forces caused by fault conditions must be evaluated by test or
analysis, or by reference to previous experience and

shown not to result in a hazardous engine effect.''
    FAA Response: Special Condition no. 16 (Continued rotation)
corresponds to 14 CFR 33.74, which precludes hazardous engine effects
from continued rotation of engine main rotating systems after the
engine is shut down for any reason while in flight. This includes the
effects of vibration from failures that result in a rotor unbalance.
Therefore, Special Condition no. 16 addresses the failure effects TCCA
identified in their comment. The FAA did not change these special
conditions as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended requiring an evaluation of
vibration effects that result from excitation forces caused by fault
conditions or to address these effects by reference to experience with
engine failures that did not result in a hazardous engine effect. TCCA
also recommended addressing the vibration effects from sustained engine
unbalance.
    FAA Response: Special Condition no. 16 (Continued rotation)
precludes hazardous engine effects from continued rotation after the
engine is shut down for any reason while in flight, including fault
conditions. These special conditions are applicable to the magniX
engines, which are new to aviation. Therefore, engine experience is not
relevant to the magniX engine certification project. The FAA did not
change this special condition as a result of this comment.

Special Condition No. 21, Overtorque

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 21 would require magniX
to demonstrate that the engine is capable of continuous operation
without the need for maintenance if it experiences a certain amount of
overtorque.
    Comment Summary: TCCA suggested that the FAA add the teardown
inspection requirement of Special Condition no. 29 for each engine part
or individual groups of components after conducting the overtorque
test.
    FAA Response: The additional requirement suggested by TCCA
corresponds to 14 CFR 33.84(a)(2), Engine overtorque test. The engines
proposed by magniX may require a transient maximum overtorque rating.
The FAA has changed final Special Condition no. 21 to require
compliance to Special Condition no. 29 (Teardown inspection) after
conducting an overtorque test.

Special Condition No. 22, Calibration Assurance

    The FAA received no comments for Special Condition no. 22, and it
is adopted as proposed. It requires magniX to subject the engine to
calibration tests, to establish its power characteristics and the
conditions both before and after the endurance and durability
demonstrations specified in proposed Special Condition nos. 23 and 26.
The calibration test requirements specified in Sec.  33.85 only apply
to the endurance test specified in Sec.  33.87, which is applicable
only to turbine engines. The methods used for accomplishing those tests
for turbine engines are not the best approach for electric engines. The
calibration tests in Sec.  33.85 have provisions applicable to ratings
that are not relevant to the magniX magni350 and magni650 model
engines. Special Condition no. 22 allows magniX to demonstrate the
endurance and durability of the electric engine either together or
independently, whichever is most appropriate for the engine qualities
being assessed. Consequently, this special condition applies the
calibration requirement to both the endurance and durability tests.

Special Condition No. 23, Endurance Demonstration

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 23 would require magniX
to subject the engine to an endurance demonstration test, acceptable to
the Administrator, to demonstrate the engine capabilities at the
declared limits.
    The FAA proposed to evaluate the extent to which the test exposes
the engine to failures that could occur when the engine is operated at
its rated values, to determine if the test is sufficient to show that
the engine design will not exhibit unacceptable effects in-service,
such as significant performance deterioration, operability
restrictions, and engine power loss or instability, when run for
sustained periods at extreme operating conditions.
    Comment Summary: Rolls-Royce stated that the second sentence of the
proposed special condition contained a typographical error and
suggested that it should read, ``The endurance demonstration elevates
and increases the engine's power settings, and dwells at the power
settings for durations that produce the extreme physical conditions. .
. .'' Rolls-Royce recommended replacing ``decreases'' with
``increases'' in the special condition.
    FAA Response: Final Special Condition no. 23 has been changed. The
FAA considered the change proposed by Rolls-Royce and changed the term
``elevates'' to ``increases.''
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that the FAA add the following
three sentences to Special Condition no. 23: (1) ``The severity of the
demonstration should consider the design and intended use of the
engine, and include the demonstration of safe operation under all
operational limits to be applied during service operation of the
engine.'' (2) ``When approval is sought for Normal Transient engine
exceedances, it must be substantiated that the engine is capable of
operation at the maximum engine transient condition of the affected
engine parameter(s) without maintenance action.'' (3) ``When approval
is sought for Inadvertent Transient engine exceedances, it must be
substantiated that the engine is capable of operation at the maximum
engine transient condition of the affected engine parameter(s) without
maintenance action other than to correct any failure that led to the
exceedances.''
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree to include the additions
recommended by TCCA. Regarding TCCA sentence (1), adding a definition
for severity in this special condition is unnecessary because this
special condition is intended to achieve the same objectives as 14 CFR
33.87, Endurance test, but for the magniX electric engines. The test
will be different for the magniX engines because those engines use
electrical technology for propulsion. Whether the engine is turbine or
electric, the endurance test achieves a severity that demonstrates the
engine is safe to operate at its certificated limits.
    Regarding TCCA sentence (2), Special Condition no. 32 requires the
engine and its components to be within serviceable limits, safe for
continued operation, and capable of operating at declared ratings while
remaining within limits upon completing all demonstrations and testing
specified in these special conditions. If the magniX engine ratings
include maximum transients, the engines must demonstrate that they
operate safely during the maximum transients and meet the post-test
engine requirements specified in these special conditions.
    Regarding TCCA sentence (3), Special Condition no. 23 is intended
to assess the magniX engine's capabilities. It is not intended to show
the engine can accommodate failures and malfunctions that lead to
inadvertent transients that exceed the engine's certificated limits.
Special Condition no. 17 (Safety analysis) addresses potential effects

