Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13615

Dated: March 8, 1995.

Patricia Jensen,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and

Regulatory Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–6227 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 50, 55, and 73

RIN 3150–AF18

Reduction of Reporting Requirements

Imposed on NRC Licensees

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending its

regulations to reduce reporting

requirements currently imposed on

water-cooled nuclear power reactor,

research and test reactor, and nuclear

material licensees. This rule reduces the

regulatory burden on NRC licensees;

and partially implements a recent NRC

initiative to revise or eliminate

duplicative or unnecessary reporting

requirements. The amendments will:

Eliminate the current requirement for

licensees to submit summary reports of

containment leakage rate tests to the

NRC (10 CFR Part 50—Appendix J), but

preserve the requirements in §§ 50.72

and 50.73 under which licensees

currently report any instances of leakage

exceeding authorized limits in the

technical specifications of the license;

revise 10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to

a similar reporting requirement in 10

CFR 50.74(c) and require notification of

operator incapacity only in case of

permanent disability or illness; and

eliminate the requirement for quarterly

submittal of safeguards event logs

presently contained in 10 CFR

73.71(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naiem S. Tanious, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415–6103.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 7, 1994, the Executive

Director for Operations (EDO) sent to

the Commission SECY–94–003, ‘‘Plan

for Implementing Regulatory Review

Group Recommendations.’’ The

Commission approved these

recommendations for reducing

regulatory burden on its licensees. This

final rule is one of several rulemakings

and other regulatory actions currently

being developed by the NRC staff to

implement the Regulatory Review

Group recommendations to eliminate

duplicative or unnecessary reporting

requirements. The NRC believes that

this action will reduce the regulatory

burden on NRC licensees without

causing adverse effects on the protection

of public health and safety.

On November 2, 1994 (59 FR 54843),

the NRC published the notice of

proposed rulemaking that reduces

reporting requirements on licensees

under Parts 50, 55, and 73. Specifically,

the proposed amendments were

intended to: (1) Eliminate the current

requirement for licensees to submit

summary reports of containment leakage

rate tests to the NRC (10 CFR part 50—

appendix J), but preserve the

requirements in §§ 50.72 and 50.73

under which licensees currently report

any instances of leakage exceeding

authorized limits in the technical

specifications of the license; (2) revise

10 CFR 55.25 to refer licensees to a

similar reporting requirement in 10 CFR

50.74(c) and require notification of

operator incapacity only in case of

permanent disability or illness; and (3)

eliminate the requirement for quarterly

submittal of safeguards event logs

presently contained in 10 CFR

73.71(c)(2) and Appendix G to Part 73.

The public comment period expired

December 19, 1994.

Analysis of Public Comments on the

Proposed Rule

The NRC received seven comments:

one from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),

an organization that represents the

nuclear power industry, five from the

nuclear power industry, and one from

Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy,

Inc. (OCRE). The comments from NEI

and the nuclear power industry are

supportive of the proposed rule to

reduce the reporting requirements.

OCRE opposes the proposed rule.

However, all commenters believe that

elimination of these reports will not

adversely impact public health and

safety. The following section addresses

the public comments received and

provides NRC’s response to them.

Of the six comments received which

favor the proposed rule, several of those

endorsing the rule pointed out that the

proposed changes eliminate

unnecessary or redundant requirements

and conserve both NRC and licensee

resources. Two of the commenters felt

that the NRC should assess additional

reporting requirements to determine

whether they can be eliminated or

reduced in frequency. As discussed in

the background section of this

rulemaking, the NRC has underway

several regulatory activities to

implement the Regulatory Review

Group’s recommendations to eliminate

duplicative or unnecessary reporting

requirements. This rulemaking is

limited to the requirements set out in

the proposed rulemaking.

Licensees do not Need to Assemble the

Summary Report

One commenter from the nuclear

power industry states that the

requirement to generate but not submit

a summary report for the containment

leakage tests provides no additional

benefit and is an unnecessary burden

since the summary report contains data

readily available from other sources.

