13
In order for the results to be applicable to regulatory decisions, the site selected for study should
have certain characteristics. Depending on the objective of a particular study, a study site may be
selected to represent an environment that is highly susceptible to leaching (!"#", sites with coarse-
textured soils that facilitate rapid transport) or a site that represents other conditions under which
the pesticide is most typically used.  Sites selected for study represent a specific use (or set of
uses) of the pesticide, as well as soil, hydrology, and climatic conditions common to a use area;
these conditions should be explicitly described in the site selection report.  Site selection should
also include consideration of other factors that dominate ground-water flow systems, e.g. regions
dominated by karst topography or tile drains, especially if such factors dominate in an important
use area.  Ideally, multiple sites should be selected for monitoring that exhibit a range of
characteristics of the broader use area.  For example, selecting several sites that are highly
vulnerable to leaching along with several sites presenting more typical vulnerability for a
spatially diverse pesticide use area can provide a more complete understanding of the potential
range of pesticide movement.  Having results from a range of sites will enhance the Agency’s
ability to extrapolate results across the composite use area.  When a single site is chosen for
monitoring, the site should represent a highly vulnerability site. If the behavior of a pesticide
($"!", its soil mobility and persistence) varies greatly from site to site, EPA may request site-
specific measurements of degradation rates or sorption coefficients in the PGW study test soil.
These data would aid in interpreting study results and in modeling.
1.2 GROUND WATER EXPOSURE AND ESTIMATING RISK
Some pesticides and pesticide degradates pose a high risk at very low concentrations, while
others pose less risk at these same low concentrations.  Because of the substantial costs
associated with conducting a PGW study, consideration is given to potential risk based on
estimates of exposure from available monitoring data and from screening-level models.
1.21  Evaluation of Registered or Proposed Uses
The way in which a pesticide is used can play a critical role in determining its impact on the
environment.  For example, pesticides that are exclusively used indoors pose negligible risk of
direct ground-water contamination in comparison to those with outdoor uses.  Some typical
indoor uses include baits, greenhouse uses, and use in food handling establishments.  While
ground-water impacts associated with those uses can occur from improper handling or disposal,
the PGW study focuses on water quality impacts resulting from use according to the registered
label.  Thus, a consideration of how the pesticide will be used is an important factor in assessing
whether a study would provide data needed to reduce uncertainty in water exposure assessments.

14
1.22  Available Monitoring Data
For the pesticide of concern, EPA may have available ground-water monitoring data collected by
academic institutions, federal and state agencies, or pesticide registrants.  Sources of these data
include state monitoring databases, other federal agencies [e.g., United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) monitoring  programs like the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
or the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program], Office of Pesticide Program's (OPP) Pesticides in
Ground Water Database (USEPA, 1992), reports submitted to EPA under FIFRA § 6(a)(2),
EPA’s STORET database, the open literature, and monitoring conducted by public water supply
facilities in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  OPP compiles and evaluates
available water monitoring data and examines the quality of the studies.  In general, most
monitoring studies are not designed to target and document impacts from the use of a specific
pesticide at a specific rate, nor are they conducted with the level of quality assurance and quality
control of a PGW study.  Monitoring data typically provide a lower bound on potential exposure,
especially where data are available to determine the amount of a pesticide applied (both the rate
and numbers of applications) and the location of treated areas relative to sampling sites.
While most available monitoring data are not likely to be of adequate spatial and temporal
resolution to address uncertainties in exposure for a specific pesticide, data are useful in EPA’s
determination of the need for a PGW study and may also be helpful in determining preferred test
sites.  These data may highlight uses for which impacts appear to be lower, and, thereby help
EPA focus evaluation efforts or further monitoring on specific uses or geographical areas where
impacts may be higher.
1.23 Modeling Ground Water Exposure
EPA routinely uses the screening-level model (SCI-GROW) to estimate potential ground water
exposure for pesticide water assessments.  SCI-GROW is an empirical regression model
developed by EPA and is based on monitoring results of PGW studies.  This model requires
limited input parameters (e.g., K , aerobic soil metabolism half-life, and annual pesticide
oc
application rate).  Using these values, the model estimates the concentration of the pesticide (90-
day peak) in shallow, unconfined aquifers that are subject to relatively rapid recharge and under
conditions similar to sites where the monitoring was conducted).  The model can simulate
multiple applications of the pesticide and the results are useful when reviewed in conjunction
with the field study.  A detailed description of this model can be found at EPA's Web site:
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
When the screening model estimates that a particular pesticide may leach into ground water at
levels of concern, risk managers may determine that a PGW study will provide quality data to
reduce the uncertainty in the assessment.

15
EPA is currently evaluating mechanistic models such as LEACHM (Hutson and Wagenet, 1992),
PRZM (Carsel et al., 1997), RZWQM (DeCoursey et al., 1989), and PEARL (Leistra, et. al.,
2001) and comparing estimates to monitoring data from PGW studies and other studies.  OPP’s
overall ground water modeling approach and conceptual model has been peer reviewed by the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel at meetings in February 2005 (USEPA, 2005a) and August,
2005 (USEPA, 2005b).  This methodology was implemented in water modeling conducted for
the Revised N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2007).
1.24  Consideration of Risk
Before requiring a PGW study, risk managers at EPA take into consideration the potential for
human exposure to pesticide residues in drinking water and related uncertainties. Consideration
of risk may also take into account the potential for ground water containing pesticide residues to
impact the quality of ecologically sensitive surface water, as well as the intrinsic value of ground
water as an important natural resource. Ground water contamination can be difficult and costly to
remediate, and it can take many years for contaminants to naturally degrade even when point
sources are removed.  Water from private rural wells is typically not treated prior to
consumption, and over 27 million people in the United States rely on private rural wells as their
primary water source.
1.3  CASE STUDY
The following case study is an example of the exposure assessment process that occurs before a
ground-water study is required for a (hypothetical) herbicide, Chemical H, proposed for use on
corn and soybeans.
1.31  Exposure Characterization
The registration standard for Chemical H required the full complement of environmental fate
studies, and data submitted by the registrant were acceptable.  Overall, Chemical H is
characterized as a potentially persistent pesticide (half-lives up to a few months) that can be
mobile in a variety of soils.  However, field dissipation studies suggest that Chemical H
degradation may be more rapid ($"!", within a few weeks) under certain conditions in some soils.
The aerobic soil metabolism half-life was determined to be 35 to 70 days in studies conducted in
several soils, and the anaerobic soil metabolism half-life averaged about 170 days.  Based on
these studies, it appears that Chemical H could be persistent enough in the field for significant
leaching to occur.  However, at some field dissipation study sites, Chemical H dissipated more
rapidly (half-lives were less than three weeks at four of the eight study sites) than other soil-
applied pesticides that have been found to reach ground water.  Overall, at eight study sites, field
dissipation half-lives for the upper six inches of soil ranged from 8 to 46 days.  The field
dissipation data indicates that Chemical H appears to degrade more rapidly in acidic soils in the
southern part of its use range; however, it is not clear whether the enhanced dissipation in these
soils was entirely due to more rapid degradation as opposed to soil leaching or other dissipation
routes.  Although residues were analyzed to a 3-foot depth at several of the field dissipation study