from exceeding maximum limits and transients. Results from the safety
analysis are used to decide how to manage the consequences of all
failures that can reasonably be expected to occur.

Special Condition No. 24, Temperature Limit

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 24 would require magniX
to ensure the engine can endure operation at its temperature limits,
plus an acceptable margin. An ``acceptable margin,'' as used in this
special condition, is the amount of temperature above that required to
prevent the least-capable engine allowed by the type design from
failing due to temperature-related causes when operating at the most
extreme thermal conditions.
    Comment Summary: Textron recommended that the FAA require the
applicant to consider environmental conditions and that the engine
temperature limit be substantiated at the worst-case environmental
conditions to ensure the engine cooling system performance is adequate
when the engine operates at the declared temperature limit.
    FAA Response: The FAA has changed final Special Condition no. 24
with a requirement for magniX to account for operating environments
when they establish a value for the engine temperature limit.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that Special Condition no. 24
include the following footnote: ``Acceptable margin, as used in the
proposed special condition, is the amount of temperature above that
required to prevent the least-capable engine allowed by the type design
from failing due to temperature-related causes when operating at the
most extreme thermal conditions.'' TCCA also recommended that Special
Condition no. 24 includes: ``Upon completion of the demonstration, the
engine must be within serviceable limits.''
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with this comment. The
following special conditions already incorporate the technical criteria
proposed by TCCA:
    Special Condition no. 1 requires magniX to comply with 14 CFR 33.8,
Selection of engine power and thrust ratings, for the proposed engines.
Section 33.8(b) requires that each selected rating must be for the
lowest power or thrust that all engines of the same type may be
expected to produce under the conditions used to determine that rating.
This requirement will address the temperature margins required for the
least (thermally) capable engine the type design allows.
    Special Condition no. 32(c) (General conduct of tests) has
provisions that require the engine and its components to be within
serviceable limits, safe for continued operation, and capable of
operating at the declared ratings without exceeding limits after
completing the tests identified in these special conditions.
    Special Condition no. 24 requires the engine design to demonstrate
its capability to endure operation at its temperature limit plus an
acceptable margin.
    Special Condition no. 12 (Stress analysis) includes a requirement
for a thermal stress analysis to show a sufficient design margin to
prevent unacceptable operating characteristics and hazardous engine
effects.
    Therefore, Special Condition nos. 12, 24, 32(c), and Sec.  33.8
address TCCA's recommendation. The FAA made no changes to the special
condition as a result of the comment.
    Comment Summary: EASA commented that the temperature limit is a new
requirement compared to the requirements in 14 CFR part 33, EASA CS-
E's,\11\ and the technical criteria in ASTM F3338-18. EASA stated that
the applicant demonstrates operation up to the limits as part of the
endurance test. EASA further commented that the engine's serviceability
after the endurance test is sufficient proof that the engine has been
designed and manufactured with margins compared to the limits declared
in the engine installation manual. Therefore EASA recommended removing
this requirement from this special condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.easa.europa.eu/certification-specifications/cs-e-engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with this comment. The FAA
included a temperature limit because it is directly related to a
primary failure mechanism associated with the novel technology used in
magniX's proposed electric engine designs. The FAA did not change this
special condition as a result of this comment.

