13618 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

required under the provisions of this

section that are of a quality which will

permit legible reproduction and

processing. If the facility is subject to

§ 50.73 of this chapter, the licensee shall

prepare the written report on NRC Form

366. If the facility is not subject to

§ 50.73 of this chapter, the licensee shall

not use this form but shall prepare the

written report in letter format. The

report must include sufficient

information for NRC analysis and

evaluation.

* * * * *

8. In 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix G, the

title of Section II. is revised to read as

follows:

Appendix G to Part 73—Reportable

Safeguards Events

* * * * *

II. Events to be recorded within 24

hours of discovery in the safeguards

event log.

* * * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day

of March, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 95–6210 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–123–AD; Amendment

39–9172; AD 95–06–02]

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 747 Series Airplanes, Excluding

Airplanes Equipped With Pratt &

Whitney PW4000 and General Electric

CF6–80C2 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 747

series airplanes, that requires

replacement of certain fuse pins on the

upper link of the inboard and outboard

struts. This AD would also require

inspections to detect corrosion or cracks

of certain fuse pins, and replacement, if

necessary. This amendment is prompted

by reports of cracked or corroded fuse

pins on the upper link of the inboard

and outboard struts, which could result

in fracturing of the pins. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent failure of the strut and

separation of an engine from the

airplane due to fracturing of the fuse

pins.

DATES: Effective April 13, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 13,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. 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 Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Seattle Aircraft

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone (206) 227–2776; fax (206)

227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 747 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56008). That

action proposed to require replacement

of bottle bore style fuse pins, installed

in the forward position of the upper link

on the inboard and outboard struts, with

either third generation fuse pins or new

bulkhead style pins. That action also

proposed to require repetitive detailed

visual inspections to detect corrosion of

bulkhead style fuse pins; magnetic

particle inspections to detect cracks in

those pins; and replacement of any

corroded or cracked bulkhead style fuse

pin with a third generation fuse pin or

with a new bulkhead style pin.

Installation of a third generation fuse

pin, if accomplished, would constitute

terminating action for the inspection

requirements of the proposed AD.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the two

comments received.

Both commenters support the

proposed rule.

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 869 Model

747 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 147 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD, that

it will take approximately 122 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

replacement of fuse pins with bulkhead

style pins, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact on

U.S. operators who replace fuse pins

with bulkhead style pins is estimated to

be $7,320 per airplane.

It will take approximately 140 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

replacement of fuse pins with third

generation pins. The average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact on U.S.

operators who replace fuse pins with

third generation pins is estimated to be

$8,400 per airplane.

It will take approximately 1.5 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

inspections (in addition to the work

hours necessary for fuse pin

replacement). The average labor rate is

$60 per work hour. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact on U.S.

operators for the required inspections is

estimated to be $90 per airplane per

inspection.

The cost of required replacement

parts will vary from airplane to airplane,

depending upon the current airplane

configuration.

The total 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.

The number of required work hours,

as indicated above, is presented as if the

accomplishment of the inspection and

replacement actions were to be

conducted as ‘‘stand alone’’ actions.

However, in actual practice, these

actions, for the most part, would be

accomplished coincidentally or in

combination with normally scheduled

airplane inspections and other

maintenance program tasks. Therefore,

the actual number of necessary

additional work hours would be

minimal in many instances.

Additionally, any costs associated with

special airplane scheduling would be

minimal.

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13619

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, prudent

operators would accomplish the

required actions even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this AD. As a

matter of law, in order to be airworthy,

an aircraft must conform to its type

design and be in a condition for safe

operation. The type design is approved

only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

AD, makes a finding of an unsafe

condition, this means that the original

cost-beneficial level of safety is no

longer being achieved and that the

required actions are necessary to restore

that level of safety. Because this level of

safety has already been determined to be

cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit

analysis for this AD would be redundant

and unnecessary.

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. 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:

95–06–02 Boeing: Amendment 39–9172.

Docket 94–NM–123–AD.

Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes,

line numbers 1 through 967 inclusive, and

969 through 922 inclusive; excluding

airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney

PW4000 or General Electric CF6–80C2 series

engines; certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD does not require that the

actions be accomplished on the struts of

airplanes having straight bore fuse pins

(installed on Model 747 series airplanes

equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or

General Electric CF6–80C2 series engines) or

15–5 corrosion resistant steel (third

generation) fuse pins.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the strut and loss of

an engine due to corrosion or cracking of the

fuse pins, accomplish the following:

(a) For airplanes having bottle bore style

fuse pins in the forward position on the

upper link: Replace any bottle bore style fuse

pin with a new bulkhead style fuse pin in the

forward position, or with 15–5 corrosion

resistant steel (third generation) fuse pins in

the forward position, in accordance with

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2166,

dated April 28, 1994, at the later of the times

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of

this AD.

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 5,000

landings on the fuse pin, or within 5 years

since installation of the pin, whichever

occurs first. Or

(2) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD.

Note 2: Third generation fuse pins are

installed in pairs (in the forward and aft

positions). Therefore, replacement of an

individual upper link fuse pin in the forward

position with a third generation pin also

would necessitate replacement of the pin in

the aft position.