16
sites, there were no consistent detections of Chemical H or its major degradate, Chemical H-acid,
below 18 inches at any of these sites.  The minimum detection limit was 10 μg/L for both
compounds (the maximum application rate for Chemical H is 0.10 lb ai/A).
Chemical H is fairly resistant to abiotic hydrolysis. It hydrolyzes slowly in sterile water at pH 5
(extrapolated half-life is 91 days) and does not appreciably hydrolyze at pH 7 and 9 over the 30-
day study period.  Chemical H, though, is very susceptible to photolysis, with an aqueous
photolysis half-life of 1 day and a soil photolysis half-life of 7 days.
In general, the laboratory data show that Chemical H is persistent in most soils with a degrada-
tion half-life of 5 to 10 weeks.  Chemical H-acid, the primary degradate, appears to persist for
several months or longer in neutral or alkaline soils.  However, this degradate has not been found
to persist in photolysis studies.  No other degradates were found to accumulate at more than 5%
of the applied parent compound.  In the field, the accumulation of Chemical H-acid residues was
highly variable, ranging from a maximum of 5% of the applied Chemical H at one site to a
maximum of 50% of the applied Chemical H at another site.
Chemical H partitions primarily into the soil water in most soils.  In soil column leaching studies,
it is mobile in a sandy soil containing 1.4% organic matter (5% to 10% leaching through the
column) and moderately mobile in sandy loam (1.1% O.M.) and loamy sand (2.0% O.M.) soils
(1% to 5% leaching through the column).  In batch equilibrium studies, K (in this case
d
equivalent to Freundlich adsorption constants) values ranged from 0.8 to 3.4 in five soils tested.
The degree of adsorption was roughly proportional to soil organic matter content.  The K
oc
ranged from 34 to 72; the median K
oc
was 47.  The only K greater than 1.4 in four soils tested
d
was associated with a soil containing 12% organic matter.  It should also be noted that Chemical
H solubility is considerably reduced in alkaline soils.
Chemical H-acid is even more mobile than Chemical H, with K
oc
values from batch equilibrium
studies ranging from 4 to 17 in the same four soils in which Chemical H sorption was studied.
The degradate was not confirmed to leach below 18 inches in field dissipation studies sampled to
a 3-foot depth, but the soil analytical method could only detect residues exceeding about 20% of
the applied pesticide, even if it was applied at the maximum rate and was fully retained in the
upper six inches of soil.
1.32  Monitoring
Chemical H parent was detected in ground water sampled in a small number (5) of studies
reported in the Office of Pesticide Program’s (OPP's) Pesticides in Ground Water Database
(USEPA, 1992).  Although three detections exceeded the pesticide's Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) and Health Advisory Level (HAL) of  7 μg/L, the majority of the detections (75%)
were below 1 μg/L.  No monitoring data are available for Chemical H-acid in ground water.
Sufficient monitoring data, though, are available for the parent to demonstrate that Chemical H
does leach to ground water after registered applications in some areas.  However, some of the
higher concentrations reported may be due to chemical spills or other accidents.  The monitoring

17
data have not been collected in a sufficiently systematic way to determine under what specific
conditions Chemical H is most likely to reach ground water.  Based on a gross examination of
the monitoring data, it appears that ground-water contamination may be more likely in the
northern part of the Chemical H use area.
1.33  Modeling
Initially, evaluation of Chemical H was performed with the screening model SCI-GROW.
Screening modeling demonstrates that Chemical H has the characteristics (at least in the majority
of use sites) of other pesticides with long-established uses that have been found in ground water.
This is especially true of Chemical H-acid, which is both more mobile and more persistent than
Chemical H parent.  The soil half-life of this degradate has not been directly measured, but it
appears to be much longer than 6 months in at least some soils.  Based on SCI-GROW
concentration estimates, residues of Chemical H alone exceed the aggregate risks for drinking
water alone in OPP’s human dietary risk assessment; similar exposure estimates for the
degradate, which is assumed to have similar toxicity, will add to the risk.
PRZM modeling was conducted at 10 representative use sites.  A simulation of leached residues
for Chemical H was compared with simulated Chemical P residues, the corn and soybean
herbicide most commonly detected in ground water.  Twenty separate application years were
simulated at each site.  At 1 of the 10 sites, measured Chemical P residues from a vadose zone
and ground-water monitoring study were compared with simulations for both chemicals.  PRZM
only roughly predicted the overall amount of Chemical P and its chemical behavior as it leached
through the soil profile.  At this, and at most other sites, when aerobic metabolism half-lives and
average K
oc
values were used, modeling always predicted that Chemical H would leach to a
depth of 3 or 6 feet more than Chemical P (as a percentage of the application rate).  However, if
the Chemical H degradation half-life was shorter (!"#", less than two weeks), then predicted
leaching as well as the magnitude of residues was generally less than that of Chemical P.
Chemical H-acid, when formed in sufficient quantities, was also predicted to leach substantially
at many use sites.
1.34  Data Evaluation
The weight-of-evidence of the environmental fate properties of the pesticide are enough to raise
concern about its potential to reach ground water.  Since the photolysis half-life for Chemical H
is short, the foliar application for this chemical is considered less of a concern than the soil-
incorporation method.
Modeling shows that there is a significant risk of Chemical H residues leaching to ground water.
Based on a comparison with monitoring data, both Chemical H and Chemical H-acid residues
may impact the quality of ground water and exceed EPA’s regulatory endpoint in at least a
portion of the use area.  Moreover, Chemical H-acid has been found in tissues of laboratory
animals in studies used to calculate the MCL and has also been found in tissues of fish, which
appear to be among the most sensitive non-target organisms.  Ecotoxicity studies indicate that
concentrations of 1 μg/L in water over a period of a few weeks exceed Levels of Concern (LOCs)