Special Condition No. 25, Operation Demonstration

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 25 would require that
the engine demonstrate safe operating characteristics throughout its
declared flight envelope and operating range. The engine performance
data magniX will use to certify each engine must account for
installation loads and effects.
    Comment Summary: Ampaire stated that the terminology used in the
proposed special condition uses the term ``demonstration,'' and the
term used in the ASTM document refers to the requirement as a ``test''
(ref. ASTM F3338-18, section 5.20.8).
    FAA Response: As used in these special conditions, a demonstration
is a test, but the special condition also allows validated analysis to
show compliance. A test is required to validate an analysis, so the
requirement is always grounded in a test. The FAA made no changes to
the special condition as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: Ampaire suggested that in-flight restart
characteristics are a critical capability of electric engines and
recommended that the FAA require this capability as part of the engine
demonstration test. Airbus and TCCA also recommended that the FAA
require a demonstration of in-flight restart capability. In addition,
TCCA recommended that the special conditions require these
demonstrations to be conducted with a representative propeller.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the comments. Engine in-
flight restart capabilities are established at the aircraft level in
accordance with 14 CFR 23.2425(b), 25.903(e), 27.903(d), and 29.903(e).
These regulations also require installed engines to have a restart
capability within the aircraft's flight envelope. Therefore, a
requirement for magniX to verify the in-flight restart capability of
their engines during the engine certification program is not within the
bounds of these special conditions. No changes were made to final
Special Condition no. 25 as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA asked if a gearbox assembly is considered as
a single ``part'' of the engine.
    FAA Response: A gearbox assembly is not considered to be a single
part of the magniX engine. Gearboxes used in the magniX engines are
treated as an engine accessory. The 14 CFR part 33 requirements imposed
by Special Condition no. 1 that address engines with gearboxes and
apply to magniX engines are 14 CFR 33.3, 33.5, 33.25, and Appendix
A33.3. The special conditions that correspond to 14 CFR part 33
requirements that address gearboxes used in the magniX engines are
Special Condition nos. 2, 15, 20, 22, 23 and 26. No changes were made
to these special conditions as a result of TCCA's comment.

Special Condition No. 26, Durability Demonstration

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 26 would require magniX
to subject the engine to a durability

demonstration. The durability demonstration must show that each part of
the engine is designed and constructed to minimize any unsafe condition
of the system between overhaul periods or between engine-replacement
intervals if the overhaul is not defined.
    Comment Summary: TCCA commented that these special conditions do
not contain a modified 14 CFR 33.4 description of ICA for the intended
electric engine applications. TCCA suggested that ICA should represent
all the instructions required for the magniX engines to remain
airworthy, but that instructions for off-wing maintenance instructions
in the ICA would not be appropriate.
    FAA Response: These special conditions are not intended for all
electric engine certification projects. As required by Special
Condition no. 1, magniX must comply with Sec.  33.4, Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, and its appendix. These requirements are
appropriate to address the maintenance requirements for these proposed
engine designs. The FAA made no changes to the special condition as a
result of the comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended adding 14 CFR 33.19(b), Propeller
pitch control design requirements, to Special Condition no. 26, with an
opt-out option if the magniX engines do not have propeller-blade pitch
control systems.
    FAA Response: These special conditions apply to the magni350 and
magni650 model engines. These magniX engines do not have a propeller-
blade pitch control system. The FAA made no changes to the special
condition as a result of the comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended revising this special condition
to state, ``The engine must be subjected to a durability demonstration
to show that each part of the engine has been designed and constructed
to minimize any unsafe condition of the system and subsystem between
overhaul periods or between engine components/parts replacement
intervals. . . .''
    FAA Response: magniX's proposed engines must meet Special Condition
no. 29 (Teardown inspection) requirements after completing the
durability demonstration specified in this special condition. In
addition, magniX must meet the requirements of Special Condition no. 32
(General conduct of tests). These special conditions, in combination
with the demonstration tests required by these magniX special
conditions, achieve the objectives identified by this comment. The FAA
made no changes to the special condition as a result of the comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA suggested that the FAA modify Special
Condition no. 26 in a manner that results in the following revision:
``This test must simulate the conditions in which the engine is
expected to operate in-service, including typical start-stop cycles and
scheduled maintenance actions and must be of sufficient duration in
order to provide confidence in the durability of the engine.''
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the comment. The required
durability demonstration provides information for compliance to 14 CFR
33.4, Instructions for continued airworthiness, which is imposed by
Special Condition no. 1. If maintenance is required to complete the
test, the specific maintenance actions could become part of the
mandatory ICA. The discussion for Special Condition no. 32 contains
more information about maintenance conducted during a test. Special
Condition no. 32 (General conduct of tests) has criteria that permit
some maintenance to be accomplished during the test without incurring
additional mandatory ICA. The FAA agrees that the test duration can
provide confidence in the engine's durability. However, whether the
test duration is long or short, magniX will develop a maintenance plan
based on the test that magniX creates for their program, in accordance
with Sec.  33.4. The FAA made no changes to the special condition as a
result of the comment.

