38890 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the Department generally must prepare 

a written statement, including a cost/ 

benefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with Federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. When such a 

statement is needed for a rule, section 

205 of the UMRA generally requires the 

Department to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

more cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that 

impose costs on State, local, or tribal 

governments or to the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

This rule is, therefore, not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

Executive Order 12372 

The National School Lunch Program 

is listed in the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance under No. 10.555. 

For the reasons set forth in the final rule 

in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart V and 

related Notice [48 FR 29115, June 24, 

1983], this program is included in the 

scope of Executive Order 12372, which 

requires intergovernmental consultation 

with State and local officials. 

Since the NSLP is a Stateadministered, federally funded program, 

FNS headquarters and regional office 

staff have ongoing formal and informal 

discussions with State and local 

officials regarding program 

implementation and policy issues. This 

arrangement allows State and local 

agencies to provide feedback that 

contributes to any discretionary 

decisions made in establishing 

requirements for rules that govern the 

NSLP. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. 

FNS has considered the impact of this 

rule on State and local governments and 

has determined that this rule does not 

have federalism implications. This rule 

does not impose substantial or direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. Therefore, under section 

6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism 

summary impact statement is not 

required. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is intended to have 

preemptive effect with respect to any 

State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies which conflict with its 

provisions or which would otherwise 

impede its full implementation. This 

rule is not intended to have retroactive 

effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to 

the provisions of this rule or the 

application of its provisions, all 

applicable administrative procedures 

under § 210.18(q) or § 235.11(f) must be 

exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

Under USDA Regulation 4300–4, 

‘‘Civil Rights Impact Analysis,’’ FNS has 

reviewed this final rule to identify and 

address any major civil rights impacts 

the rule might have on children on the 

basis of age, race, color, national origin, 

sex or disability. After a careful review 

of the rule’s intent and provisions, FNS 

has determined that this rule does not 

affect the participation of protected 

individuals in the Child Nutrition 

Programs. FNS found no factors that 

would negatively and 

disproportionately affect any group of 

individuals. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR 1320) 

requires that the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public before they can 

be implemented. Respondents are not 

required to respond to any collection of 

information unless it displays a current 

valid OMB control number. This rule 

does not contain any information 

collection requirements subject to 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

E–Government Act Compliance 

The FNS is committed to complying 

with the E–Government Act of 2002, 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. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 210 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, School 

breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus 

agricultural commodities. 

PART 210—NATIONAL SCHOOL 

LUNCH PROGRAM 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR Part 210 which was 

published at 70 FR 70031 on November 

21, 2005, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

Dated: July 29, 2009. 

Julia Paradis, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–18690 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 50 

[NRC–2008–0663] 

RIN 3150–AI53 

Industry Codes and Standards; 

Amended Requirements 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The NRC is amending its 

regulations governing vessel head 

inspection requirements. This 

amendment revises the upper range of 

the percentage of axial flaws permitted 

in a specimen set used for the 

qualification of nondestructive 

examination systems (procedures, 

personnel and equipment), which are 

used in the performance of inservice 

inspection (ISI) of pressurized water 

reactor (PWR) upper vessel head 

penetrations. This amendment is being 

made as a result of the withdrawal of a 

stakeholder’s recommendation 

necessitated by a typographical error in 

the original recommendation with 

respect to the maximum percentage of 

flaws that should be oriented axially. 

DATES: Effective Date: The final rule will 

become effective October 19, 2009, 

unless significant adverse comments are 

received by September 4, 2009. A 

significant adverse comment is a 

comment where the commenter 

explains why the rule would be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 38891 

inappropriate, including challenges to 

the rule’s underlying premise or 

approach, or would be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change (refer to 

‘‘Direct Final Rulemaking Process’’ in 

the Section III of this document for 

further details). If the rule is withdrawn, 

timely notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. Submit comments by 

September 4, 2009. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the NRC is able 

to ensure only that comments received 

on or before this date will be 

considered. 

ADDRESSES: You can access publicly 

available documents related to this 

document by using the following 

methods. 

Federal e Rulemaking Web site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for documents filed under Docket ID 

NRC–2008–0663. Address questions 

about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 

301 492–3668; e-mail 

Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

NRC’s Public Document (PDR): The 

public may examine and have copied 

for a fee publicly available documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Public File Area O1 

F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. 

NRC’s Agency wide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): Publicly available documents 

created or received at the NRC are 

available electronically at the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 

From this site, the public can gain entry 

into ADAMS, which provides text and 

image files of NRC’s public documents. 

