Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14897

(ii) Such peaches when packed in a

No. 12B standard fruit (peach) box are

of a size that will pack, in accordance

with the requirements of a standard

pack, not more than 65 peaches in the

box; or

(iii) Such peaches in any container

when packed other than as specified in

paragraph (a)(4) (i) and (ii) of this

section are of a size that a 16-pound

sample, representative of the peaches in

the package or container, contains not

more than 83 peaches.

(5) Any package or container of

Babcock, Crimson Lady, Crown

Princess, David Sun, Early May Crest,

First Lady, Flavorcrest, Golden Crest,

Honey Red, June Lady, June Sun, Kern

Sun, Kingscrest, Kings Red, May Crest,

Merrill Gem, Merrill Gemfree,

Queencrest, Ray Crest, Redtop, Regina,

Rich May, Royal May, Sierra Crest,

Snow Brite, Snow Flame, Springcrest,

Spring Lady, Sugar May, Summer Crest,

or 50–178 variety of peaches unless:

* * * * *

(6) Any package or container of

Amber Crest, Angelus, August Delight,

August Sun, Autumn Crest, Autumn

Gem, Autumn Lady, Autumn Rose,

Belmont, Berenda Sun, Blum’s Beauty,

Cal Red, Carnival, Cassie, Champagne,

Diamond Princess, Early Elegant Lady,

Early O’Henry, Elegant Lady, Fairmont,

Fairtime, Fay Elberta, Fire Red,

Flamecrest, John Henry, July Lady, June

Pride, Kings Lady, Lacey, Late Ito Red,

Mary Ann, O’Henry, Parade, Prima

Gattie, Prima Lady, Red Boy, Red Cal,

Redglobe, Rich Lady, Royal Lady,

Ryan’s Sun, Scarlet Lady, September

Snow, September Sun, Sierra Lady,

Sparkle, Sprague Last Chance, Summer

Lady, Summer Sweet, Suncrest, Tra Zee,

White Lady, or Zee Lady variety of

peaches unless:

* * * * *

Dated: March 15, 1995.

Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,

Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 95–6908 Filed 3–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–W

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–23–AD; Amendment

39–9175; AD 95–06–05]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737–200 and -300 Series

Airplanes Equipped With Cargo Doors

Installed in Accordance With

Supplemental Type Certification (STC)

SA2969SO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737–

200 and -300 series airplanes. This

action requires inspections to detect

cracking of the fuselage frames at certain

locations below the lower jamb of the

upper deck main cargo door, and repair,

if necessary. This amendment is

prompted by reports of fatigue cracking

in the fuselage frames at these locations.

The actions specified in this AD are

intended to prevent rapid

decompression of the airplane due to

fatigue cracking in the fuselage frames

of the main deck cargo door.

DATES: Effective April 5, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 5,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

23–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Pemco

Aeroplex, Incorporated, P.O. Box 2287,

Birmingham, Alabama 35201–2287.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite

2–160, College Park, Georgia; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Curtis Jackson, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ACE–120A, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite

2–160, College Park, Georgia 30337–

2748; telephone (404) 305–7348; fax

(404) 305–7348; or Della Swartz,

Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch,

ANM–120S, FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Seattle Aircraft Certification

Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2785; fax (206) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recently,

two operators reported finding fatigue

cracks in the fuselage frames below the

lower jamb of the main deck cargo door

between stringers 20L and 21L at water

line 180 on Boeing Model 737–300

series airplanes. The cracking was

randomly located in various areas of the

fuselage frames and may have initiated

at frame stations 380, 400, 420, 440, 460,

and/or 480 at the radius of the frame

webs that were modified in accordance

with supplemental type certificate (STC)

SA2969SO.

Such cracking, if not detected and

corrected in a timely manner, could

result in rapid decompression of the

airplane.

Pemco Aeroplex installed main deck

cargo doors on Boeing Model 737–200

and -300 series airplanes in accordance

with STC SA2969SO. Therefore, the

FAA has determined that Boeing Model

737–200 series airplanes are also subject

to the same unsafe condition.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–53–

0004, dated January 10, 1995, which

describes procedures for detailed close

visual inspections to detect cracking of

the fuselage frames below the lower

jamb of the upper deck main cargo door

between stringers 20L and 21L at water

line 180 at frame stations 380, 400, 420,

440, 460, and 480, and repair of any

cracking found.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design, this AD is being issued to

prevent rapid decompression of the

airplane due to cracking of the fuselage

frames below the lower jamb of the

upper deck main cargo door. This AD

requires detailed close visual

inspections to detect cracking of the

fuselage frames below the lower jamb of

the upper deck main cargo door, and

repair, if necessary. The actions are

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the alert service letter

described previously.

This is considered to be interim

action until final action is identified, at

which time the FAA may consider

further rulemaking.
14898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Note: The FAA previously issued AD 95–

01–06, amendment 39–9117 (60 FR 2323,

January 9, 1995), which is applicable to the

same airplanes affected by this new AD

action. AD 95–01–06 requires inspections to

detect cracking in the radii on the support

angles on the lower jamb (latch lug fittings)

of the main cargo door, and replacement of

cracked parts. The requirements of AD 95–

01–06 are different and separate from the

requirements of this new AD.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this rule to clarify this

long-standing requirement.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications shall identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 95–NM–23–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

The regulations adopted herein will

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 final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, may be obtained from the

Rules Docket at the location provided

under the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 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.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

95–06–05 Boeing: Amendment 39–9175.

