscal period. The
20760 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Board contends that the proposed

amendment will provide continuity

between fiscal periods and the terms of

office of the chairperson. The Board

indicates that this will allow the Board

to operate more effectively.

A 7-day comment period is deemed

appropriate to permit implementation of

this amendment, if adopted, before the

annual meeting of the Board that is

tentatively scheduled for the beginning

of July 1996.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1160

Milk, Fluid milk products, Promotion.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR part

1160, is amended as follows:

PART 1160—FLUID MILK PROMOTION

ORDER

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

Part 1160 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6401–6417.

2. Section 1160.209(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 1160.209 Duties of the Board.

The Board shall have the following

duties:

(a) To meet not less than annually,

and to organize and select from among

its members a chairperson, who may

serve for a term of a fiscal period

pursuant to § 1160.113, and not more

than two consecutive terms, and to

select such other officers as may be

necessary;

* * * * *

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11458 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. 96–ASW–2; Notice No. SC–96–

2–SW]

Special Condition: Sikorsky Model

S76C, High Intensity Radiated Fields

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special

condition.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes a special

condition for the Sikorsky Model S76C

helicopter. This helicopter will have a

novel or unusual design feature

associated with the installation of

electronic systems that perform critical

functions. The applicable airworthiness

regulations do not contain adequate or

appropriate safety standards for the

protection of electronic systems that

perform critical functions from the

effects of external high intensity

radiated fields (HIRF). This notice

contains the additional safety standards

that the Administrator considers

necessary to establish a level of safety

equivalent to that established by the

applicable airworthiness standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal

may be mailed in duplicate to the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attn: Rules Docket No. 96–ASW–2, Fort

Worth, Texas 76193–0007, or delivered

in duplicate to the Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, 2601 Meacham

Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas. Comments

must be marked Docket No. 96–ASW–2.

Comments may be inspected in the

Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal

holidays, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert McCallister, FAA, Rotorcraft

Directorate, Regulations Group, Fort

Worth, Texas 76193–0110; telephone

(817) 222–5121.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of this

proposed special condition by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

regulatory docket number and be

submitted in duplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments will be considered before

taking action on this proposal. The

special condition proposed in this

notice may be changed in light of

comments received. All comments

received will be available in the Rules

Docket for examination by interested

persons, both before and after the

closing date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerning

this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket. Persons wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit with those comments a

self-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. 96–ASW–2.’’

The postcard will be date and time

stamped and returned to the

commenter.

Background

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation,

Stratford, Connecticut, applied for an

amendment to the Type Certificate for

Model S76C helicopter on August 15,

1990. The amendment will allow

installation of Turbomeca Arriel Model

2S1 engines with FADEC control and 30

second/2 minute ratings as alternate

engines for the Sikorsky Model S76C

helicopter. This is a 12 (14 including

crew) passenger, twin engine, 11,700

pound transport category helicopter.

Type Certificate Basis

The type certification basis is 14 Code

of Federal Regulations part 29, February

1, 1965, and Amendments 29–1 through

29–11; in addition, portions of

Amendment 29–12, specifically,

§§ 29.67, 29.71, 29.75, 29.141, 29.173,

29.175, 29.931, 29.1189(a)(2),

29.1555(c)(2), 29.1557(c); Amendment

29–13, specifically § 29.965;

Amendment 29–24, specifically

§ 29.1325; Amendment 29–30

specifically § 29.811; Amendment 29–

34, specifically §§ 29.67(a)(1)(i),

29.923(a), (b) (1) & (3), 29.1143(f),

29.1305(a) (24) & (25), 29.1521 (i) & (j)

and 29.1549(e); and Amendment 36–14

of 14 CFR part 36, Appendix H.

If the Administrator finds that the

applicable airworthiness regulations do

not contain adequate or appropriate

safety standards for these helicopters

because of a novel or unusual design

feature, special conditions are

prescribed under the provisions of

§ 21.16 to establish a level of safety

equivalent to that established in the

regulations.

Special conditions, as appropriate, are

issued in accordance with Federal

Aviation Administration § 11.49 after

public notice, as required by §§ 11.28

and 11.29(b), and become part of the

type certification basis in accordance

with Federal Aviation Administration

21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially

applicable to the model for which they

are issued. Should the type certificate

for that model be amended later to

include any other model that

incorporates the same novel or unusual

design feature, or should any other

model already included on the same

type certificate be modified to

incorporate the same novel or unusual

design feature, the special conditions

would also apply to the other model

under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

Discussion

The Sikorsky Model S76C helicopter,

at the time of the application for

amendment to U.S. Type Certificate