If you do not have access to ADAMS or 

if there are problems in accessing the 

documents in ADAMS, contact the PDR 

Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737 or by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manash K. Bagchi, Project Manager, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone 

301 415–2905, e-mail 

manash.bagchi@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Discussion 

III. Direct Final Rulemaking Process 

IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

V. Plain language 

VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Environment Assessment 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis 

IX. Regulatory Flexible Certification 

X. Backfit Analysis 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

The NRC published a proposed rule 

on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16731), to 

incorporate by reference the 2004 

Edition of Section III, Division 1, of the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Boiler Pressure 

Vessel (BPV) Code, and the 2004 Edition 

of the ASME Operation and 

Maintenance (OM) Code to provide 

updated rules for constructing and 

inspecting components and testing of 

pumps, valves, and dynamic snubbers 

in light water nuclear power plants. The 

proposed rule, among other things, also 

incorporated by reference augmented 

examination requirements of PWR 

reactor vessel head penetration nozzles 

of ASME Code Case N–729–1, 

‘‘Alternative Examinations 

Requirements for PWR Vessel Upper 

Heads with Nozzles Having Pressure 

Retaining Partial Penetration Welds, 

Section XI, Division I’’ as conditioned 

by the NRC. As part of these conditions, 

the NRC imposed a qualification 

program for volumetric inspections to 

ensure examinations were effective in 

identifying axial and circumferential 

stress corrosion cracking in the 

penetration nozzles. The NRC 

qualification program included a 

requirement for the distribution of 

cracks within a qualification specimen 

set. Essentially a qualification specimen 

set is a group of nozzle mockup flaws 

which are used as part of a test to 

qualify inspectors, procedures and 

equipment. The NRC qualification 

program, as stated in the proposed rule, 

required, ‘‘at least 30 percent, but no 

more than 60 percent of the flaws must 

be oriented axially,’’ with the remaining 

flaws oriented circumferentially by 

default. 

During the public comment period of 

the proposed rule, Mr. Jack Spanner of 

the Electric Power Research Institute 

(EPRI), program manager of the industry 

generic qualification program for 

volumetric inspection of vessel head 

penetration nozzles, submitted a 

comment dated June 19, 2007 

(ML071710637). Mr. Spanner requested 

that the proposed rule’s flaw 

distribution percentages be changed to 

be at least 20 percent, but no more than 

40 percent of the flaws to be oriented 

axially. Mr. Spanner’s basis for this 

change, as well as other 

recommendations, was that the 

requirements of the proposed rule 

would require the construction of 

additional mockups. 

The NRC reviewed the requested 

change to ensure that if implemented, 

the qualification process would remain 

effective. The NRC concluded that the 

specific required number of axial flaws 

in a specimen set may have some 

variation so long as a range was defined 

to ensure both axial and circumferential 

flaws in a specimen set, and a specific 

set value was not assigned that would 

limit the effectiveness of a blind 

qualification program. The NRC found 

that Mr. Spanner’s request met these 

criteria. Therefore, given the reduced 

burden by allowing the use of current or 

planned mockups, the NRC included 

the proposed change in the final rule (72 

FR 52370; September 10, 2008.) 

II. Discussion 

After the final rule was published, an 

e-mail was submitted to the NRC on 

behalf of Mr. Spanner dated September 

12, 2008 (ML091410089). Mr. Spanner 

informed the NRC that, after he 

submitted his original recommendation 

with respect to the maximum percentile 

range of axial flaws, he identified a 

typographical error. Mr. Spanner had 

only intended to recommend a change 

to the minimum axial flaw distribution 

percentage from 30 to 20 percent, and 

did not intend to recommend a change 

in the maximum value of flaws from 60 

to 40 percent. Mr. Spanner also stated 

that use of the maximum value of 40 

percent would require additional 

mockups to be created in order to meet 

the NRC volumetric inspection 

qualification program at EPRI. As a 

result, he requested the maximum 

percentage be returned to the proposed 

rule limit of 60 percent. 

In reviewing Mr. Spanner’s latest 

proposal, the NRC continues to believe 

that the specific value for the number of 

axial flaws within a specimen set is 

open to variation, so long as a 

reasonable distribution is maintained. 

The newly proposed distribution range 

of 20 percent to 60 percent of axial flaws 

allowed 80 percent to 40 percent of the 

total specimen set flaws to be 

circumferentially orientated. The NRC 

finds that the newly proposed range 

maintains a reasonable distribution of 

circumferential and axial flaws, and 

does not limit the effectiveness of a 

blind qualification test by being too 

prescriptive. Therefore, the NRC 

concludes that the distribution range, 

modified as recommended by Mr. 