Docket 95–NM–23–AD.

Applicability: Model 737–200 and –300

series airplanes equipped with main deck

cargo doors installed in accordance with

supplemental type certificate (STC)

SA2969SO, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent rapid decompression due to

cracking of the fuselage frames below the

lower jamb of the upper deck main cargo

door, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 50 flight cycles after the

effective date of this AD or within 50 flight

cycles after the installation of STC

SA2969SO, whichever occurs later, perform

a detailed close visual inspection to detect

cracking of the fuselage frames below the

lower jamb of the upper deck main cargo

door between stringers 20L and 21L at water

line 180 at frame stations 380, 400, 420, 440,

460, and 480, in accordance with Pemco

Alert Service Letter 737–53–0004, dated

January 10, 1995.

(1) If no cracking is detected, repeat the

visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 450 flight cycles until the repair

described in Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–

53–0004, dated January 10, 1995, has been

accomplished.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with

Pemco Alert Service Letter 737–53–0004,

dated January 10, 1995.

(b) 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, FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO). Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14899

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) The inspections and repair shall be

done in accordance with Pemco Alert Service

Letter 737–53–0004, including Appendices I

and II dated January 10, 1995. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Pemco

Aeroplex, Incorporated, P.O. Box 2287,

Birmingham, Alabama 35201–2287. Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–160, College Park,

Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

April 5, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6319 Filed 3–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL79–1–6616A; FRL—5167–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) approves requested revisions

to Chicago ozone Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) as it pertains

to the following sources: General Motors

Corporation, Electro-Motive Division

Plant (GMC Electro-Motive), LaGrange,

Illinois; Minnesota Mining and

Manufacturing Corporation (3M),

Bedford Park, Illinois; Replogle Globes,

Inc. (Replogle); Broadview, Illinois;

Candle Corporation of America (CCA),

Chicago, Illinois; Nalco Chemical

Company (Nalco) Bedford Park, Illinois

Clearing Plant; Parisian Novelty

Company (Parisian), Chicago, Illinois;

Meyercord Corporation (Meyercord),

Carol Stream, Illinois; Wallace

Computer Services, Inc. (Wallace)

Printing and Binding Plant, Hillside,

Illinois; and the General Packaging

Products, Inc. (GPP) Chicago, Illinois.

This action lists the FIP revisions

USEPA is approving and incorporates

the relevant material into the Code of

Federal Regulations. The rationale for

the approval is set forth in this final

rule; additional information is available

at the address indicated below.

Elsewhere in this Federal Register,

USEPA is proposing approval, soliciting

public comment, and offering an

opportunity for a public hearing on

these requested FIP revisions. If adverse

comments are received or a public

hearing is requested on this direct final

rule, USEPA will withdraw this final

rule and address the comments received

in response to this final rule in the final

rule on the proposed rule published in

the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register. Unless this final rule

is withdrawn, no further rulemaking

will occur on this requested FIP

revision.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective May 22, 1995 unless notice is

received by April 20, 1995 that someone

wishes to submit adverse comments. If

the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments can be

mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section (AR–

18J), Regulation Development Branch,

Air and Radiation Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Docket: Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)

(B) and (N) of the Clean Air Act (Act),

42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1) (B) and (N), this

action is subject to the procedural

requirements of section 307(d).

Therefore, USEPA has established a

public docket for this action, A–94–39,

which is available for public inspection

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

Monday through Friday, at the

following addresses. We recommend

that you contact Fayette Bright before

visiting the Chicago location and Rachel

Romine before visiting the Washington,

D.C. location. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

The United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Regulation

Development Branch, Eighteenth Floor,

Southeast, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604, (312) 886–

6069.

United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Docket No. A–94–

39, Air Docket (LE–131), Room M1500,

Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 245–

3639.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental

Engineer (312) 886–6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

29, 1990, USEPA promulgated a FIP

requiring Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) to control the

emission of Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCs) in six counties in

the Chicago metropolitan area. 55 FR

26818, codified at 40 CFR 52.741. In

determining the applicability of some of

these regulations to particular sources,

USEPA used the concept of ‘‘maximum

theoretical emissions’’ (MTE), which is

defined as ‘‘the quantity of volatile

organic material emissions that

theoretically could be emitted by a

stationary source before add-on controls

based on the design capacity or

maximum production capacity of the

source and 8760 hours per year * * *

at ‘‘55 FR 26860, 40 CFR 52.741(a).

Relief for otherwise subject sources is

available through a site-specific State

Implementation Plan (SIP) or FIP

revision that limits emissions to below

the applicable cutoff by operational or

production limitations.

The sources identified in Table 1 have

requested that USEPA approve

production or operational limitations

that will keep their emissions below the

applicability cutoff of the rule to which

they would otherwise be subject.

Production limits are restrictions on the

amount of final product which can be

manufactured or otherwise produced at

a source. Operational limits are all other

restrictions on the manner in which a

source is run, including hours of

operation and amount and type of raw

material consumed. Production and

operational limits must be stated as

conditions that can be enforced

independently of one another.

FIP revisions which limit VOC

emissions to less than 100 tons VOC per

year have been requested by the

following nine companies.