18
for freshwater fish (Risk Quotient (RQ) of 12-30).  This exceedance may pose a risk in areas
where ground water discharges to surface water bodies.  A more definitive analysis of the
scenarios under which Chemical H residues leach significantly to ground water cannot be made
at this time because of the uncertainty regarding the subsurface behavior of Chemical H and
Chemical H-acid.  Such data could be obtained, however, from PGW studies.
Given the large potential use area (corn and soybeans) for this pesticide, at least two ground-
water monitoring studies are recommended to characterize potential exposure: one in a high-
exposure area and another in a more typical-use area.  For these studies, the pesticide should be
applied by soil incorporation at the maximum rate allowed on the label.  EPA is also requesting
that a more sensitive analytical method be developed for Chemical H and Chemical H-acid in
water, which detects residues at 0.1µg/L rather than the current 0.5 μg/L.
This case study illustrates the complex analysis that is involved in determining the environmental
fate of a pesticide and in evaluating its potential to impact the quality of ground water as a result
of normal agricultural use.  The uncertainty in this analysis may be greater for chemicals that
have never been used and for degradation products that have little environmental fate data.  In
these cases, scientists should rely exclusively on the environmental fate assessment to determine
the likelihood of leaching, and on predictions of models to estimate the concentrations that may
occur.  PGW studies may provide EPA risk assessors and risk managers with particularly
valuable information in these circumstances.
1.4  STUDY COMPONENTS
This guidance is intended to be performance-based, rather than a definitive description of how to
install wells and how to collect samples.  The goal is to provide the study director with adequate
flexibility in selecting equipment and methods needed to provide high quality results, while at the
same time standardizing the study design.  This flexibility also allows the study director to install
more sampling devices and collect more samples than stipulated to meet the goal of the study,
when needed.  For example, if EPA approves a site where the hydrology is more complex and the
depth to ground water is greater, for the study to be successful, more site instrumentation may be
needed, and the term of the study is likely to be longer in order to determine the concentrations of
the pesticide and major degradates
The major design components for PGW monitoring studies and guidance on how to carry out
these studies are explained in detail in the following chapters of this document:
·
Site Selection
·
Site Characterization and Site-Specific Conceptual Model
·
Monitoring Plan Design

19
·
Site Characterization and Monitoring Plan Design Reports
·
Monitoring Plan Implementation
·
Reporting
1.5 STUDY RESULTS
As specific stages of a PGW study are completed, results should be reported to EPA.  These
different reports require varying levels of effort and detail and are described more fully in
subsequent chapters of this guidance.  The reports should include the following information:
·
Site Selection Report:  Maps, tables, and a brief interpretive text.  EPA will select the
study site from the set of candidate sites proposed by the registrant.
·
Site Characterization and Monitoring Plan Design Reports: Site-specific data, more
detailed interpretation, and a proposed monitoring plan, including maps.  The Site
Characterization and Monitoring Plan Design Reports should be submitted to and
approved by EPA before the monitoring plan implementation phase of a ground-water
study can begin.
·
Quarterly Progress Reports:  Brief data summary relying on summary tables and graphs.
New data for the quarter are highlighted in these reports, and any deviations from
protocol, equipment failures, or other complications are identified.  Typically, reviews of
these quarterly reports will not prompt any action, unless results of analysis or
irregularities in the performance of the study warrant further action.
·
Termination Report:  Brief letter report that indicates study results and rationale for
termination along with accompanying data summary.
·
Final Report: The final report will consist of a final review of study results and
appendices, containing earlier submissions.  This final report will serve as a comprehen-
sive primary reference for the study.
The following chapters describe, in more detail, the components of a PGW monitoring study.
CHAPTER 2 - SITE SELECTION
Careful selection of ground-water monitoring study sites is critical in ensuring that study results
are useful to aid risk assessors and regulatory managers in pesticide regulatory decisions. The
soils, hydrogeology, and climate at the study site (or sites) should be accurately described or
characterized in order to properly instrument the site and to interpret the results of the study.

20
Also, the range of soils, hydrogeology, and climatic characteristics represented by the use site
should be established to properly interpret the data collected.  The characteristics of candidate
sites will depend on the specific use and the conditions the study is intended to explore
(!"#","high exposure" or "typical use," irrigated or dryland sites).  For example, a site may be
selected because it has the combination of environmental characteristics typically associated with
ground water quality problems.  Another aspect to consider in site selection is that the conditions
are such that the study can be conducted within a reasonable and predictable time frame.
Ultimately, the success of the site selection will be performance based.  The study should be able
to clearly track an applied tracer through the vadose zone to the saturated zone and track any
downward movement of pesticide residues.
OPP recommends that the registrant consider a number of sites in the preliminary site selection
process.  The following four-step process for the selection of field sites is suggested.  These steps
are described in detail in the following sections:
·
Study Scope
·
A Set of Candidate Sites
·
Cooperator Interview
·
Preliminary Site Characterization
All proposed sites that meet the criteria discussed in this chapter should be suitable for study.
Sites should be ranked according to soil type, hydrogeologic characteristics and other relevant
factors, and this information should be submitted to EPA in tabular form.  Pesticide application
and data collection cannot begin before the study site is approved in writing by EPA.  Therefore,
in the interest of saving time and resources, the study director should take special care during site
selection to identify candidate sites.  Full site characterization activities (Chapter 3) may begin
following EPA approval of the study site(s).
2.1  STUDY SCOPE
2.11 Definition
The first step in selecting a study site is for the registrant to describe where and how the pesticide
will be or is used.  Included in the preliminary assessment should be usage (application rates,
number of applications, maximum application) information for all use sites, stratified by
geographic area (region, state, and county).  The registrant should also provide information on
the pesticide formulation, relevant agronomic practices (!"#", application timing or irrigation
requirements), mode of action and environmental fate characteristics of the pesticide or soil
properties that affect the mobility or persistence of a pesticide in the field.

21
Since a pesticide use area may have some locations with a greater probability for contamination
of ground water than others, the registrant should assess the ground-water "vulnerability"
throughout the use area.  Ground-water vulnerability depends on many factors, and can be
characterized using overlay (GIS) and indexing methods (Leaching Potential) (Kellog et al.,
1992; Diaz-Diaz et al., 1998),  process-based methods (modeling), or statistical methods.  The
assessment can be as simple as county-scale ranking, or as sophisticated as layered GIS data layer
maps (Burkart et al., 1994) or vulnerability surfaces.  Appropriate State Agencies may be
contacted to determine whether areas highly susceptible to contamination of ground water have
already been identified in the usage areas.  The registrant should use any of these methods to:  1)
describe the overall vulnerability of the pesticide use area to contamination of ground water; 2)
identify the vulnerability associated with a "typical use site"; 3) identify sites throughout the use
area that are most vulnerable to contamination of ground water; and 4) characterize the
vulnerability of the sites they propose to study.  The registrant should provide a complete
description of the tool used to assess vulnerability and how this tool was used to select the
candidate sites.
Based on this information, EPA will determine the uses for which the monitoring study is
required, the number of studies for each use, the implementation schedule, and the conditions of
the study (application method, soil type, geographic area).  More than one study site may be
needed because of major differences between uses (!"#" rice or corn), or if use occurs in very
different geographic areas (!"#", CA and NY).  A careful definition of study scope will assure that
the answers to regulatory questions such as these are obtained:
·
Will the pesticide leach at any location in the pesticide use area? Will fate
properties be important or influence study results (!"#", soil pH and pesticide
hydrolysis)?
·
Which uses pose the greatest risk of leaching?
·
Is there a high risk that leaching will occur in a specific geographic area or for a
specific use; if so, what measures can mitigate this risk?
It
is important to design individual prospective ground-water studies to answer questions
particular to the pesticide in question.  The chemical properties of a pesticide may require that the
registrant evaluate leaching potential for application to different soil types, for different
application methods, formulations or for applications at different label rates.  If a single study is
performed on a site representing high vulnerability for leaching within a pesticide's use area, and
pesticide residues are not found in the ground water or deep within the soil column, it can be
assumed that this chemical is not likely to leach unless subsequent monitoring data show
otherwise.  On the other hand, studies performed on a highly vulnerable site and at a less
vulnerable site that may be more "typical" of the pesticide's use would provide some basis for
extrapolation of leaching potential between these different scenarios, perhaps through the use of
computer models.

22
This preliminary assessment is intended to identify acceptable sites that are candidates for
extensive site characterization activities.  The regional assessment of candidate areas should yield
a list of areas where vulnerable and relatively homogeneous sites might be found.  Study sites
that are approximately 2 to 5 acres are then identified within these candidate regions.
2.12  Compounds of Interest and Analytical Methods
All pesticides, major pesticide degradates in the study and the conservative tracer compound to
be used on the site are considered compounds of interest.  A major degradate is one accounting
for > 10% of the applied at any time during the laboratory studies, or one that has been identified
as of potential toxicological, environmental or ecological concern.  The test pesticide should be
applied only once using the method of application stated on the product label.  The application
should be made at the highest recommended label rate for the crop used in the study.
A comprehensive description of the methods (USEPA, 1992) selected for the analysis of all
compounds of interest should be provided.  Information on the analytical procedures to be used
for both water and soil samples, and on the method detection limits (MDL) (USEPA, 1992)
should also be reported.  Any background information and references that might assist EPA in
the evaluation of the nature, accuracy, and selectiveness of all proposed analytical methods
should also be included.  If no standard analytical method is available for the compounds of
interest, methods should be developed, validated, and approved by EPA before beginning the
prospective study, to ensure that the study is acceptable.
Since the enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), the Agency is required
to conduct an assessment of human exposure from all routes (aggregate exposure).  This requires
a consideration of exposure from chemicals with similar modes of action, including degradates
(common mode).  Therefore, to obtain an indication of the human health risk associated with a
pesticide in ground water, the cumulative exposure of multiple chemicals should be determined.
When selecting an analytical method for a specific pesticide, several factors should be
considered.  The MDL and practical quantitation limit (PQL) should be appropriate for the
objectives of the analysis.  MDL refers to the minimum concentration of the compound of
interest that can be measured and reported with a specified confidence (99% probability) that the
concentration is above zero (USEPA, 1992).  The registrants should provide or develop a state-
of-the-art analytical method for pore-water or ground water for the parent pesticide and its
degradates that has an MDL at or below 0.01% of the label application rate (calculated as the
average concentration if the applied pesticide amount were distributed over the top 12 inches –
which normally weighs about 4 million pounds / acre), or 0.05 μg/L, whichever is lowerG  Unless
the agency determines from submitted data by the registrant that a somewhat less sensitive
method is acceptable and likely to still provide a basis for a practical accounting of the
subsurface fate of the pesticide residues at the study site(s).  PQL refers to the lowest
concentration at which the laboratory can confidently quantify the concentration of the compound
of interest.  The study authors should report all samples with concentrations above the MDL as
detections, including those below the PQL in which the concentration cannot be quantified.  In

23
addition, the study authors should provide sample equations to demonstrate how the PQL was
calculated.
Analytical methods used should also be selective for the compound of interest and free of any
interference problems from other substances likely to be present in the sample.  If less selective
methods are used (!"#", ELISA (immunoassay) methods, gas chromatography (GC) with electron
capture detection or nitrogen/phosphorous detection for sample screening), all detections should
be confirmed using a different method (!"#", a second GC column with a different polarity).  The
procedure used to analyze significant degradates identified in the Subdivision N Environmental
Fate studies should also be reported.
2.2  A SET OF CANDIDATE SITES
The second step in the site selection process is a regional assessment of sites within the pesticide
use area and identification of candidate sites.  The characteristics of candidate sites will depend
on the specific use and the conditions the study is intended to explore ("high exposure" or
"typical use," irrigated or dryland, etc.).
A regional assessment for candidate sites involves several steps.  It is important to first


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65826-65828]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27223]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76215; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-79]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Modifying the NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule

October 21, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 15, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective October 15,
2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below,

of the most significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to change the Section I.C.--NYSE Amex
Options Market Maker Sliding Scale--Electronic (``Market Maker Sliding
Scale'') to reduce the per contract rate for each tier by $0.03 if
volume from posted liquidity exceeds a threshold, effective on October
15, 2015.
    Section I.C. of the Fee Schedule currently provides a discount to
NYSE Amex Options Market Maker transaction fees based on a sliding
volume scale.\4\ Specifically, an NYSE Amex Options Market Maker that
has monthly volume on the Exchange of less than or equal to 0.10% of
total industry Customer equity and exchange traded fund (``ETF'')
options volume \5\ is charged a base rate of $0.23. An NYSE Amex
Options Market Maker that reaches higher volume thresholds, or Tiers,
receives a reduction of this per contract rate.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fee Schedule, Section I.C.(NYSE Amex Options Market
Maker Sliding Scale--Electronic), available here, https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/amex-options/NYSE_Amex_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \5\ The volume thresholds are based on an NYSE Amex Options
Market Makers' volume transacted Electronically as a percentage of
total industry Customer equity and ETF options volumes as reported
by the Options Clearing Corporation (the ``OCC''). Total industry
Customer equity and ETF option volume is comprised of those equity
and ETF contracts that clear in the Customer account type at OCC and
does not include contracts that clear in either the Firm or Market
Maker account type at OCC or contracts overlying a security other
than an equity or ETF security. See OCC Monthly Statistics Reports,
available here, http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports.
    \6\ In calculating an NYSE Amex Options Market Maker Electronic
volumes, the Exchange proposes to exclude any volumes attributable
to Mini Options, QCC trades, CUBE Auctions, and Strategy Execution
Fee Caps, as these transactions are subject to separate pricing
described in proposed [sic] Fee Schedule Sections I.B., I.F., I.G.,
and I.J, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to offer Market Makers the ability to
reduce the per contract rate charged per Tier of the Market Maker
Sliding Scale--Electronic by $0.03. Specifically, a Market Maker would
receive the additional $0.03 discount if its monthly volume includes
contracts traded as a result of posted trading interest that is in
excess of 0.85% of Industry Customer Equity and ETF Option Volume.\7\
Accordingly, if a Market Maker meets this additional threshold, the
following per contract rates would apply: Tier 1--$0.20; Tier 2--$0.17;
Tier 3--$0.07; Tier 4--$0.05; Tier 5--$0.02; Tier 6--$0.00; and for
each contract qualifying for Tier 7 the Market Maker will receive a
$0.01 credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The same exclusions apply to posted volumes as set forth
supra n. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to offer an additional
rebate to Market Makers eligible for the Sliding Scale is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would incentivize
Market Makers to increase posted liquidity on the Exchange, which would
benefit all Exchange participants, including ATP Holders, through
increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery.
In addition, the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the credits offered would be based on the amount
of business transacted on the Exchange.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed amendments
to the Marker Maker Sliding Scale is pro-competitive as the credits may
incentivize Market Makers to increase posted liquidity on the Exchange
and any resulting increase in volume and liquidity to the Exchange
would benefit all of Exchange participants through increased
opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-79 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-79. This

file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-79, and should
be submitted on or before November 17, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27223 Filed 10-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 225)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70287-70288]
[DOCID:fr20no08-28]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1102; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-8]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Branson, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at Branson
Airport, Branson, MO. The establishment of an air traffic control tower
has made this action necessary for the safety of Instrument Flight Rule
(IFR) operations at Branson Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before January 5,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2008-1102/Airspace Docket No. 08-
AGL-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Area,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone: (817)
222-5582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both

docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed
above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2008-1102/Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-8.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace for IFR operations
at Branson Airport, Branson, MO, where a new control tower has been
installed. The Class D airspace will revert to a Class E Surface Area
during those periods when the control tower is not operating. This area
would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
    Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish
controlled airspace at Branson Airport, Branson, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE MO D Branson, MO [New]

Branson Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]31'55'' N., long. 93[deg]12'02'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Branson Airport. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX on October 28, 2008.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-27544 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78591-78594]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30612]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1098; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-108-AD;
Amendment 39-16532; AD 2010-24-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and
747SP Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD requires adding two new indicator lights
on a certain panel to inform the captain and first officer of a low
pressure condition in the left and right override/jettison pumps of the
center wing tanks. This AD also requires replacing the left and right
override/jettison switches on the M154 fuel control module on the P4
panel with improved switches and doing the associated wiring changes.
This AD also requires, for certain airplanes, installation of a
mounting bracket for the new indicator lights. This AD also requires a
revision to the maintenance program to incorporate airworthiness
limitation No. 28-AWL-22. This AD also requires a revision to the
airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew what to do in the event
that the pump low pressure light on the flight engineer's panel does
not illuminate when the pump is selected off. This AD was prompted by
fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this
AD to prevent uncommanded operation of the override/jettison pumps of
the center wing tanks, and failure to manually shut off the override/
jettison pumps at the correct time, either of which could lead to an
ignition source inside the center wing tank. This condition, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a center fuel
tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 20, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 20,
2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of June
12, 2008 (73 FR 25977, May 8, 2008).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that
would apply to the specified products. That supplemental NPRM published
in the Federal Register on October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60661). That
supplemental NPRM proposed to require adding two new indicator lights
on the P10 panel to inform the captain and first officer of a low
pressure condition in the left and right override/jettison pumps of the
center wing tanks. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to require
replacing the left and right override/jettison switches on the M154
fuel control module on the P4 panel with improved switches and doing
the associated wiring changes. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to
require, for certain airplanes, installation of a mounting bracket for
the new indicator lights. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to
require a revision to the maintenance program to incorporate
airworthiness

limitation No. 28-AWL-22. That supplemental NPRM also proposed to
require a revision to the airplane flight manual to advise the
flightcrew what to do in the event that the pump low pressure light on
the flight engineer's panel does not illuminate when the pump is
selected off.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the supplemental NPRM or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Clarification

    In our response in the supplemental NPRM to Northwest Airline's
Request to Reference Later Revision of Service Bulletin Cited in
Original NPRM, we described some of the changes in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-28A2288, Revision 1, dated January 21, 2010. That service
bulletin was described as having installation instructions for the LOW
PRESS indicator lights for airplanes that did not have the warning
panel (i.e., the P10 panel) installed. We also described the changes to
paragraph (g) of the Supplemental NPRM. We have revised the Summary and
paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that both groups of airplanes, with
or without the warning panel installed, must install the two new
indicator lights on certain panels (either the P10 panel, or for those
airplanes without the P10 panel installed, the Autopilot Flight
Director panel).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 185 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Action                Labor cost        Parts cost     Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Service Bulletin        Between 30 and    Between $2,768    Between $5,318    Between $983,830 and
 747[dash]28A2288, Revision 1.  32 work-hours x   and $2,868.       and $5,588.       $1,033,780.
                                $85 per hour =
                                Between $2,550
                                and $2,720.
AFM revision.................  1 work-hour x     None............  $85.............  $15,725
                                $85 per hour =
                                $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2010-24-13 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16532; Docket No. FAA-
2008-1098; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-108-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective January 20, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2288, Revision 1, dated
January 21, 2010.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include a new inspection. Compliance with
this inspection is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that
have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by this inspection, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (l) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspection that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to prevent uncommanded operation of the override/jettison pumps of
the center wing tanks, and failure to manually shut off

the override/jettison pumps at the correct time, either of which
could lead to an ignition source inside the center wing tank. This
condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in a center fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Installation of Indicator Lights and Replacement of Switches

    (g) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD: For
airplanes with a P10 panel installed, add two new indicator lights
on the P10 panel to inform the captain and first officer of a low
pressure condition in the left and right override/jettison pumps of
the center wing tanks, and, for airplanes that do not have the
warning panel (P10 panel) installed, add a mounting bracket and two
new indicator lights to the Autopilot Flight Director panel; and
replace the left and right override/jettison switches on the M154
fuel control module on the P4 panel with improved switches; and do
the associated wiring changes. Accomplish these actions by doing all
of the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2288, Revision 1,
dated January 21, 2010, except where that service bulletin states
``20-60-00,'' the correct sub-section number is ``28-60-06,'' and
except as described in Table 1 of this AD.

                                         Table 1--Part Number Correction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Part number specified in Figures
                                 22 through 32 of Boeing Service     Part name of
          Part name                Bulletin 747[dash]28A2288,        correct part        Correct part number
                               Revision 1, dated January 21, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nut..........................  BACN10JC06CD                        Nut.............  BACN10NW1
Bolt.........................  BACS12HN06-10                       Screw...........  BACS12HN04-6
Washer.......................  NAS1149D0632J                       Washer..........  NAS1149DN416J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 2:  For airplanes equipped with certain M154 fuel control
modules, paragraph 2.C.2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2288,
Revision 1, dated January 21, 2010, refers to the BAE Systems
service bulletins identified in Table 2 of this AD, as applicable,
as additional sources of guidance for replacing the switches.

                 Table 2--Additional Sources of Guidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Service bulletin                           Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAE Systems Service Bulletin             February 16, 2006.
 65B46124[dash]28[dash]01.
BAE Systems Service Bulletin             March 28, 2007.
 65B46124[dash]28[dash]02.
BAE Systems Service Bulletin             March 28, 2007.
 65B46124[dash]28[dash]03.
BAE Systems Service Bulletin             February 16, 2006.
 65B46214[dash]28[dash]01.
BAE Systems Service Bulletin             March 28, 2007.
 65B46214[dash]28[dash]02.
BAE Systems Service Bulletin             March 28, 2007.
 65B46214[dash]28[dash]03.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maintenance Program Revision

    (h) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, revise the maintenance program by
incorporating Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) No. 28-AWL-22 of
Section D of the Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-
CMR, Revision March 2008. Where the AWL states ``28-31-00,'' the
correct section number is ``28-42-00.''

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    (i) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, revise Section 1, ``Certificate
Limitations,'' of the applicable Boeing 747 AFM to include the
following statement. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD
into the AFM.

``When the center tank override jettison pumps are selected off, the
amber pump low pressure lights on the Flight Engineer's panel should
illuminate and remain on. If a pump low pressure light on the Flight
Engineer's panel does not illuminate, open the associated pump
circuit breaker.''

    Note 3:  When a statement identical to that in paragraph (i) of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

    (j) After accomplishing the action specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be
used unless the inspections or inspection intervals are approved as
an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)
of this AD.

Terminating Action for Maintenance Program Revision

    (k) Incorporating AWL No. 28-AWL-22 into the maintenance program
in accordance with paragraph (g) of AD 2008-10-07, Amendment 39-
15513, or AD 2008-10-07 R1, Amendment 39-16070, terminates the
action required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Douglas Bryant, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Related Information

    (m) For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Bryant,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2288, Revision
1, dated January 21, 2010; and Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008; as
applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28A2288,
Revision 1, dated January 21, 2010, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-13747-CMR, Revision March 2008, on June 12,
2008 (73 FR 25977, May 8, 2008).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-

5680; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 18, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-30612 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15597-15599]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05676]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 48 / Tuesday, March 12, 2013 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0745; Special Condition No. 33-012-SC]

Special Conditions: GE Aviation CT7-2E1 Turboshaft Engine Model

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These final special conditions are issued for the General
Electric Aviation (GE) CT7-2E1 engine model. This engine model will
have a novel or unusual design feature, which is a combination of two
existing ratings into a new rating called ``flat 30-second and 2-minute
OEI'' rating. This rating is intended for the continuation of flight of
a multi-engine rotorcraft after one engine becomes inoperative. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These final
special conditions contain the additional safety standards the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is April 11,
2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this rule, contact Dorina Mihail, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this rule, contact Vincent Bennett, ANE-7, Engine
and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone
(781) 238-7044; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 10, 2009, GE applied for an amendment to type
certificate E8NE to add the new CT7-2E1 turboshaft engine model. The
CT7-2E1 engine model is a derivative of the CT7 engine family certified
between 1977 and 2010. It is a free turbine turboshaft designed for a
transport category twin-engine helicopter. The CT7-2E1 engine model
will incorporate a novel and unusual feature, which is the ``flat 30-
second and 2-minute OEI'' rating. The applicant requested this rating
to provide the increased power required for the rotorcraft performance.
A special condition is necessary to apply additional requirements for
the rating's definition, overspeed, controls system, and endurance
test, because the applicable airworthiness standards do not contain
adequate or appropriate airworthiness standards to address this design
feature.
    The ``flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI'' rating is equivalent in
some regards with the 2\1/2\-minute OEI rating, and in other regards
with the 30-second OEI and the 2-minute OEI ratings. However, the new
rating differs from the 2\1/2\-minute OEI rating because it limits the
number of occurrences per flight and mandates post-flight inspection
and maintenance actions. The new rating is similar with the combined or
joined 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings when they are equal.
However, the existing standards are not adequate for this combination.
    Similar to the ``flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI'' rating, the 30-
second and 2-minute OEI ratings were introduced to provide multi-engine
rotorcraft with high power for short periods of time when an engine
becomes inoperative during critical flight conditions. Existing
airworthiness standards for the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings
were established based on the assumption the two ratings will be
selected together as a package, and that the 30-second OEI rating is
higher than the 2-minute OEI rating. Because the 30-second OEI rating
was assumed higher, specific requirements were established for only
this rating and for the 30 second time period. When the 30-second and
2-minute OEI ratings are equal, these requirements must be extended to
a total period of 2.5 minutes.
    These final special conditions for the ``flat 30-second and 2-
minute OEI'' rating are based on a combination of existing regulations
for the 2\1/2\-minute OEI rating, and the 30-second and 2-minute OEI
ratings. Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101(d), the special
conditions must provide a level of safety equal to that established by
the regulations in effect on the date of the application for the
change.
    We determined that the type certification basis for the GE CT7-2E1
engine model is up to and including Amendment 20 of part 33; refer to
the section below titled ``Type Certification Basis.'' We also
determined that the part 33 standards, up to and including Amendment
25, contain part of the standards for the ``flat 30-second and 2-minute
OEI.'' Therefore, we do not prescribe special conditions when the
requirements exist in later amendments, instead we will apply these
later amendments. These later requirements are:
    (1) Section A33.4, Airworthiness Limitations Section, paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of Amendments 1-25, and
    (2) Section 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and operating
the engine, paragraph (b)(4) of Amendments 1-25.
    These final special conditions are in addition to the requirements
of the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings that remain applicable to the
``flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI'' rating, as follows:
    (1) These final special conditions extend the standards applicable
to the 30-second or 2-minute OEI ratings for the 2.5 minute time
duration of the ``flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI'' rating. We
developed these special conditions by revising the time dependent
requirements of Sec. Sec.  33.27, 33.87(a)(7), and 33.88(c). The 2.5
minute time duration for the rating would affect the structural and
operational characteristics of the engine that are time dependent, such
as the values for transients, time duration for stabilization to steady
state, and part growth due to deformation. In addition, these special
conditions are applied by extending the 30-second OEI rating
requirements of Sec.  33.67(d) for automatic availability and control
of the engine power, from 30 seconds to 2.5 minutes.