Spanner, continues to meet the NRC 

defined criteria for an effective 

qualification specimen set. Given this 

conclusion and the representation by 

Mr. Spanner that using the current 

rule’s maximum axial flaw distribution 

range of 40 percent would require the 

creation of additional mockups, the 

NRC determined that the maximum 

distribution of allowable axial flaws in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
38892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the specimen set should be changed 

from 40 percent to 60 percent. The NRC 

believes, in light of the September 1, 

2009, deadline for implementation of 

the qualification requirement for 

volumetric inspection of vessel head 

penetration nozzles, that the time and 

resources necessary to design and 

prepare additional mockups compliant 

with the current rule, and to complete 

qualification of personnel, procedures, 

and equipment represents a significant 

burden on the licensee with no 

significant safety benefit. The NRC 

concludes that the maximum 

qualification specimen set axial flaw 

distribution should be changed from 40 

to 60 percent. 

III. Direct Final Rulemaking Process 

The NRC is using the ‘‘direct final 

rule procedure’’ to issue this action 

because this action is minor, and is not 

expected to be controversial. The NRC 

does not expect any adverse comments 

for two reasons. First, as discussed in 

the discussion of the reasons for this 

rulemaking, the change in the maximum 

axial flaws which must be included in 

the qualification sample has no adverse 

impact on safety. The NRC has no 

reason to believe that any external 

stakeholder disagrees with the NRC’s 

determination in this regard, and 

consequently does not expect any 

stakeholder to submit adverse 

comments on this change. In addition, 

the NRC’s action to change the current 

requirement on axial flaw distribution 

was initiated in response to a comment 

from a representative of the industry 

group responsible for the development 

of the welding qualification program for 

the industry. This increases the NRC’s 

confidence that the proposed change is 

not controversial and will not result in 

significant adverse comments. Second, 

the rule change represents a burden 

reduction for licensees. Thus, the NRC 

does not expect any adverse comment 

from these stakeholders with respect to 

the rule change enabling the burden 

reduction. Accordingly, the NRC finds 

that there is good cause under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B) for avoiding notice and 

opportunity for public comment on the 

direct final rule. The amendment to the 

rule will become effective on October 

19, 2009. However, if the NRC receives 

significant adverse comments by 

September 4, 2009, then the NRC will 

publish a document that withdraws this 

action. In that event, the comments 

received in response to this amendment 

would then be considered as comments 

on the companion proposed rule 

published elsewhere in this Federal 

Register, and the comments will be 

addressed in a later final rule based on 

that proposed rule. Unless the 

modifications to the proposed rule are 

significant enough to require that it be 

republished as a proposed rule, the NRC 

will not initiate a second comment 

period on this action. A significant 

adverse comment is a comment where 

the commenter explains why the rule 

would be inappropriate, including 

challenges to the rule’s underlying 

premise or approach, or would be 

ineffective or unacceptable without a 

change. A comment is adverse and 

significant if: 

(1) The comment opposes the rule and 

provides a reason sufficient to require a 

substantive response in a notice-andcomment process. For example, a 

substantive response is required when: 

(a) The comment causes the NRC to 

reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or 

conduct additional analysis; 

(b) The comment raises an issue 

serious enough to warrant a substantive 

response to clarify or complete the 

record; or 

(c) The comment raises a relevant 

issue that was not previously addressed 

or considered by the NRC. 

(2) The comment proposes a change 

or an addition to the rule, and it is 

apparent that the rule would be 

ineffective or unacceptable without 

incorporation of the change or addition. 

(3) The comment causes the NRC to 

make a change (other than editorial) to 

the rule. 

IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113) requires that Federal agencies 

use technical standards that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies unless the 

use of such a standard is inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Public Law 104–113 

requires Federal agencies to use 

industry consensus standards to the 

extent practical; it does not require 

Federal agencies to incorporate by 

reference a standard into the regulations 

in its entirety. The law does not prohibit 

an agency from generally adopting a 

consensus standard while taking 

exception to specific portions of the 

standard if those provisions are deemed 

to be ‘‘inconsistent with applicable law 

or other wise impractical.’’ Furthermore, 

taking specific exceptions furthers the 

Congressional intent of Federal reliance 

on voluntary consensus standards 

because it allows the adoption of 

substantial portions of consensus 

standards without the need to reject the 

standards in their entirety because of 

limited provisions which are not 

acceptable to the agency. 

