9792 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

persons. Pursuant to Section 4(b)(1) of

the United States Grain Standards Act,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)), upon

request, such information concerning

changes to the standards may be orally

presented in an informal manner. Also,

pursuant to this section, no standards

established or amendments or

revocations of standards are to become

effective less than one calendar year

after promulgation unless, in the

judgement of the Administrator, the

public health, interest, or safety require

that they become effective sooner.

References

(1) Reid, J.F., Kim, C., and Paulsen, M.R.

1991, ‘‘Computer Vision Sensing of

Stress Cracks in Corn Kernels’’ ASAE,

Sept/Oct, v.34 p. 8–9.

(2) Stroshine, R. 1991, ‘‘Breakage

Susceptibility Technology, Uniformity

by 2000,’’ Scherer communications,

Urbana. p. 410–416.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 810

Exports, Grain.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

7 CFR Part 810 is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 810—OFFICIAL UNITED STATES

STANDARDS FOR GRAIN

1. The authority citation for Part 810

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 94–582, 90 Stat. 2867,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.).

2. Section 810.102(d) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 810.102 Definition of other terms.

* * * * *

(d) Test-weight. The weight per

Winchester bushel (2,150.42 cubic

inches) as determined using an

approved device according to

procedures prescribed in FGIS

instructions. Test-weight in the

standards for corn, mixed grain, oats,

sorghum, and soybeans is determined

on the original sample. Test-weight in

the standards for barley, flaxseed, rye,

sunflower seed, triticale, and wheat is

determined after mechanically cleaning

the original sample. Test-weight is

recorded to the nearest tenth pound for

corn, rye, triticale, and wheat. Testweight for all other grains, if applicable,

is recorded in whole and half pounds

with a fraction of a half pound

disregarded. Test-weight is not an

official factor for canola.

* * * * *

3. Section 810.404 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 810.404 Grades and grade requirements

for corn.

Grading factors

Grades U.S. Nos.

1 2 3 4 5

Maximum limits of:

Test Weight (lbs/bu) ................................................................................. 56.0 54.0 52.0 49.0 46.0

Maximum percent limits of:

Damaged kernels Heat (part of total) ....................................................... 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 3.0

Total ............................................................................................... 3.0 5.0 7.0 10.0 15.0

Broken corn and foreign material ............................................................. 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 7.0

Animal filth ................................................................................................ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Stones ...................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Maximum count limits of:

Other materials:

Castor beans ..................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1

Cockleburs ........................................................................................ 7 7 7 7 7

Crotalaria seeds ................................................................................ 2 2 2 2 2

Glass ................................................................................................. 1 1 1 1 1

Unknown foreign substance .............................................................. 3 3 3 3 3

U.S. Sample grade:

U.S. Sample grade is corn that:

(a) Does not meet the requirements for the grades U.S. Nos,

1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or

(b) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign

odor; or

(c) Is heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality.

Harold W. Davis,

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–4183 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–ANE–41]

Airworthiness Directives; General

Electric Company CF6 Series Turbofan

Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

General Electric Company (GE) CF6–

80A series turbofan engines. This

proposal would require an initial and

repetitive on-wing eddy current

inspection or an on-wing spot

fluorescent penetrant inspection of the

compressor rear frame (CRF) midflange

for cracks, and replacement, if
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9793

necessary, with serviceable parts. This

proposal would also require removal

from service of certain CRF’s as a

terminating action to the on-wing

inspection program. This proposal is

prompted by a report of a CRF

separation that resulted in a rejected

takeoff. The actions specified by the

proposed AD are intended to prevent a

CRF separation, which could result in a

rejected takeoff and damage to the

aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Assistant Chief

Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No.

94–ANE–41, 12 New England Executive

Park, Burlington, MA 01803–5299.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

General Electric Aircraft Engines, CF6

Distribution Clerk, Room 132, 111

Merchant Street, Cincinnati, OH 45246.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, New England Region, Office of

the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington,

MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Ganley, Aerospace Engineer,

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299; telephone (617) 238–7138;

fax (617) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 94–ANE–41.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, New England Region, Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 94–ANE–41, 12 New

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA

01803–5299.

Discussion

This proposed airworthiness directive

(AD) is applicable to General Electric

Company (GE) CF6–80A series turbofan

engines. The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has received a

report of a compressor rear frame (CRF)

separation on a GE CF6–80A series

turbofan engine that resulted in a

rejected takeoff. The FAA has also

received seventeen additional reports of

CRF’s found cracked in service.

Investigation reveals that axial cracks

initiate in the CRF midflange and

propagate in fatigue due to a high peak

mean stress found at the rib radius

tangency point where the rib rises to

form the CRF midflange lug. The high

peak mean stress is a result of thermal

and pressure loading of the CRF

midflange. The cracks reach critical

size, and may result in a CRF

separation. CRF’s with modified

midflanges exist which decrease the

peak mean stress, therefore reducing the

chance of a crack initiating. This

condition, if not corrected, could result

in a CRF separation, which could result

in a rejected takeoff and damage to the

aircraft.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

the technical contents of GE CF6–80A

Service Bulletin (SB) No. 72–593,

Revision 2, dated March 19, 1992, that

describes procedures for the initial and

repetitive on-wing eddy current

inspection (ECI) and the on-wing spot

fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI).