The commenter suggests that the

requirement to generate the summary

report be eliminated.

The NRC disagrees. The NRC believes

that the results of containment leakage

tests, the licensee analysis verifying the

acceptability of the results, as well as

any necessary interpretations of the

results, is necessary information which

might not be documented absent this

documentation requirement.

Furthermore, the assembly of a

summary report will provide access by

NRC inspectors and auditors to this

information in a more timely fashion.

Public Participation in the NRC

Regulatory Process Will Diminish

OCRE opposes the proposed rule

because it believes that adoption of the

rule will diminish the public’s access to

information. OCRE states that the

public’s health and safety is not the only

factor to consider when NRC proposes

to eliminate some licensee reports.

Access to these reports, OCRE states, is

vital for effective public participation in

the regulatory process.

To that end, OCRE has filed a petition

for rulemaking with the NRC (59 FR

30308, June 13, 1994). The purpose of

the petition is to establish public rightto-know provisions which would ensure

public access to licensee-held

information.

In each case where the NRC considers

eliminating a reporting requirement, the

NRC first considers the public health

and safety impact of the proposed

elimination. If there is no direct impact

on public health and safety, the NRC

also considers the reduced

administrative burden on the licensee

and the extent to which the proposed

elimination will deprive the public of

important health and safety information.

OCRE’s comments have raised the

generic issue of the incremental and

cumulative effect of this and similar
13616 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

rulemakings in depriving the public of

access to licensee information that was

previously available from the NRC. In

that regard, OCRE has directly presented

this issue to the Commission through its

petition for rulemaking referenced

above and the NRC finds that this

generic issue is better addressed in the

context of that petition, rather than in

individual rulemakings such as this one.

The NRC also finds that the effect of this

rulemaking will be to reduce the

administrative burden on licensees and

that the loss of the information in this

particular case will not adversely affect

the public interest in access to

information regarding adequate

protection of the public health and

safety.

Having considered all comments

received and other input, the NRC has

determined that the following final rule

should be promulgated.

Written Reports

This final rule would not require

additional written reports. On the

contrary, under this final rule, reporting

will be reduced for all licensees under

10 CFR Parts 50, 55, and 73.

Criminal Penalties

For purposes of Section 223 of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

relating to willful violations of

requirements notice is hereby given that

these amendments are being adopted

and promulgated pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, or 161o of the Act.

Environmental Impact: Categorical

Exclusion

The NRC has determined that this

final rule is the type of action described

in the categorical exclusion 10 CFR

51.22(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, neither an

environmental impact statement nor an

environmental assessment has been

prepared for this regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule amends information

collection requirements that are subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These

requirements were approved by the

Office of Management and Budget,

approval numbers 3150–0011, –0018,

and –0002.

Because the rule will relax existing

information collection requirements, the

annual public burden for this collection

of information is expected to be reduced

by approximately 20 hours per licensee.

This reduction includes the time

required for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. Send

comments regarding the estimated

burden reduction or any other aspect of

this collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

the Information and Records

Management Branch (T–6 F33), U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001; and to the

Desk Officer, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB–10202,

(3150–0011, –0018, –0002), Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis

The Commission has prepared a

regulatory analysis on this final rule.

The analysis examines the costs and

benefits of the alternatives considered

by the Commission. The Commission

requested public comment on the draft

regulatory analysis, but no comments

were received. Therefore, no changes to

the draft regulatory analysis have been

made. The draft regulatory analysis is

adopted as the final regulatory analysis

without change. The analysis is

available for inspection in the NRC

Public Document Room, 2120 L Street

NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

In accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This final rule

affects the nuclear power reactors,

research and test reactors, and some

material licensees. The companies and

organizations that own these plants do

not fall within the scope of the

definition of ‘‘small entities’’ set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act of the size

standards established by the NRC (56 FR

56671; November 6, 1991).

Backfit Analysis

The NRC has determined that the

backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not

apply to this final rule because these

amendments do not involve any

provisions which would impose backfits

on licensees as defined in § 50.109(a)(1).