The NRC is amending its regulations 

to revise the reactor vessel head 

inspections specimen set specifications 

necessitated by the withdrawal of a 

stakeholder’s recommendation, 

incorporated in the 2008 final rule (73 

FR 52730), which contained a 

typographical error. This latest 

amendment is consistent with specimen 

set distribution under Appendix VIII of 

Section XI of the ASME Code, a national 

consensus standard. The 2008 final rule 

incorporated by reference the latest 

edition of Section III and XI of the 

ASME BPV Code and ASME OM Code, 

for construction, ISI, and in-service 

testing of nuclear power plant 

components. ASME BPV and OM Codes 

are national consensus standards 

developed by participants with broad 

and varied interests, in which all 

interested parties (including the NRC 

and licensees of nuclear power plants) 

participate. If the NRC did not 

conditionally accept ASME Code 

Editions and Addenda, it would 

disapprove these items entirely. The 

effect would be that licensees would 

need to submit large number of requests 

for the NRC’s approval of alternatives 

under 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3). This would 

constitute an unnecessary additional 

burden for both the licensees and the 

NRC. Similarly, not adopting the 

modification in this final rule may 

result in a large number of relief 

requests without any compensating 

safety benefits. For these reasons, the 

NRC concludes that the treatment of 

ASME Code Editions and Addenda, and 

conditions placed in this final rule does 

not conflict with any policy on agency 

use of consensus standards specified in 

Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–119. 

V. Plain Language 

The Presidential Memorandum dated 

June 1, 1998, entitled ‘‘Plain Language 

in Government Writing,’’ directed that 

the Government’s writing be in plain 

language. The NRC requests comments 

on this direct final rule specifically with 

respect to the clarity and effectiveness 

of the language used. Comments should 

be sent to the address listed under the 

heading ADDRESSES of this document. 

VI. Finding of No Significant 

Environmental Impact: Environmental 

Assessment 

The Commission has determined that 

this direct final rule is the type of action 

described as a categorical exclusion in 

§ 51.22(c)(2), which states, 

‘‘amendments to the regulations which 

are corrective or of a minor or nonpolicy 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 38893 

nature and do not substantially modify 

existing regulations, and actions on 

petition for rulemaking relating.’’ This 

amendment revises the upper range of 

the percentage of axially orientated 

flaws permitted in a specimen set used 

in the qualification of nondestructive 

examination systems for performance of 

reactor vessel head penetration 

inspections, and is corrective in nature 

and does not modify the intent of the 

existing regulation. Therefore, neither 

an environmental impact statement nor 

an environmental assessment has been 

prepared for this direct final rule. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Statement 

This direct final rule does not contain 

a new or amended information 

collection requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing 

requirements were approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Approval Number 3150–0011. 

Public Protection Notification 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a request for information or an 

information collection requirement 

unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis 

A regulatory analysis has not been 

prepared for this direct final rule. This 

rule amends the NRC regulations to 

correct the upper range of the 

percentage of axially oriented flaws 

permitted in a specimen set used in the 

qualification of nondestructive 

examination systems, which are used in 

the performance of reactor vessel head 

inspections. This amendment does not 

impose any new burden or reporting 

requirements on the licensee or NRC for 

compliance. Also, this rule does not 

involve an exercise of Commission 

discretion and, therefore does not 

necessitate preparation of a regulatory 

analysis. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC 

certifies that this Amendment will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This direct 

final rule affects only the licensing and 

operation of nuclear power plants. The 

companies that own these plants do not 

fall within the scope of the definition of 

‘‘small entities’’ set forth in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small 

Business Size Standards set forth in 

regulations issued by the Small 

Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 

121. 

X. Backfit Analysis 

As described previously, the final rule 

imposed augmented examination 

requirements for PWR reactor vessel 

head penetrations by incorporation by 

reference of ASME Code Case N–729–1. 

In the final rule, the NRC concluded 

that the requirements of Code Case N– 

729–1, with the limitations and 

conditions denoted by the rule, 

represents an acceptable approach 

developed by a voluntary consensus 

standards organization for performing 

future RPV head and head penetration 

inspections. Accordingly, the NRC 

concluded that approval of Code Case 

N–729–1, with the limitation and 

conditions denoted by that rule, by 

incorporation by reference of that Code 

Case into § 50.55a, constitutes a 

redefinition of the requirements 

necessary to provide reasonable 

assurance of adequate protection of 

public health and safety. As such, no 

backfit analysis was prepared for that 

portion of the final rule, under 

§ 50.109(a)(4)(iii). 