    (2) These final special conditions are required to account for the
proposed rating of a 2.5 minute time duration during the endurance
test. For the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings, the test schedule of
Sec.  33.87(f) is divided among the two ratings. We applied these
special conditions by revising the requirements of Sec.  33.87(f) to
ensure the test will run for a 2.5 minute duration with no
interruption.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101(a), GE must show the CT7-2E1
turboshaft engine model meets the provisions of the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application, except as detailed in
Sec.  21.101(b) and (c). We have determined the following certification
basis for the CT7-2E1 turboshaft engine model.
    (1) 14 CFR part 33, ``Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines,''
dated February 1, 1965, with Amendments 1 through 20, except Sec. Sec.
33.5(b)(4), A33.4(b)(1), and A33.4(b)(2), Amendments 1-25 applicable to
the ``flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI'' rating. The applicant will
voluntarily comply with Sec.  33.28, Amendments 1-28 for the EECU, FMU,
and AISBV.
    (2) 14 CFR part 34, Amendments 1 through 4, Sec.  34.11 ``Standard
for Fuel Venting Emissions.''
    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101(d), if we find the
regulations in effect, on the date of the application for the change,
do not provide adequate standards with respect to the proposed change
because of a novel or unusual design feature, the applicant must also
comply with special conditions, and amendments to those special
conditions prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16 to provide a
level of safety equal to that established by the regulations in effect
on the date of the application for the change.
    We issue special conditions, as defined by 14 CFR 11.19, under 14
CFR 11.38, which become part of the type certification basis as
specified in Sec. Sec.  21.17(a)(2) or 21.101(d).
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the engine model for
which they are issued. If the type certificate for that model is
amended later, to include another related model that incorporates the
same or similar novel or unusual design feature, or if any other model
already included on the same type certificate is modified to
incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, these
special conditions may also apply to the other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The CT7-2E1 turboshaft engine model will incorporate a ``flat 30-
second and 2-minute OEI'' rating for use after the failure or shutdown
of one engine and for up to three periods of 2.5 minutes each on any
one flight. These final special conditions, discussed below, for the
``flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI'' rating will address this novel and
unusual design feature.

Discussion of Comments

    A notice of proposed special conditions, No. 33-12-01-SC, for the
CT7-2E1 turboshaft engine model was published on July 20, 2012 (77 FR
42677). We received six comments from European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) and two from Honeywell. One comment from EASA resulted in
changes to the special conditions; the remaining comments resulted in
clarifications.
    The EASA commented that the special conditions for the overspeed
test of Sec.  33.27 should not be the same as the requirements
applicable to the 2\1/2\-minute OEI rating. EASA considers that
applying the overspeed test requirements associated with the 30-second
and 2-minute OEI ratings would be more appropriate.
    We partially agree. We agree the requirements for the 30-second and
2-minute OEI ratings are more appropriate, except for the test time
duration requirement. For the CT7 engine model, the overspeed
requirements for the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings reside in the
special conditions 33-002-SC, published on May 28, 1999 (64 FR 28900).
We are therefore adopting these requirements, except that the time
duration of paragraph (a) of 33-002-SC is increased from 2.5 minutes to
5 minutes in these final special conditions. The rationale is that the
test time duration should be representative of the rating duration,
which is 2.5 minutes at the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI rating
versus 30 seconds at the 30-second OEI. Also, the 5 minutes test time
is the same as that applied to the 2\1/2\-minute OEI rating, which is a
rating of the same time duration.
    The EASA commented that amendments to Sec. Sec.  33.67(d) and
33.28(k) are discussed, despite not being addressed under the part 33
requirements section of the proposed special conditions. The EASA found
this section unclear and suggested that additional clarification be
provided.
    We agree. We eliminated the references to Sec.  33.28(k) and
assigned the special conditions to Sec.  33.67(d), instead of Sec.
33.28(k). This resulted in no change to the proposed special conditions
themselves because Sec.  33.28(k), Amendment 26 and Sec.  33.67(d)
Amendment 18, contain the same requirements.
    Honeywell and EASA provided comments related to the ``Note'' in the
proposed special conditions paragraph (e)(1). The note addressed the
intent for temperature stabilization. Honeywell recommended revising
the note for clarity. The EASA stated that the note is confusing.
    We agree. We determined the note is not necessary and removed the
note in the final special conditions.
    The EASA commented that for the overtemperature tests of Sec.
33.88, the existing requirements are for a 4 minute demonstration at 35
degrees F, hotter than the maximum temperature limit for the 30 second
OEI rating. The proposed special conditions, however, amend this
requirement by increasing this demonstration to 5 minutes duration. The
EASA does not see the technical grounds for this increase in severity.
    We do not agree. The 4 minute test duration applies to ratings of 2
minutes and shorter. The 5 minute test duration applies to ratings
longer than 2 minutes. Since the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI is a
rating of 2.5 minutes length, the test time requirements should be a 5
minute duration; the same as that for the 2\1/2\-minute OEI.
    The EASA commented on the applicability of Appendix A to part 33,
A33.4 (b)(1) to the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI rating.
Specifically, that the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI rating is a
single rating, while the requirement of A33.4 (b)(1) applies to either
30-second OEI or 2-minute OEI ratings. EASA stated that the existing
requirements are written for the existing ratings and not for the `new'
rating introduced by these special conditions, therefore, is not clear
whether these requirements are relevant to the `new' rating.
    We do not agree. The airworthiness standards of Appendix A to part
33, A33.4(b)(1) for the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings were
established based on the assumption that the two ratings will be
selected together as a package. Paragraph A33.4(b)(1) does not
prescribe specific requirements for the 30-second OEI versus 2-minute
OEI ratings and provides requirements for the use of both ratings.
Therefore, A33.4(b)(1) requirements for maintenance actions associated
with the use of the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings apply to the new
rating.
    Honeywell provided a comment related to the naming of the rating,