Special Condition No. 27, System and Component Tests

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 27 would require magniX
to show that the engine's systems and components would perform their
intended functions in all declared engine environments and operating
conditions.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that the FAA require magniX to
establish temperature limits for each component that requires
temperature-controlling provisions in the aircraft installation to
assure satisfactory functioning, reliability, and durability.
    FAA Response: Other special conditions address TCCA's concern.
Special Condition no. 2 (Engine ratings and operating limits) requires
magniX to establish a temperature limit that is necessary for safe
operation of the engine. Whether or not a temperature limit is
established for a component depends on the outcome of Special Condition
no. 17 (Safety analysis), which examines the consequence of engine
failure from high-temperature. If cooling is required to satisfy
Special Condition no. 17 (Safety analysis), the cooling system
monitoring features and usage are documented in accordance with Sec.
33.5(c), Safety analysis instructions. The FAA did not change this
special condition as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that the FAA require magniX to
establish voltage and current limits ``for each component that requires
voltage or current controlling provisions, or both, in the aircraft
installation to assure satisfactory functioning, reliability, and
durability.''
    FAA Response: Other special conditions address TCCA's concern.
Regarding voltage and current limits, Special Condition no. 2 requires
magniX to establish ratings and operating limitations based on power-
supply requirements for the engine. Whether or not voltage and current
limits are established for a component depends on the outcome of
Special Condition no. 17 (Safety analysis), which examines the
consequence of the component's failure from high temperature. The FAA
did not change this special condition as a result of this comment.

Special Condition No. 28, Rotor Locking Demonstration

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 28 would require the
engine to demonstrate reliable rotor locking performance and that no
hazardous engine effects will occur if the engine uses a rotor locking
device to prevent shaft rotation.
    Comment Summary: Wisk stated that this special condition does not
contain a requirement that ensures the rotor lock feature cannot be
enabled with a motor power set and also that its inadvertent activation
is sufficiently unlikely that no major engine effect can occur. Wisk
recommended that the FAA clarify if the term ``hazardous'' is being
used in the context of system safety or in general terms.
    Textron also requested that the FAA clarify the definition of
``hazardous effects'' and use that term consistently and recommended
the following be added to Special Condition no. 28: ``. . . that no
hazardous effects as specified in Special Condition no. 17(d)(2) will
occur.''
    FAA Response: If magniX implements a rotor locking device in their
engine design, Special Condition no. 28 will ensure the device exhibits
reliable rotor locking performance and will not cause hazardous engine
effects to preserve system safety. Special Condition no. 17 (Safety
analysis) examines the