The NRC is using the direct final rule 

procedure to amend NRC regulations to 

revise the upper range of the percentage 

of axially oriented flaws permitted in a 

specimen set for the qualification of 

nondestructive examination systems 

used in the performance of reactor 

vessel head inspections as a result of 

withdrawal of a stakeholder’s 

recommendations due to a 

typographical error. This amendment 

revises the upper range of the 

percentage of axial flaws permitted in a 

specimen set § 50.55a(g)(6)(D)(4)(ii) 

from 40 percent to 60 percent, the same 

as in the proposed rule on this subject 

(72 FR 16731). This requirement, i.e. an 

upper range of 60 percent, is similar to 

specimen set distribution under 

Appendix VIII of Section XI of the 

ASME Code. The NRC continues to find 

that the requirements of Code Case N– 

729–1, with the limitations and 

conditions denoted by this rule, 

represents an acceptable approach 

developed by a voluntary consensus 

standard organization. Therefore, a 

backfit analysis has not been prepared 

for this direct final rule, under 

§ 50.109(a)(4)(iii). 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

Under the Congressional Review Act 

of 1996, the NRC has determined that 

this action is not a major rule and has 

verified this determination with the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 

Antitrust, Classified information, 

Criminal penalties, Fire protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear 

power plants and reactors, Radiation 

protection, Reactor siting criteria, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble and under the authority of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; 

the NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. 

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 50 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 161, 182, 

183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 

953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 

Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 

2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 

Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 

(44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Sec.651(e), Pub. L. 

109–58, 119 Stat. 806–810 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 

2021, 2021b, 2111). 

Section 50.7 also issued under Public Law 

95–601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by 

Public Law 102–846, Sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 

3123 (42 U.S.C. 5841). Section 50.10 also 

issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, 

Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 

4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(d), and 50.103 

also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Sections 50.23, 

50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 

185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 

50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued 

under sec. 102, Public Law 91–190, 83 Stat. 

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 

50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 

1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, 

and 50.92 also issued under Public Law 97– 

415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 

50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 

(42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80—50.81 also 

issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Appendix F also 

issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 

2237). 

■ 2. In § 50.55a, paragraph 

(g)(6)(ii)(D)(4)(ii) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 50.55a Codes and Standards 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(4) * * * 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
38894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) The specimen set must have a 

minimum of ten (10) flaws which 

provide an acoustic response similar to 

PWSCC indications. All flaws must be 

greater than 10 percent of the nominal 

pipe wall thickness. A minimum of 20 

percent of the total flaws must initiate 

from the inside surface and 20 percent 

from the outside surface. At least 20 

percent of the flaws must be in the 

depth ranges of 10–30 percent through 

wall thickness and at least 20 percent 

within a depth range of 31–50 percent 

through wall thickness. At least 20 

percent and no more than 60 percent of 

the flaws must be oriented axially. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day 

of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Bruce S. Mallett, 

Acting Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–18546 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0509 Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–029–AD; Amendment 

39–15985; AD 2009–16–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus 

Aircraft Limited Model PC–7 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is 

prompted due to reported corrosion on the 

bolts and in the bores of the attachment 

fittings for the engine mounting frame. The 

corrosion is caused by damaged cadmium 

plating of the bolts or damaged surface finish 

of the attachment fitting. 

Such a condition, if left uncorrected, could 

lead to crack initiation at the bolt and the 

fitting bore and subsequently to the failure of 

the engine attachment fitting. 

We are issuing this AD to require 

actions to correct the unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

September 9, 2009. 

On September 9, 2009, the Director of 

the Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this AD. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 

Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329– 

4059; fax: (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on June 5, 2009 (74 FR 26994). 

That NPRM proposed to correct an 

unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The MCAI states: 

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is 

prompted due to reported corrosion on the 

bolts and in the bores of the attachment 

fittings for the engine mounting frame. The 

corrosion is caused by damaged cadmium 

plating of the bolts or damaged surface finish 

of the attachment fitting. 

Such a condition, if left uncorrected, could 

lead to crack initiation at the bolt and the 

fitting bore and subsequently to the failure of 

the engine attachment fitting. 

In order to correct and control the 

situation, this AD requires a visual 

inspection of the relevant bolts and fittings. 

Additionally, the replacement of the bolts is 

required. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM or 

on the determination of the cost to the 

public. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the available data and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

as proposed. 

Differences Between This AD and the 

MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

We might also have required different 

actions in this AD from those in the 

MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. 

Any such differences are highlighted in 

a NOTE within the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

10 products of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about 4.5 workhours per product to comply with the 

basic requirements of this AD. The 

average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. 

Required parts will cost about $300 per 

product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators 

to be $6,600 or $660 per product. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this AD will not 

have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES