ML20052F405

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re SRP, 10CFR50.34(g) Amend.Estimated Respondent Burden Is 54,000-h

ML20052F405
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/09/1982
From:	Donoghue D, Scott R NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20052F404	List: ML20052F403 ML20052F405
References
OMB-3150-0011, OMB-3150-11, NUDOCS 8205120428
Download: ML20052F405 (8)

Text

RE2UEST FOR C MJ REVIEW (Und:t th3 P:p:rwork R4uction Act cnd Encutivo Ord:r 12291)

Important - R:ad instructions (SF.83 A) before completing this Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs form. Submit the required number of copies of SF-83 together offsce of Management and Budget

' with th] material for which review is requested to:

Washington, D.C. 20503

1. Department / Agency and Bureau /Off 6ce originatmg request 3.Name(s) and telephone number (s) of person (s) who can best answer questions regarding request U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission C. Grimes (301) 492-9798 2.6-digit Agency / Bureau number (forst part of 11 digit Treasury

4. 3-dsgit f unctional code (last part of 11-digit Treasury Account Acc:unt No.)

No.)

3_.l _ _0

_._2 H.

0.

_ 2.

I _.6

5. Titl2 cf Informatton Collection or Rulemaksng C. Is this a rulemaking submission under Section 3504(hj ot P.L. 96 511? (Check one)

Standard Review Plan, 1 OcNo ts.ction 3sor submissioni 10 CFR 50.34(g) Amendment 2 0 Yes. NPRM. Expected date ot publication:

6. A.Is cnyInformation collection (reporting or recordke$ pong) 3 O Yes. fsnat rule. Espected date of pu% cation:

involved? (Check one)

Ettective date:-

1p Yes and proposal is attached for review D. At what phase of rulemaking is this submission made?

2 0 Yes but proposalis not attached - skip to question D.

3 O No - skip to Question D.

1 O Not applicable B Ars the respondents primarily educationalagencies or 2O Major rule.at NPRM stage institutions or is the purpose related to Federal education 3 0 Major Final rule for which no NPRM was published programs ?

4jp Major Final rule,after publication of NPRM O Yes X] No 5O Nonmajor rule,at NPRM stage 6 O Nonmajor rule, at Final stage COMPLETE SHADED PORTION IFINFORMATION COLLECTION PROPOSALIS ATTACHED

7. Currsnt (or former) OMB Number

8. Requested

12. Agency report form number (s)

~ ~ ~

Expiration Date 3150-0011 N/A Expir; tion Date

13. Are respondents only Federal agencies?

4/30/82 4/30/85 O Yes GI No

9. ls proposed information collection listed in

14. Type of request (Check one) tha information collection budget?

Of Yes O No 1 O preliminaryplan

,10. Will this proposed information collection 2 O new (not prerrousIy approved or expired more than 6 months causa the agency to exceed its information ago) c ll:ction budget allowance? (if yes attach O Yes

%)No 3 IR revision

_ am:ndment request from agency head.)

4 0 extension (ediustment to burden only)

11. Number of report forms submitted for approval 5 0, extension (no change)

~

None 6 0 reinstatement (expired within 6 months) 15.

16. Classification of Change in Burden (explain in supporting statement) 6 Approhmate tire of univsess M samp'es N/A no.o,n,,,on,,,

no. o, n,po,,,ng sours cosi to the Pubiie ti sir >ot sempie g

a. In inventory g,1gn g 773.500 8

c Esemted numt+r o, b As proposed 8.103 5.777.500 S

r:sr.oaoents or '

l

,eco,o neepers penee'

c. Dmerence ba) s 3

3 E4,000 t

I. o nepo,te ennu n ti, esca Explanation of difference (indicate as many as apply) v respondentta,m tsi I

Adjustments

, o total:nnusteesponses tom tse a tSel

d. Correction. error i

1 b

b 3

' ' 4 4

e. Correction reestimate g

(. tit 6 mated everage

.s

+

+

?

. numtier of hours g

)

+

f. Change in use -

pe,,e "*""

)

la*00.0_

Program changes:

Q g Eametedtotsthours

- ol enaues t>uroen en

_ g.inegassi

,+

+

+5 e

,i n.c. v,

q q nnn s

. f.Q t.W y#p,'5'E -.