consequence of accidental rotor locking while the aircraft is in-flight
and classifies the failure as either hazardous or major. The magniX
engine will need to meet the requirements of this special condition and
those of the safety analysis, which provide protection from inadvertent
rotor locking.
    The FAA clarified the terms ``hazardous'' and ``hazardous engine
effects'' as they are used in Special Condition no. 28 by adding a
reference to Special Condition no. 17(d)(2). The FAA changed final
Special Condition no. 28 as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: Textron requested that Special Condition no. 28
require magniX to consider the potential hazards from an automatic
rotor locking system. Textron stated that if the engine is shut down
during flight, and the locking device is automatic, the flight crew
needs to have a means to remove the locking device and restart the
engine without creating a hazard. The commenter recommended adding the
following to Special Condition no. 28: ``(b) When the locking device is
in place, an indication shall be provided so that the crew will be able
to retract the device while in flight.''
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the comment. magniX
verifies rotor lock performance and reliability using the tests
required by Special Condition no. 28. Typically, only rotorcraft have
cockpit indications for locking devices. Those rotorcraft cockpit
indications for locking devices are for main rotor transmissions, which
are aircraft-level components. If an engine lock position indication is
required to meet the aircraft safety objectives, the devices that
notify the crew are part of the aircraft safety system. The FAA did not
change these special conditions as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA commented that this special condition should
allow additional techniques to verify rotor locking performance. TCCA
also suggested that the special condition requires a demonstration of
reliable rotor ``unlocking'' performance.
    FAA Response: Final Special Condition no. 28 has been changed to
add rotor unlocking performance to the demonstration. However, allowing
the use of a validated analysis would render the demonstration
optional.

Special Condition No. 29, Teardown Inspection

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 29 would require magniX
to perform either a teardown evaluation or a non-teardown evaluation
based on the criteria of Special Condition no. 29(a) or (b).
    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 29(a) would require
that the engine be disassembled after the endurance and durability
demonstrations to verify each component remained within its service
limits and in a condition for continued operation in accordance with
Sec.  33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 29(b) would require
magniX, for ``non-teardown evaluations,'' to establish life limits
based on endurance and durability demonstrations.
    In final Special Condition no. 29(b), magniX is required, for non-
teardown evaluations, to account for engines, sub-assemblies, and
components that cannot be disassembled without destroying the
components. If teardown and inspection are not accomplished for
components or assemblies after testing, the maintenance requirements
for the engine are contingent on the demonstrated capabilities
exhibited during the certification tests.
    Comment Summary: GE recommended that the FAA clarify how life
limits will be established if magniX cannot complete the teardown
inspection of parts or components after the endurance and durability
demonstrations. GE stated that the life limits should be documented in
the engine's airworthiness limitations or the engine's ICA. TCCA also
requested clarification about how life limits are established for parts
and components that are not torn down after testing.
    FAA Response: Special Condition no. 29 can have an effect on life
limits. In the foregoing discussion of this condition, the FAA provided
additional information to clarify how maintenance (such as life limits)
is established for parts and components that are not torn down and
inspected after testing. Also, the FAA changed final Special Condition
no. 29 to require life limits resulting from this special condition to
be documented in the ICA, in accordance with 14 CFR 33.4.
    Comment Summary: Textron recommended that the FAA require
inspections of electrical components in the controller after the
endurance and durability demonstrations. Textron stated that, at a
minimum, the FAA should require inspection of the controller's
fasteners, heat transfer components, dissimilar metallic junctions, and
age or use affected electrical components.
    FAA Response: The preamble of these special conditions explains
that the magniX engine consists of an electric motor, controller, and
high-voltage systems. Special Condition no. 29(a) requires the engine
to be completely torn down and inspected. Special Condition no. 29(b)
contains provisions for engine components that are not disassembled for
inspection. The FAA did not change these special conditions as a result
of this comment.
    Comment Summary: An individual commenter suggested potential long-
term issues with main bearing lubrication related to grease life. The
commenter stated that these issues might not be evident after
completing a certification program.
    FAA Response: In response to this comment, the FAA has changed
final Special Condition no. 29(b) to require a life limit for the
bearing lubricant if the bearing is not disassembled after testing. The
FAA has changed the special condition as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that the FAA mandate additional
tests if the teardown inspection shows that part replacement is
necessary.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not concur with the comment. Special
Condition nos. 32(b) and (b)(4) (General conduct of tests) already have
the requested provisions for additional testing of parts that require
replacement during a test or based on their condition at teardown
inspection. The FAA made no changes to the special condition as a
result of the comment.
    Comment Summary: EASA commented that this Special Condition no.
29(b) was proposed to define the life limits of the tested components
based on the endurance and durability tests. EASA stated this special
condition was not aligned with ASTM F3338-18 and asked the FAA to
elaborate on whether the selected limit is the highest or lowest one
and how limits are compared if they are based on different test
conditions.
    FAA Response: ASTM F3338-18, section <IP_ADDRESS> establishes life
limits for an electric engine based on the length of an endurance test
if the engine is not torn down for inspection after the test. These
special conditions require individual life limits to be established,
based on endurance and durability demonstrations if individual
components are not torn down and inspected after the tests. This
special condition is consistent with the ASTM document EASA referenced
in their comment. Because these special conditions apply to the magniX
engine, the life limits will be based on the test conditions magniX
uses to assess their engines. The FAA made no changes to

