39016 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 139 /Tuesday, July 21, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

were considered. See also the

discussion in the Regulatory Flexibility

Certification for this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this final

rule will not have a significant impact

upon a substantial number of small

entities. The rule will potentially affect

licensees of approximately 110 nuclear

power reactors. Nuclear power plant

licensees do not fall within the

definition of small businesses as defined

in Section 3 of the Small Business Act

(15 U.S.C. 632), the Small Business Size

Standards of the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR Part 121), or the

Commission’s Size Standards (10 CFR

2.810)

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that this

final rule does not require analysis

under the backfit rule (10 CFR

50.109(a)(1)) because it is statutorily

required and the statute does not confer

any discretion on the NRC.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

In accordance with the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness 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 of

OMB.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 140

Criminal penalty, Extraordinary

nuclear occurrence, Insurance,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

AEA, the Energy Reorganization Act of

1974 (as amended), and 5 U.S.C. 552

and 553, the NRC is adopting the

following amendment to 10 CFR Part

140:

PART 140—FINANCIAL PROTECTION

REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY

AGREEMENTS

1. The authority citation for Part 140

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 170, 68 Stat. 948, 71

Stat. 576, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as

amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

2. In § 140.11 the introductory text of

paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(4) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 140.11 Amounts of financial protection

for certain reactors.

(a) Each licensee is required to have

and maintain financial protection:

* * * * *

(4) In an amount equal to the sum of

$200,000,000 and the amount available

as secondary financial protection (in the

form of private liability insurance

available under an industry

retrospective rating plan providing for

deferred premium charges equal to the

pro rata share of the aggregate public

liability claims and costs, excluding

costs payment of which is not

authorized by subsection 170o.(1)(D) of

the Act, in excess of that covered by

primary financial protection) for each

nuclear reactor which is licensed to

operate and which is designed for the

production of electrical energy and has

a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical

kilowatts or more: Provided, however,

that under such a plan for deferred

premium charges for each nuclear

reactor which is licensed to operate, no

more than $83,900,000 with respect to

any nuclear incident (plus any

surcharge assessed under subsection

170o.(1)(E) of the Act) and no more than

$10,000,000 per incident within one

calendar year shall be charged.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day

of July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James L. Blaha,

Acting Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 98–19362 Filed 7–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–NM–105–AD; Amendment

39–10666; AD 98–15–15]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–

9 (Military) Series Airplanes, and Model

MD–88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–80, and C–

9 (military) series airplanes, and Model

MD–88 airplanes, that currently requires

an inspection to detect chafing on the

FIREX pipe assembly of the number one

engine; and either repair of chafed pipe

assemblies or replacement of the chafed

pipe assemblies with new pipe

assemblies; and modification of the

FIREX and the pneumatic sense pipe

assembly clamp marriage. This

amendment revises the applicability of

the existing AD to include additional

airplanes and remove others. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

incidents in which the pneumatic sense

pipe chafed against the FIREX supply

pipe of the number one engine. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent chafing of the

FIREX supply pipe, which could result

in a hole in the pipe and consequently

prevent the proper distribution of the

fire extinguishing agent within the

nacelle in the event of a fire.

DATES: Effective August 25, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 26–25, dated May 25, 1994;

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–26–025, Revision 03, dated July 25,

1996; McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–26–025, Revision 04,

dated April 30, 1997; and McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–26–025,

Revision 05, dated May 29, 1998; as

listed in the regulations, is approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

August 25, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 26–25, Revision 1, dated

September 30, 1994; and McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 26–25,

Revision 2, dated April 18, 1995; was

approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register as of July 24, 1995

(60 FR 32579, June 23, 1995).

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from The Boeing Company, Douglas

Products Division, 3855 Lakewood

Boulevard, Long Beach, California

90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Dept. C1–L51 (2–60). This information

may be examined at the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Baitoo, Aerospace Engineer,

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 139 /Tuesday, July 21, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39017

Lakewood, California 90712; telephone

(562) 627–5245; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39)

by superseding AD 95–12–25,

amendment 39–9278 (60 FR 32579, June

23, 1995), which is applicable to certain

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–

80, and C–9 (military) series airplanes,

and Model MD–88 airplanes, was

published in the Federal Register on

January 5, 1998 (63 FR 174). The action

proposed to continue to require an

inspection to detect chafing on the

FIREX pipe assembly of the number one

engine; and either repair of chafed pipe

assemblies or replacement of the chafed

pipe assemblies with new pipe

assemblies; and modification of the

FIREX and the pneumatic sense pipe

assembly clamp marriage.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

single comment received.

The commenter supports the

proposed rule.

Explanation of Changes to This Final

Rule

Since the issuance of the proposal, the

FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–26–025, Revision 05, dated May

29, 1998. This revision is essentially the

same as McDonnell Douglas Service

Bulletin DC9–26–025, Revision 04,

dated April 30, 1997; however, minor

edits have been incorporated. The FAA

has revised this final rule to reference

Revision 05 as an additional source of

service information for accomplishment

of the required actions.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comment noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,691

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9, DC–9–

80, and C–9 (military) series airplanes,

and Model MD–88 airplanes of the

affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 834 airplanes of

U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently

required by AD 95–12–25, and retained

in this AD, take approximately 1 work

hour per airplane to accomplish, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

The cost of required parts will be

nominal. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the currently required

actions on U.S. operators is estimated to

be $50,040, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

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.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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 (3)

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 final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it 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. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

removing amendment 39–9278 (60 FR

32579, June 23, 1995), and by adding a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

amendment 39–10666, to read as

follows:

98–15–15 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–10666. Docket 97–NM–105–AD.

Supersedes AD 95–12–25, Amendment

39–9278.