which, although recognizable, appears cumbersome. Honeywell suggested
that, ``Rated limited use 2\1/2\-minute OEI'' could be a better
definition that would still distinguish it from the existing unlimited
use of the 30-second, 2-minute, and 2\1/2\-minute OEI ratings.
    We do not agree. The applicant requested the new rating be named in
closer relation with the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings for
consistency across existing engine models and to align the new rating
with the 30-second and 2-minute-OEI ratings at the rotorcraft level. We
agree with the applicant's proposed name. We also do not agree with the
commenter that the 30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings are ``unlimited
use.'' These ratings are limited to a maximum use of 3 times per flight
and require post-flight inspection, per 14 CFR 1.1, Definitions.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the GE CT7-2E1
turboshaft engine model. If GE applies later for a change to the type
certificate, to include another closely related model incorporating the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
apply to that model, as well. This is true, provided the certification
basis is the same or contains later amendments that satisfy the
certification basis discussed in the section titled, ``Type
Certification Basis.''

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting these special conditions. This
action affects certain novel or unusual design features on the CT7-2E1
turboshaft engine model. It is not a rule of general applicability and
applies only to GE, whom requested FAA approval for this engine
feature.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the FAA issues the following special conditions as
part of the type certification basis for the GE CT7-2E1 turboshaft
engine model.

1. Part 1 Definitions

    Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator and documented in
the appropriate manuals and certification documents, the following
definition applies: ``Rated Flat 30-second and 2-minute One Engine
Inoperative (OEI) Power,'' with respect to rotorcraft turbine engines,
means: (1) A rating for which the shaft horsepower and associated
operating limitations of the 30-second OEI and 2-minute OEI ratings are
equal, and (2) the shaft horsepower is that developed under static
conditions at the altitude and temperature for the hot day, and within
the operating limitations established under part 33. The rating is for
continuation of one flight operation after the failure or shutdown of
one engine in multiengine rotorcraft. The rating is for up to three
periods of use no longer than 2.5 minutes each in any one flight, and
followed by mandatory inspection and prescribed maintenance action.

2. Part 33 Requirements

    (a) In addition to the airworthiness standards in the type
certification basis applicable to the engine and the 30-second and 2-
minute OEI ratings, the special conditions in this section apply.
    (b) Section 33.7 Engine ratings and operating limitations. Flat 30-
second and 2-minute OEI rating and operating limitations are
established by power, torque, rotational speed, gas temperature, and
time duration.
    (c) Section 33.27 Turbine, compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger
rotor overspeed. In addition to the requirements of Sec.  33.27(b):
    (1) The turbine and compressor rotors must have sufficient strength
to withstand the test conditions specified in paragraph (2) below.
    (2) The applicant must determine, by analysis or other acceptable
means, the most critically stressed rotor component of each turbine and
compressor, including integral drum rotors and centrifugal compressors.
These components must be tested for the conditions in paragraphs (i) or
(ii) below. The test selection from the following paragraphs (i) or
(ii) below is determined by the speed defined in paragraph (i)(B) or
(ii)(B), whichever is higher.
    (i) Test for a period of 5 minutes:
    (A) At its maximum operating temperature, except as provided in
Sec.  33.27(c)(2)(iv); and
    (B) At the highest speed determined, in accordance with Sec.
33.27(c)(2)(i) through (iv).
    (C) This test may be performed using a separate test vehicle as
desired.
    (ii) Test for a period of 5 minutes:
    (A) At its maximum operating temperature, except as provided in
paragraph (ii)(C) below; and
    (B) At 100 percent of the highest speed that would result from
failure of the most critical component of each turbine and compressor,
or system, in a representative installation of the engine when
operating at the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI rating conditions; and
    (C) The test speed must take into account minimum material
properties, maximum operating temperature, if not tested at that
temperature, and the most adverse dimensional tolerances.
    (D) This test may be performed using a separate test vehicle as
desired. Following the test, rotor growth and distress beyond
dimensional limits for an overspeed condition are permitted provided
the structural integrity of the rotor is maintained, as shown by a
procedure acceptable to the FAA.
    (d) Section 33.67(d) Fuel system. Engines must incorporate a means,
or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic
control of the flat 30-second and 2-minute OEI power for the duration
of 2.5 minutes and within the declared operating limitations.
    (e) Section 33.87 Endurance test. The requirements applicable to
30-second and 2-minute OEI ratings, except for:
    (1) The test of Sec.  33.87(a)(7) as applicable to the 2\1/2\-
minute OEI rating.
    (2) The tests in Sec.  33.87(f)(2) and (3) must be run continuously
for the duration of 2.5 minutes, and
    (3) The tests in Sec.  33.87(f)(6) and (7) must be run continuously
for the duration of 2.5 minutes.
    (f) Section 33.88 Engine overtemperature test. The requirements of
Sec.  33.88(c), except that the test time is 5 minutes instead of 4
minutes.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on March 4, 2013.
Robert J. Ganley,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05676 Filed 3-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P