the special condition as a result of the comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that Special Condition no. 29
apply the non-teardown requirement to those components that need
additional testing in accordance with Sec. Sec.  33.53(a), Engine
system and component tests or 33.91(a), Engine system and component
tests. TCCA commented that, as the special condition is currently
worded, some might apply the requirement only to internal engine parts.
TCCA also requested that the FAA modify the special condition to
require some post-test assessments for non-torn down components. TCCA
also asked that the FAA clarify the requirement that ``then the life
limits for these components must be established based on the endurance
and durability demonstrations.'' TCCA contended that, as this
requirement is currently worded, magniX could interpret it to mean that
all internal parts of the electric engine would not need to be
examined, including (Non-Destructive Testing) NDT, especially if there
is no overhaul.
    FAA Response: Special Condition no. 27 ensures that magniX
addresses electric engine components that cannot be torn down for
inspection. If the condition of these parts is questionable, then the
requirements in Special Condition nos. 32(b) and 32(b)(4) can be
applied for additional data to substantiate the life limit. These
special conditions address TCCA's comments. The FAA did not change the
special condition as a result of this comment.

Special Condition No. 30, Containment

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 30 would require the
engine to provide containment features that protect against likely
hazards from rotating components, unless magniX can show, by test or
validated analysis, that the margin to rotor burst does not justify the
need for containment features. The intent of this special condition is
to prevent hazardous engine effects from structural failure of rotating
components and the rotating parts that are built into them.
    Comment Summary: Textron stated that the wording in Special
Condition no. 30(a) relating to the required burst margin for the rotor
is vague. Textron suggested that the FAA incorporate the following
change to Special Condition no. 30(a): ``The design of the case
surrounding rotating components must provide for the containment of the
rotating components in the event of failure unless the applicant shows
that the margin to rotor burst unconditionally rules out the
possibility of a rotor burst.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the proposed change and has
modified Special Condition no. 30(a) to incorporate Textron's
suggestion.
    Comment Summary: Airbus stated that experience with electrical
generators has shown that axial ejection of debris might induce severe
damage to surroundings. Airbus stated that an axial containment
demonstration is feasible for electric engines and generators, and
therefore should be required by the FAA. Airbus said that this special
condition should require magniX to show full containment capability,
eliminating the need to identify forward- and aft-ejected debris in the
engine installation manual. Airbus recommended that the FAA modify
Special Condition no. 30(a) to state, ``The design of the engine must
provide for axial and radial containment of the rotating components . .
.'' Airbus also recommended the FAA modify Special Condition no. 30(b)
to state, ``If the margin to burst shows the case must have containment
features in the event of failure, the case must provide axial and
radial containment of the failed rotating components.''
    FAA Response: These special conditions apply only to the magniX
engine designs. Special Condition no. 30(b) is similar to Sec.
33.94(a), Blade containment and rotor unbalance tests, and Sec.
33.19(a), Durability, except this special condition includes the engine
rotors. This special condition allows magniX to approach containment
like turbine engines or provide full containment, as suggested in the
comment. If a magniX engine design cannot contain the rotors, life
limits will be applied in accordance with Special Condition no. 13
(Critical and life-limited parts). Therefore the FAA did not change
this special condition as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: EASA stated that the intent of the proposed
Special Condition no. 30(b) is not clear, since that paragraph requests
the case to provide containment of the failed rotating component while
requesting that the applicant define the energy level, the trajectory,
and the size of the released fragments. EASA asked the FAA to rewrite
Special Condition no. 30(b) to be differentiated from Special Condition
no. 30(a). EASA commented that Special Condition no. 30(b) should be
dedicated to those cases where containment is not ensured.
    FAA Response: Special Condition no. 30(b) provides a level of
protection similar to that provided by FAA regulations that manage
turbine engine blade failures, except it includes the engine rotors. It
precludes the release of high-energy debris radially outward of the
rotors. If the magniX engines qualify for the provisions in Special
Condition no. 30(b), fragments resulting from rotor damage, and that
travel forward or aft of the containment plane, must have their energy
levels and trajectories defined. The magniX engine configuration and
declared containment capabilities would determine if compliance with
Special Condition no. 30(b) is required. The FAA made no change to this
special condition as a result of this comment.