In addition, information collection and

reporting requirements are not subject to

the backfit rule.

List of Subjects

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.

10 CFR Part 55

Criminal penalties, Manpower

training programs, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 73

Criminal penalties, Hazardous

materials transportation, Export, Import,

Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants

and reactors, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Security

measures.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for 10 CFR

Part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec.

234, 83 Stat. 1244, 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).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95–

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

Pub. L. 102–486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat 3123, (42

U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under

secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–

190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections

50.13, 50.54(dd), 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,

Pub. L. 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 Pub. L. 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 10 CFR 50.74, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 50.74 Notification of change in operator

or senior operator status.

* * * * *

(c) Permanent disability or illness as

described in § 55.25 of this chapter.

3. In 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J,

Section III, paragraphs A.1.(a), (b), and

(d); Section IV. paragraph A., and

Section V. paragraphs A. and B., are

revised to read as follows:

Appendix J to Part 50—Primary

Reactor Containment Leakage Testing

for Water-Cooled Power Reactors

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13617

III. Leakage Testing Requirements

* * * * * *

A. Type A test-1. Pretest requirements. (a)

Containment inspection in accordance with

V. A. shall be performed as a prerequisite to

the performance of Type A tests. During the

period between the initiation of the

containment inspection and the performance

of the Type A test, no repairs or adjustments

shall be made so that the containment can be

tested in as close to the ‘‘as is’’ condition as

practical. During the period between the

completion of one Type A test and the

initiation of the containment inspection for

the subsequent Type A test, repairs or

adjustments shall be made to components

whose leakage exceeds that specified in the

technical specification as soon as practical

after identification. If during a Type A test,

including the supplemental test specified in

III.A.3.(b), potentially excessive leakage paths

are identified which will interfere with

satisfactory completion of the test, or which

result in the Type A test not meeting the

acceptance criteria III.A.4.(b) or III.A.5.(b),

the Type A test shall be terminated and the

leakage through such paths shall be

measured using local leakage testing

methods. Repairs and/or adjustments to

equipment shall be made and Type A test

performed. The corrective action taken and

the change in leakage rate determined from

the tests and overall integrated leakage

determined from local leak and Type A tests

shall be included in the summary report

required by V.B.

(b) Closure of containment isolation valves

for the Type A test shall be accomplished by

normal operation and without any

preliminary exercising or adjustments (e.g.,

no tightening of valve after closure by valve

motor). Repairs of maloperating or leaking

valves shall be made as necessary.

Information on any valve closure

malfunction or valve leakage that require

corrective action before the test, shall be

included in the summary report required by

V.B.

* * * * *

(d) Those portions of the fluid systems that

are part of the reactor coolant pressure

boundary and are open directly to the

containment atmosphere under post-accident

conditions and become an extension of the

boundary of the containment shall be opened

or vented to the containment atmosphere

prior to and during the test. Portions of

closed systems inside containment that

penetrate containment and rupture as a result

of a loss of coolant accident shall be vented

to the containment atmosphere. All vented

systems shall be drained of water or other

fluids to the extent necessary to assure

exposure of the system containment isolation

valves to containment air test pressure and to

assure they will be subjected to the post

accident differential pressure. Systems that

are required to maintain the plant in a safe

condition during the test shall be operable in

their normal mode, and need not be vented.

Systems that are normally filled with water

and operating under post-accident

conditions, such as the containment heat

removal system, need not be vented.

However, the containment isolation valves in

the systems defined in III.A.1.(d) shall be

tested in accordance with III.C. The

measured leakage rate from these tests shall

be included in the summary report required

by V.B.

* * * * *

IV. Special Testing Requirements

A. Containment modification. Any major

modification, replacement of a component

which is part of the primary reactor

containment boundary, or resealing a sealwelded door, performed after the

preoperational leakage rate test shall be

followed by either a Type A, Type B, or Type

C test, as applicable for the area affected by

the modification. The measured leakage from

this test shall be included in the summary

report required by V.B. The acceptance

criteria of III.A.5.(b), III.B.3., or III.C.3., as

appropriate, shall be met. Minor

modifications, replacements, or resealing of

seal-welded doors, performed directly prior

to the conduct of a scheduled Type A test do

not require a separate test.