Note 3: The alert service bulletin references

Boeing Service Bulletin 747–54–2155, dated

September 23, 1993, as an additional source

of service information for replacement of the

fuse pins with 15–5 corrosion resistant steel

(third generation) fuse pins. Installation of

these third generation fuse pins is preferred

over installation of bulkhead style fuse pins.

(b) For airplanes having bulkhead style

fuse pins in the forward position on the

upper link: Perform a detailed visual

inspection to detect corrosion of the pins,

and a magnetic particle inspection to detect

cracks, in accordance with Boeing Alert

Service Bulletin 747–54A2166, dated April

28, 1994, at the later of the times specified

in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 8,000

landings on the fuse pin, or within 8 years

since installation of the pin, whichever

occurs first. Or

(2) Within 12 months after the effective

date of this AD.

(c) If no corrosion or crack is found during

the inspection required by paragraph (b) of

this AD, repeat the inspections thereafter at

the intervals specified in paragraph (c)(1) or

(c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

(1) For the inboard and outboard struts on

airplanes other than those identified in

paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Repeat the

inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,000

landings.

(2) For the outboard struts on airplanes

equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211–524G or

–524H series engines: Repeat the inspections

at intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings.

Note 4: The outboard struts of airplanes

equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211–524G or

–524H series engines are equipped with thick

wall ‘‘4330 steel’’ bulkhead style fuse pins in

the forward position of the upper link. Crack

propagation to critical length in these thick

wall pins is slower than for pins installed on

the struts of airplanes equipped with engines

other than the Rolls-Royce RB211–524G or

–524H series.

(d) If any corrosion or crack is found

during any inspection required by this AD,

prior to further flight, replace the corroded or

cracked pin with either a new bulkhead style

fuse pin in the forward position of the upper

link, or with 15–5 corrosion resistant steel

(third generation) fuse pins in the forward

and aft positions of the upper link, in

accordance with Boeing Alert Service

Bulletin 747–54A2166, dated April 28, 1994.

(1) If the corroded or cracked fuse pin is

replaced with a new bulkhead style fuse pin,

prior to the accumulation of 8,000 landings

on the new pin, or within 8 years since

installation of the new pin, whichever occurs

first, perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect corrosion of the new pin, and a

magnetic particle inspection to detect cracks

of the new pin, in accordance with Boeing

Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2166, dated

April 28, 1994. Repeat these inspections

thereafter at the interval specified in

paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (d)(1)(ii) of this AD, as

applicable.

(i) For the inboard and outboard struts on

airplanes other than those identified in

paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this AD: Repeat the

inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,000

landings.

(ii) For the outboard struts on airplanes

equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211–524G or

–524H series engines: Repeat the inspections

at intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings.

(2) If the corroded or cracked fuse pin is

replaced with a 15–5 corrosion resistant steel
13620 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(third generation) fuse pin, no further action

is required by this AD.

(e) Installation of 15–5 corrosion resistant

steel (third generation) fuse pins in the

forward and aft positions of the upper link

on the inboard or outboard strut constitutes

terminating action for the requirements of

this AD.

(f) 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, Manager,

Seattle 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, Manager, Seattle

ACO.

Note 5: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(g) 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.

(h) The replacement, inspections, and

installation shall be done in accordance with

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–54A2166,

dated April 28, 1994. 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 Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington

98124–2207. Copies may be inspected at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

April 13, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3,

1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–5781 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–NM–126–AD; Amendment

39–9168; AD 95–05–01]

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAe 146–100A,

–200A, and –300A Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to all British Aerospace

Model BAe 146–100A, –200A, and

–300A series airplanes, that requires

conducting closed loop tests to

determine the setting of the

underfrequency trip level on suspect

generator control units (GCU), and

either the correction of discrepancies or

replacement of the GCU. This

amendment is prompted by several

malfunctions of in-service GCU’s due to

the effects of setting the underfrequency

trip level too high. The actions specified

by this AD are intended to correct

GCU’s that may have the

underfrequency level set too high,

which could result in the unwanted

shut down of an electrical generator;

this condition may lead to loss of all

generated electrical power on the

airplane when other generator faults or

failures occur.

DATES: Effective April 13, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of April 13,

1995.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from British Aerospace Holdings, Inc.,

Avro International Aerospace Division,

P.O. Box 16039, Dulles International

Airport, Washington, DC 20041–6039.

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 Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,

ANM–113, Standardization Branch,

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

(206) 227–2148; fax (206) 227–1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to all British

Aerospace Model BAe 146–100A,

–200A, and –300A series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

November 16, 1994 (59 FR 59179). That

action proposed to require checking the

part and serial number on the data plate

of each GCU to identify discrepant

units, and conducting closed loop tests

on affected GCU’s to determine the

setting of the underfrequency trip level.

That action also proposed to require

either adjusting the underfrequency trip

level or replacing the discrepant GCU

with a serviceable unit, and conducting

post assembly testing.

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.

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 added to this final rule to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

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.

The FAA estimates that 43 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD, that it will take approximately 1

work hour per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the total cost

impact of the AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $2,580, or $60 per

airplane.

The total 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.

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