Applicability: Model DC–9–30, –40, and

–50 series airplanes; Model DC–9–81 (MD–

81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83),

and DC–9–87 (MD–87) series airplanes;

Model MD–88 airplanes; and C–9 (military)

series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–26–025,

Revision 04, dated April 30, 1997;

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 request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent chafing of the FIREX supply

pipe, which could result in a hole in the pipe

and consequently prevent the proper

distribution of the fire extinguishing agent

within the nacelle in the event of a fire,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 8 months after the effective date

of this AD, perform an inspection to detect

chafing of the FIREX pipe assembly of the

number one engine, in accordance with

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

26–25, dated May 25, 1994; McDonnell

Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin 26–25,

Revision 1, dated September 30, 1994;

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

26–25, Revision 2, dated April 18, 1995;

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 03, dated July 25, 1996;

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 04, dated April 30, 1997; or

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 05, dated May 29, 1998.

(1) If any chafing is detected, prior to

further flight, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1)(i)

and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD in accordance with

the service bulletin. Where there are

differences between the requirements of this

AD and the procedures specified in the

service bulletin, the AD prevails.

(i) Either repair chafed pipe assemblies or

replace chafed pipe assemblies with new or

serviceable pipe assemblies. And

(ii) Modify the FIREX and the pneumatic

sense pipe assembly clamp marriage.

(2) If no chafing is detected, prior to further

flight, modify the FIREX and the pneumatic
39018 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 139 /Tuesday, July 21, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

sense pipe assembly clamp marriage in

accordance with the service bulletin.

(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, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(c) 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 airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(d) The actions shall be done in accordance

with McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 26–25, dated May 25, 1994;

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

26–25, Revision 1, dated September 30, 1994;

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

26–25, Revision 2, dated April 18, 1995;

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 03, dated July 25, 1996;

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 04, dated April 30, 1997; or

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 05, dated May 29, 1998.

(1) The incorporation by reference of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

26–25, dated May 25, 1994; McDonnell

Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–26–025,

Revision 03, dated July 25, 1996; and

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9–

26–025, Revision 04, dated April 30, 1997;

and McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

DC9–26–025, Revision 05, dated May 29,

1998; is approved by the Director of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) The incorporation by reference of

McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service Bulletin

26–25, Revision 1, dated September 30, 1994;

and McDonnell Douglas DC–9 Service

Bulletin 26–25, Revision 2, dated April 18,

1995; was approved previously by the

Director of the Federal Register as of July 24,

1995 (60 FR 32579, June 23, 1995).

(3) Copies may be obtained from The

Boeing Company, Douglas Products Division,

3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration, Dept.

C1–L51 (2–60). Copies may be inspected at

the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

August 25, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 10,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–19045 Filed 7–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–01–AD; Amendment 39–

10669; AD 98–15–18]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Maule

Aerospace Technology Corp. M–4, M–

5, M–6, M–7, MX–7, and MXT–7 Series

Airplanes and Models MT–7–235 and

M–8–235 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 95–26–18,

which currently requires inspecting

(one-time) certain wing lift struts for

internal corrosion on certain Maule

Aerospace Technology Corp. (Maule)

M–4, M–5, M–6, M–7, MX–7, and MXT–

7 series airplanes and Models MT–7–

235 and M–8–235 airplanes, and

replacing any wing lift strut where

corrosion is found. That AD was the

result of an accident where the wing

separated from one of the affected

airplanes. This AD retains the initial

inspection and possible replacement

requirements of AD 95–26–18, requires

the inspections to be repetitive, and

provides the option of using ultrasonic

procedures to accomplish the inspection

requirements. The actions specified by

this AD are intended to prevent failure

of the wing lift struts caused by

corrosion damage, which could

eventually result in the wing separating

from the airplane.

DATES: Effective September 9, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

Maule Service Bulletin No. 11, dated

October 30, 1995, as listed in the

regulations was previously approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

January 26, 1996 (61 FR 623, January 9,

1996).

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

Maule Aerospace Technology Inc., 2099

GA. Hwy. 133 South, Moultrie, Georgia

31768; telephone: (912) 985–2045;

facsimile: (912) 890–2402. This

information may also be examined at

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 98–CE–01–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cindy Lorenzen, Aerospace Engineer,

FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30349; telephone: (770) 703–6078;

facsimile: (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Events Leading to the Issuance of This

AD

A proposal to amend part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) to supersede AD 95–26–18,

Amendment 39–9476 (61 FR 623,

January 9, 1996), that applies to certain

Maule M–4, M–5, M–6, M–7, MX–7, and

MXT–7 series airplanes and Models

MT–7–235 and M–8–235 airplanes that

are equipped with part number (P/N)

2079E rear wing lift struts and P/N

2080E front wing lift struts, was

published in the Federal Register as a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

on March 24, 1998 (63 FR 14051). AD

95–26–18 currently requires inspecting

(one-time) the wing lift struts for

internal corrosion, and replacing any

wing lift strut where corrosion is found.

The proposed AD would supersede AD

95–26–18 with a new AD that would:

• Retain the initial inspection and

possible replacement requirements of

AD 95–26–18;

• Require the inspections to be

repetitive; and

• Provide the option of using

ultrasonic procedures to accomplish the

inspection requirements.

Accomplishment of the actions

required by AD 95–26–18 is in

accordance with Maule Service Bulletin

(SB) No. 11, dated October 30, 1995.

The NPRM was the result of a report

of an accident where the wing separated

from one of the affected airplanes.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. No

comments were received on the

proposed rule or the FAA’s

determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA’s Determination

After careful review of all available

information related to the subject

presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require the adoption of

the rule as proposed except for minor