* * * * *

V. Inspection and Reporting of Tests

A. Containment inspection. A general

inspection of the accessible interior and

exterior surfaces of the containment

structures and components shall be

performed prior to any Type A test to

uncover any evidence of structural

deterioration which may affect either the

containment structural integrity or leaktightness. If there is evidence of structural

deterioration, Type A tests shall not be

performed until corrective action is taken in

accordance with repair procedures, non

destructive examinations, and tests as

specified in the applicable code specified in

§ 50.55a at the commencement of repair

work. Such structural deterioration and

corrective actions taken shall be included in

the summary report required by V.B.

B. Recordkeeping of test results. 1. The

preoperational and periodic tests must be

documented in a readily available summary

report that will be made available for

inspection, upon request, at the nuclear

power plant. The summary report shall

include a schematic arrangement of the

leakage rate measurement system, the

instrumentation used, the supplemental test

method, and the test program selected as

applicable to the preoperational test, and all

the subsequent periodic tests. The report

shall contain an analysis and interpretation

of the leakage rate test data for the Type A

test results to the extent necessary to

demonstrate the acceptability of the

containment’s leakage rate in meeting

acceptance criteria.

2. For each periodic test, leakage test

results from Type A, B, and C tests shall be

included in the summary report. The

summary report shall contain an analysis and

interpretation of the Type A test results and

a summary analysis of periodic Type B and

Type C tests that were performed since the

last type A test. Leakage test results from type

A, B, and C tests that failed to meet the

acceptance criteria of III.A.5(b), III.B.3, and

III.C.3, respectively, shall be included in a

separate accompanying summary report that

includes an analysis and interpretation of the

test data, the least squares fit analysis of the

test data, the instrumentation error analysis,

and the structural conditions of the

containment or components, if any, which

contributed to the failure in meeting the

acceptance criteria. Results and analyses of

the supplemental verification test employed

to demonstrate the validity of the leakage rate

test measurements shall also be included.

PART 55—OPERATORS’ LICENSES

4. The authority citation for 10 CFR

Part 55 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat.

939, 948, 953 , as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.

444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232,

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

1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,

5842).

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also

issued under sec. 306, Pub. L. 97–425, 96

Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61

also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955

(42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

5. 10 CFR 55.25 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 55.25 Incapacitation because of

disability or illness.

If, during the term of the license, the

licensee develops a permanent physical

or mental condition that causes the

licensee to fail to meet the requirements

of § 55.21 of this part, the facility

licensee shall notify the Commission,

within 30 days of learning of the

diagnosis, in accordance with § 50.74(c).

For conditions for which a conditional

license (as described in § 55.33(b) of this

part) is requested, the facility licensee

shall provide medical certification on

Form NRC 396 to the Commission (as

described in § 55.23 of this part).

PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF

PLANTS AND MATERIALS

6. The authority citation for 10 CFR

Part 73 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 53, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 948,

as amended, sec. 147, 94 Stat. 780 (42 U.S.C.

2073, 2167, 2201); sec. 201, as amended, 204,

88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1245 Sec. 1701,

106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 5841,

5844, 2297f).

Section 73.1 also issued under secs. 135,

141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42

U.S.C, 10155, 10161). Section 73.37(f) also

issued under sec. 301, Pub. L. 96–295, 94

Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note). Section 73.57

is issued under sec. 606, Pub. L. 99–399, 100

Stat. 876 (42 U.S.C. 2169).

7. Section 73.71, paragraph (c)(2) is

deleted, paragraph (c)(1) is redesignated

as paragraph (c), and paragraph (d) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 73.71 Reporting of safeguards events.

* * * * *

(d) Each licensee shall submit to the

Commission the 30-day written reports
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.