. - m m ~..

aa '5*

• d-

~8 g

54,000

'h.Decrea'sep ;%

1 e:

i O <~ -~~:

8205120428 820409 Standard Form 83 (Rev. 3 81)

PDR ORQ EUSOMB For use Beginnino 4/1/81 PDR

@d N-C1MS an$$Ses @@ wor $s CrOCss)

I Regttirss applicants for licenses to construct and/or op: rate nuclear power plants to provid3 an evaluation of the differences from the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).

I

18. Related report form (s) (give OMB number (s),IRCN(s),

20. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number int:rnal a gency teport form number (sl or symbolls))

yjg R;g. Guide 1.70. NUREG-0800

19. Typ3 of affected public (Check as manyas apply)

22. Type of activity of affected public-indicate 3-digit Standard U

~ *

10, ' check 1 O Individuals or households O Multiple or O All 2 O state orlocalgovernments 3 0 farms e D businesses or otherinstitutions (except farms) 4 R

3_

23. Bri;f description of aflected public le 9.," retail grocejy stores."" State education agencies."" households in 50 largest SMSA s")

Applicants for licenses to construct or operate nuclear power plants

24. Purpose (Check as many as appty Itmore than one. indicate

26. Collection method (Check as many as apply);.

pr$ dominant by an asterisk) 1 Oxmail self-administered

'l' t O application for benefits 2O otherself-administered

.~*-!

~

2 O program evaluation 3 0 ;teledh'one interview

['D 1,'

f.[#1.~?

3 O general purpose statistics 4 0 personalinterview 4 O(regulatory or compliance 50 recordkeeping requirement:

5 O program planning or management Required retention period.

years 0 C research 6 0 other-describe:

25. Frsquency of Use

27. Collection agent (Check one) tX] Nonrecurring 1 OC requesting Department / Agency Recurring (check as many as apply) 2 O other Federal Department / Agency 2 O on occasion 6 0 semiannually 3 O private contractor 3 0 weekly 70 annually 4 0 recordkeeping requirement 4 0 monthly 80 biennially 5 0 other-describe:

5 0 quarterly 90 other-describe:

28. Authority for agency for information collection or

30. Do you promise confidentiality?

rulemaking-indicate statute, regulation, judicial decree.

(1/ yes, eJrplain basis forpledge stc.

in supporting statement.)

O es xR No Atomic Energy Act of 1954 31.will the proposed information collection create a new or become part of an existing Privacy Act system of records?

29 Rsspondent's obhgation to repty (Check as many as apply)

(If yes, attach FederalRegister notice orproposed draft of 1 O voluntary notice.)

O'Yes

)Dt No '

2 O required to obtain or retain benefit

32. Cost to Federal Government of 3 Ot mandatory-cite statute, not CFR iattach copy of information collection or rulemaking S 13 840 e

statutory authority)

COMPLETE ITEMS 33 THRU 35 ONLY IF RULEM AKING SUBMISSION

33. Compliance costs to the public

34. ls there a regulatory impact

35. ls there a statutory or judicial analysis attached?

deadline affecting issuance?

0 Yes O No O Yes Enter date O No CERTIFIC ATION BY AUTHORIZED OFFICI ALS SUBMITTING REQUEST-We certif y that the information collection or rulemaking submitted for rmw is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, that the propo*al represents the minimum public burden and Federal cost Consistent with need and is consistent with applicable OMB and agency policy directives Signature and title of; g.PMCOviNO POUCT CWFICiAL FOR AGE NCY DATE suBuitisNG OFFICI AL DATE O Y' iel Donos e /

' 72 R.

tephe co

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR Rule to Require Applicants to Evaluate Differences from the Standard Review Plan - Applications for Construction Permits, Operating Licenses, Preliminary Design Approvals, or Final Design Approvals s

10 CFR 50.34(g) s JUSTIFICATION.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (14RC) is authorized by Congress to have responsibility and authority for the licensing and regulation.of nuclear power plants. To meet this responsibility, the NRC conducts a detailed review of all applications for licenses to construct and operate such facilities. The rule will require that applicants for a construction permit (CP), operating license (0L), preliminary design approval (PDA),

or final design approval (FDA) provide, as part of the material currently required by 10 CFR 50.34, an evaluation of the differences from the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) acceptance criteria, for those appli-cations docketed af ter the effective date of the rule.

The Standard Review Plan (SRP) reflects the NRC's detailed interpretations of the acceptable means to satisfy the applicable regulatory requirements, which assure 'that the pr'oposed facilities can be constructed and operated without any undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

Beca,use of limited resources, the NRC staff. conducts audit reviews of the Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) s,ubmitted in accordance with an application, in accordance with the review procedures in the SRP.

The material currently found in SARs does not lend itself to read identi-fication of ~the differences from the SRP acceptance criteria. These differences are often found in responses to staff questions or during meeting discussions. Consequently, a concern has been raised regarding the thoroughness of the staff's review and the degree to which the plants conform to the applicable regulatory requirements. Differences from the SRP acceptance criteria do not necessarily imply nonconfonnance with regulatory requirements; however, they do reflect a departure from a,ccepted

• practice that should receive a thorough staff review.

l l

~

_ i DESCRIPTION The objective'of the requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.34(g) is to allow the limited NRC staff resources to quickly focus on those areas involving differences from the SRP acceptance criteria in order to make the most effective use of the staff's resources. Experience has shown that such differences usually involve issues of safety significance and require the greatest amount of time to resolve.

Since the applicants are int.imately familiar with their plant's designs, they are in a better position to identify the differences from the SRP acceptance criteria during,the normal course of preparing the technical supporting infomation for an application.

Applicants are currently performing'a similar documentation on an elective basis by complying with the " Standard Fomat and Content of Safety Analysis

~

Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,"' Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3.

This regulatory guide indicates a fomat and content for SARs that is acceptable to the NRC staff.

The SARs contain the technical infomation to support an application for a construction pemit, operating license', or design approval.

Confomance with Regulatory Guide 170 is not required; however, SARs using an alternate format and content are more likely to be regarded as incomplete and, subsequently, would be rejected during the acceptance review of an application. Thusfar,,the applicants have readily volunteered the information outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.70 in order to ensure an expeditious review by the staff.

~

TIME SCHEDULE The rule requires a one-time submittal for all applications docketed after the effective date of the rule and the Commission has directed that the

.ef fective date should be May 17, 1982. The first affected applicatio'n is expected to be docketed in about October 1982. The NRC. expects the docu-mentation to be provided in the SARs subinitted with a tendered application; however, for the early affected applications, the staff would accept an amendment to the SAR that is submitted on a schedule commensurate with the staff's review.

CONSULTATIONS A variety of industry and uti.lity organizations provided comments on the original version of the proposed r.ule (45 FR 67099). As a result of these comments,' the Commonwealth Edison Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Atomic Industrial Forum were requested to provide detailed resource.

estimates' for the implementation of the rule.

i e

G

The majority of comments on the original version of the rule, as published for comment (45 FR 67099), dealt with the resource impact on operating reactors and near-term license applications. The rule was subsequently g

revised to apply only to applications docketed after the effective date of the rule.

Further, the NRC committed to provide a guidance document which would describe the manner by which the rule would be implemented.

The guidance document being prgpared will specify that the differences from the SRP. acceptance criteria are to be submitted in the SARs required by 10 CFR 50.34(a') and (b).

The guidance document will further amend Regulatory Guide 1.70 to delete duplicative information (i.e., documen-tation of conformance with all applicable Regulatory Guides), such that the recordkeeping,. record mainten,ance, and record distribution will be essentially the same. The guidance document will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER for public comment following Commission approval. The resource impacts will be alleviated to a limited extent hy the guidance document; hgwever, the change will be small in comparison to the uncertainties in the resource estimates, as described belcw.

RESOURCE BURDEN The NRC staff, has estimated that the evaluation and documenta, tion required by the rule should not exceed an additional 18,000 person-hours of effort for each application. This corresponds to an approximate 5% increase in the level of effort required to prepare and submit an SAR.

Further, the NRC staff considers this estimate conservative and expects that the' resource burden will decrease with. time as the industry gains experience with the application of the rule.

However, the industry estimates of the resource burden are approximately 72,000 to 90,000 person-hours for each application, with an extreme high estimate of 260,000 person-hours for each application. The NRC staff considers these estimates overly pessimistic.

In addition, many of the bases cited for these estimates are already reflected in the resource burden currently associated with the submittal and review of an application.

The rule will affect all future applications for cps and PDAs, and no more than 13 OL applications for which cps have already been issued and 11 FDA

~

applications for which PDAs have already been issued. Over only the next three year period, the NRC expects no new CP applications and no more than on'e PDA and eight OL applications which would be affected by this rule.