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require an initial and repetitive on-wing

ECI or on-wing spot FPI of the CRF

midflange for cracks, and replacement,

if necessary, with serviceable parts. This

proposal would also require removal

from service of non-modified CRF’s as a

terminating action to the on-wing

inspection program. The actions would

be required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

The FAA estimates that 81 engines

installed on aircraft of U.S. registry

would be affected by this proposed AD,

that it would take approximately 85

work hours per engine to accomplish

the proposed actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $20,644 per engine.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $2,085,264.

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.
9794 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

General Electric Company: Docket No. 94–

ANE–41.

Applicability: General Electric Company

(GE) CF6–80A series turbofan engines

installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A310

series and Boeing 767 series aircraft.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent a compressor rear frame (CRF)

separation, which could result in a rejected

takeoff and damage to the aircraft,

accomplish the following:

(a) Inspect CRF, Part Numbers (P/N)

9283M77G07, 9283M77G08, 9283M77G09,

9283M77G11, 9283M77G14, 7283M77G15,

9283M77G16, 9283M77G17, 9283M77G18,

9283M77G19, 1338M77G01, 1338M77G02,

1338M77G03, 1338M77G04, 1338M77G05,

and 1338M77G06, that have not

accomplished the midflange rework or

replacement in accordance with any revision

level of GE CF6–80A Service Bulletin (SB)

No. 72–600 or 72–611, prior to the effective

date of this AD, as follows:

(1) Perform an on-wing eddy current

inspection (ECI) or an on-wing spot

fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the

CRF midflange for cracks in accordance with

the Accomplishment Instructions and the

schedule outlined in Table 1 of GE CF6–80A

SB No. 72–593, Revision 2, dated March 19,

1992, or within 1,000 cycles in service since

the last shop level FPI, whichever occurs

later, after the effective date of this AD.

(2) Thereafter, reinspect the CRF midflange

for cracks in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions and schedule

outlined in Table 2 of GE CF6–80A SB No.

72–593, Revision 2, dated March 19, 1992.

(3) Remove from service prior to further

flight CRF’s with cracked midflanges that

exceed the on-wing serviceable limits

specified in Table 2 of GE CF6–80A SB No.

72–593, Revision 2, dated March 19, 1992,

and replace with a serviceable part.

(b) Remove from service CRF’s identified

in paragraph (a) of this AD at the next piecepart exposure, or by December 31, 1996,

whichever occurs earlier, and replace with a

serviceable part. Removal and replacement of

CRF’s in accordance with this paragraph

constitutes terminating action to the on-wing

inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(c) For the purpose of this AD, a

serviceable part is defined as a CRF that has

accomplished the midflange rework or

replacement in accordance with any revision

level of GE CF6–80A SB No. 72–600 or 72–

611.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Engine

Certification Office. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Engine Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Engine

Certification Office.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 14, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4249 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 92–CE–23–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream

Aircraft Limited (formerly British

Aerospace, Regional Aircraft Limited)

Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM);

Reopening of the comment period.

SUMMARY: This document reopens the

comment period and proposes to revise

an earlier proposed airworthiness

directive (AD), which would have

required inspecting the main passenger/

crew door locking mechanism on

certain Jetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL)

Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201

airplanes to ensure that a taper pin is

installed, and installing a taper pin if

not already installed. Since publication

of that proposal, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has re-examined

various service difficulty reports on the

affected airplanes, and determined that

this is still a valid safety issue, and that

a modification to the passenger door

warning system should also be

included. Since this action adds an

additional modification that was not

originally proposed, the FAA is

allowing additional time for the public

to comment. The proposed actions are

intended to prevent the inability to open

the passenger/crew door or failure of the

passenger door warning system, which,

if not detected and corrected, could

result in passenger injury if emergency

evacuation is needed.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the FAA, Central Region,

Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 92–CE–23–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Jetstream Aircraft Limited, Manager

Product Support, Prestwick Airport,

Ayrshire, KA9 2RW Scotland; telephone

(44–292) 79888; facsimile (44–292)

79703; or Jetstream Aircraft Inc.,

Librarian, P.O. Box 16029, Dulles

International Airport, Washington, DC

20041–6029; telephone (703) 406–1161;

facsimile (703) 406–1469. This

information also may be examined at

the Rules Docket at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Raymond A. Stoer, Program Officer,

Brussels Aircraft Certification Office,

FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East

Office, c/o American Embassy, B–1000

Brussels, Belgium; telephone (322)

513.3830; facsimile (322) 230.6899; or

Mr. John P. Dow, Sr., Project Officer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone (816) 426–6932;

facsimile (816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 92–CE–23–AD.’’ The