Consequently, the total burden for the next three year period, based on the staff's estimate, should not exceed 162,000 person-hours (9 X 18,000). Therefore, the annual burden over the next three year period will be no more than 54,000 person-hours.

4 6

. t I

GOVERNMENT BURDEN The intent of this rule is to make more effective use of the existing NRC staff resources. Thus, the long-tem resource burden to the NRC staff will be essentially nil.. However, approxi.mately one person-month of effort will be required to prepare the guidance document, respond to comments, and publish it in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

- RELATED FORMS As previously stated, Regulatory Guide 1.70, " Standard' Fomat and ' Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants," provides guidance for the technical infomation to be 'provided in support of an application.-

Although the documentation required by 10 CFR 50.34(g) is relatively explicit, the NRC staff will a.dministratively amend Regulatory Guide 1.70 to provide detailed guidance regarding the fomat and content of the documentation to be provided and to eliminate duplicative infomation.

e 4

5 e

b

(

6 O

e g

• e

Fedir:) RsglstIt / Vcl. 47. No. 539 Thursday. March'18,1932 / Rul;s cnd Reguhtions 11651 time between the date when informstion application. De most recent revision to available short-term engineering became available upon which this the SRP was issued in September 1981.

resources. In addition. the Commission regulation is based and the effective The purpose of this rule is to improve had decided to exclude pending date necessary to effectuate the the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC applications for construction permits declared policy of the act. laterested safety reviews.

and manufacturing licenses docketed persons were given an opportunity to tr7tcTivt oats:May 17.1962.

prior to the effective date of the rule.

submit information and views on the Anomass: Copies of the rule and related since the evaluation required of these regulation at an open meeting.It is background material are available for / applications could add signi8cantly to necessary to effectuate the declared inspection at the Commission's Public thelength of theirlicensing process j

policy of the act to make this regulatory Document Room at 1717 H Street. N.W - while the evaluation could be performed.

provision eIIective as specified, and Wa shington. D.C. Single copies may be. later at the operating license review handlers have been apprised of such obtained on request from the U.S.

stage without this disadvantage.%e provisions and the effective time.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Com:nission is also clarifying that the Was on.D.C.20555. Attention:

requirements of the rule are explicitly PART 907-NAVEL ORANGES GROWN Do ient Control.

applicable to new applications foe IN ARIZONA AND DESIGNATED PART preliminary and final design approvals

,,,,y

,up, og cog 7,g.y.

OF CAUFORNIA Robert L Tedesco. Assistant Director of standard plants and that applicants

1. Section 907.845 is added as follows:

for IJcensing. Division of Licensing, for these approvals must evaluate their Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

application against the SRP.In the 1 907.s45 Navel oran9e regulation 541 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, proposed rule, such requirements for The quantitles of navel oranges grown Wa shington. D.C. 20555 (301) 492-7425.

standard plant applications were Implicit in thatit was proposed to in Arizona and California which may be sUPPLfMENTARY INFORMATION:On handled during the period March 19 October 9.1980, the NRC published in include all CP and OL applications 1982 through March 25.1".

are the Federal Re glster (45 FR 67099] a (including those referencing standard established as follows:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that plant approvals) within the scope of the (1) District 1: 1.500.000 cartons:

would require all commercial nuclear rule.ne Commission has decided that (2) District 2: Unlimited cartons; power plant licensees and applicants to the requirements for standard plants (3) District 3: Unlimited cartons:

document and evaluate differences from should be exp!Icit to avoid any (4) District 4: Unlimited cartons.

the Standard Review Plan (SRP).

misunderstanding on this point.

(Secs. 2-19,48 Stat. 3L as amended; 7 U.SsC-Interested persons were invited to In adopting this rule. the Commission N41 submit written comments to the wishes to make it clear that it does not Dated. March 17. 1982-Secretary of the Commission by intend to elevate the status of the SRP to D. S. Kur> Ioski.

November 24,1980. Numerous comments that of a regulation.De SRp is not a Deputy Dirretor, Tivit and Vegetoble were received. After consideration of regulation and compliance with it is not In tu. s:-me med w-aa sus )

involved, the %mmission has amended. required. The SRP acceptance crit Dirision. Agricu/ruro/MerAetirrgSernce.

the comments and other fa:: tors are intended by the staff to provide one sw=o cooc me eus the requirere 4ts as published for public way, but not necessarily the only way.

cornment by amiting their applicability.

of complying with the Commission's to nuclear power plant applications regulations.ne purpose of this rule is to NUCLEAR REGULATORY docketed after the effective date of the require applicants to identify differences COMMISSION rule.

from the SRP acceptance criteria and to ne majority of the comments on the evaluate how the proposed alternatives to CFR Part 50 proposed rule (1) questioned the time to the SRP criteria provide an permitted to comply with the acceptable method of complying with Rule To Require Applicanta To

. requirements of the rule in consideration the Commission's regulations.This will Evaluate Differences From the of the significant short-term impact on lead to improved efficiency and Standard Review Plan engineering resources. (2) questio::ed the eflectiveness of NRC safety reviews.

[,

ActNcY: Nuclear Regulatory applicability of the requirements to De Commission will publish for Commission.

operating reactors, and (3) questioned public comment any guidance j '}

Action: Final rule.

why pending applications for documents the staffintends to use to construction permits should be subject implement the tule.

SUM M ARY:The Nuclear Regulato '

to significantly different documentation

(

Commission (NRC) is issuing a ru e that requirements that similarly situated wi!! r'equire future applicants for pending app!Ications for operating De rule will be submitted to the operating licenses. construction permits, licenses.

Office of Management and Budget for l.

manufacturing licenses. and preliminary To allow further consideration of clearance of the application or final design approvals for standard these comments, the Commission has requirements as required by the el plants to identify and evaluate decided to exclude operating reactors Paperwork Reduction Act (P.O. 96-su).

l differences from the acceptance critede and pending applications for operating The SFF-83.** Request for Clearance."

of the applicable revision of the licenses from the requirements of the Supporting Statement, and related lI Stendard Review Plan (SRP) as part of rule, et this time.ne pending operating documentation submitted to OMB will l

the technicalinformation to be license applicants have proceeded far be available for public inspection and submitted as part of an application.%e enough in the licensing process that the copying in the NRC Public Document SRP was originally issued in 1975 as application of the rule at this time could Room at 1717 H Street NW.,

NUREG 5/087: 11 describes an delay licensing decisions. Further.

Wa shington, D.C. 20555.

acceptable basis and criteria for excluding the operating reactors and Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Action conclusions presented in a staff Safety pending operating license applicants of 1954, as amended, the Energy Evaluation Report (SER) for an will significantly reduce the impact on Reorganization Act of1974, as amended.

5 e

w

Y 11GS2 F:d:r:1 Rsglst:r i Vcl. 47. No.-53 / Thursd2% March 18.1982 / Rules cnd R:gulations the Section 552 and 553. Title 5 of the (3) De SRP was issued to estabush Massachusetts 01803; telephone: (617)

United States Code, the following rule Is criteria thet the NRC staHintends to use 273-7340.

published for codification.

in evaluating whether an applicant /

surrt.ruexrAny saronuAnosc A I

AND T N r ee on n co a

is d

be a

t 2

FACluTIES not a requirement. App 1!canta shall.

flight under instrument flight rules.

1.The authority citation for Part 50 identify diferences from the SRP.

While investigating this incident. it was '

• re:ds as follows:

acceptance criteria and evaluate how found that the manufacturer's

, f g3 y$,8*gh1

,1,e1

^

3 a2.1. t es, criteria p de a epta 1 thod of in' om eUcopt f

37 9

e Wg with the Commission a teyadons.

separate grounds for Number 1 and sm nded (42 U S C 2133. 2134

.2232 Number 2 generetor controls.%e 2239); secs. 201,202,206,88 St 1243.1244 1248. (42 US.C 5841. 5842. '

). unless Dated at Washington. D.C. thia 12th day of connectiona may allow a single ground ctherwise noted. Section

.78 also issued hf anh 1982.

failure to causa loss of both generators

• under sec.122. 68 Stat.

(42 US.C 2152)-

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commluloa.

and this may result in the loss of

),, 52cuens 50.76-50 el a lesued under sec.

g Samuel J. Chilk.

equipment necessary for continuation of toIlssued Secretary of de Cocunluion.

safe flight under instrument flight rule c'u n 1

dr c.

g es Stat.953 (4

.S C. 2236). For the purposes fra ow. suas ss w-aa a as.=1 conditions.His condition is likely to O ofsec.223.e iat. 95a. as amended (42

== coot tsee-ow exist in other S-76A belicopeers.

O US C. 227. I 50 41(f) issued under sec. tell.

The modification specified in this AD 68 Stal 9 (42 US.C. 2201(l)k l l 50J0. 50.71 is expected to cost $7.000 for the 200 and

• a e issued under sec. leto. 6a Stal 950 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION aircraft that could be affected by this es ended (42 US.C 2201(o)). and the laws AD.

r etred toin Appendices.

Federal Aviation Adtninistration 9

2. A new paregraph Fils added to Need for Amendment i 50.34 to read as follows:

14 CFR Part 39 Since a situation exists that requires i 50.34 Contents of applications; technical n

a ce d b m nnauon.

Sikorsky Alrcraft Model S-76A procedure hereon are impracticable, and

• 9*

Hellcopters Certificated in All good caase exists for making this pf Conformance with the Standard Categorles; Altworthiness Directives amendment effective in less than 30 Review Plan (SRP).

d Y,*

(1)(i) Applirations forlight water AGENCY: Federal Aviation cooled nuclear power plant operating Administrauon (FAA). DOT.

. Ado'ption of the Amendmans licenses docketed after May 17.1982 ACnow: Final rule.

Accordingly', pursuant to the authority shallinclude an evaluation of the facility against the Standard Review suuuARY:This amendment adopts a delegated to me by 'he Administrator, plan (SRP)in effect on May 17.1982 or new airworthiness direcuve (AD) that i 39.13 of Part 33 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13)'w AD:

is amended requires moddication of the DC junction -

by adding the following ne box grounds to preclude simultaneous rio ed c da e f e applicadon whicheverislater.

loss of both DC generators on certain Sikorsky Alicraft Division. Applies to bfodel (ii) Applications for light water cooled Sikorsky S-7aA belicopters. Loss of the S-raA helicopters. prior to s/N 7to207 nera may tes n oss nuc! car power plant construction fq permits. manufacturing licenses, and p

g,,

g t

g Co ce e equire the next 50 preliminary or final design approvals for safe flight under instrument flight rule hours' time la service after the effecuve dats c nguons.

of the AD unfess already accomplished.

standard plants docketed after May 17, To prevent possible loss of tiotS DC 1982 shallinclude an evaluation of the dam Effective date March 22.1982.

generators due to loss of ground. modify DC facility agalnst the SRP in effect on May Compliance as prescribed in the AD.

junction box ground circune in accordance 17.1982 or the SRP revision in effect six ADDRESSES De applicable serVICS with Stkorsky Alert Service Bulletle. 76-24-7 dated r bruary 3.1982.or an equivalent bulletin may be obtained from: Sikorsky months prior to the docket date of the '

Aircraft. United Technologies d

e (2) The evaluation required by this Corporation. Stra tford. CT 06002.

[*]', $ *, Q Q PP& "g, M ' [ *,(

application, whiches er is later.

sectica shall include an identification These documents may be examined at Certificauon Division. New Fngland Region, Federal Aviation Administre:'on.'

and description of all differences in the Office of the Regional Counsel, design features, analytical techniques.

Southwest Region. Federal Aviation TNs amendment becomen effective cnd procedural rnessures proposed for a Administration. 4400 Blue Mound Road, March 22.1982.

facihty and those corresponding Fort Worth. Texas, or at the Rules (Seca. 313(a). not, and ec3. Federal Aviation features, techniques, and mea sures Docket in Room 916. Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as emended (49 U.S.C.1354(a).

given in the SRP acceptance criteria.

Administration,800 Independence 1421. av 1423h sec. e(c). Department of Where such a difference esists. the Avenue SW., Washington D.C.

Transpertation Act (49 U.S.C. tass (c)); 14 ev:luation shall discuss how the rom FURD4ER IMFORMADON CONTAC'r; M

alternative proposed provides an Wayne langston. ANE-153.30ston Note-The FAA haa determined that this do not ecceptable method of complying with Aircraft Certification Branch. Aircraft gen e t a

kr those rules or regulations of Certification Division. New England order 12:21 or significant under DOT Commission, or portions thereof, that Reglen. Federal Aviation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR underlie the corresponding SRP Administration.12 New England 11034: February 25,19 9). A copy of the final acceptance criteria.

Executive Park. Burlington.

regulatory evaluation prepared for this action e

a

.