Special Condition No. 31, Operation With a Variable Pitch Propeller

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 31 would require magniX
to conduct functional demonstrations, including feathering, negative
torque, negative thrust, and reverse thrust operations, as applicable,
based on the propeller or fan's variable pitch functions that are
planned for use on these electric engines, with a representative
propeller. Also, since these electric engines may be installed with a
variable pitch propeller, the special condition associated with the
operation with a variable pitch propeller or fan is necessary.
    Comment Summary: TCCA commented that, in addition to the propeller
control, there is a risk that an electric engine controller could fail
and result in reverse engine rotation. TCCA suggested that the FAA add
a special condition that considers and minimizes the potential for
engine controller failures that could result in reverse engine
rotation.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the comment. Section
33.75(g)(2) provides a list of hazardous engine effects. The list
includes thrust in the opposite direction. Special Condition no.
17(d)(2) defines hazardous engine effects as those in Sec.
33.75(g)(2), with several additions specifically applicable to these
electric engines. These special conditions address the failure
described in the comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended revising the Special Condition
no. 31 text to read, ``. . . with a representative propeller or fan.
These demonstrations may be conducted in a manner acceptable to the
Administrator as part . . .''.
    FAA Response: The FAA has modified final Special Condition no. 31
to allow the Administrator to determine if a test is acceptable.

Special Condition No. 32, General Conduct of Tests

    The FAA proposed that Special Condition no. 32 would require magniX
to (1) include scheduled maintenance in the engine ICA before
certification; (2) include any maintenance, in addition to the
scheduled maintenance, that was needed during the test to satisfy the
requirement; and (3) conduct additional tests that the Administrator
finds necessary, warranted by the test results.
    The term ``excessive,'' as it is used in proposed Special Condition
nos. 32(b)(1) and (2), describes the frequency of unplanned engine
maintenance and the frequency of unplanned test stoppages that are
needed to address engine issues that prevent the engine from completing
the tests. Deciding if unplanned maintenance or test stoppages are
excessive requires an objective assessment of the reasons for the test
interruptions. For example, magniX may not be able to simulate a
realistic engine operating environment and may need to integrate test-
enabling equipment to achieve the test goals. The test facility
equipment may fail or cause an engine to fail during a test. Therefore,
unplanned maintenance might not affect the certification test results,
but if the FAA considers the maintenance or test stoppages to be
``excessive,'' additional testing or unforeseen ICA may be required to
comply with the certification requirements.
    Comment Summary: Rolls-Royce stated that it supports the
clarifications in Special Condition no. 32(b) with the understanding
that the term ``excessive'' in Special Condition nos. 32(b)(1) and
32(b)(2) allows for the rectification of some failures while the test
continues. Rolls-Royce suggested that aircraft engines that operate
using aviation fuel, operating at the extreme physical conditions
required by the endurance tests, sometimes suffer a failure that is
unrelated to the test conditions. The ability to review the failure
with the FAA, rectify the failure, and continue the test is an
important aspect of conducting these tests.
    FAA Response: The FAA's assessment of whether unplanned service and
maintenance during testing are ``excessive'' could include a variety of
factors, such as the causes of the stoppage, the effects of test
facility equipment, difficulties in simulating a realistic engine
operating environment, and whether the engine requires modifications to
complete the test. The applicant could also show that unplanned
maintenance did not affect the certification test results. The FAA did
not change this special condition as a result of this comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA commented that these special conditions do
not address the emerging issue of single event effects, which the FAA
is currently addressing via issue papers. TCCA recommended
incorporating those issue papers into the special condition.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree with the comment. The issue
paper that TCCA referenced is applicable to engines that operate at
high altitudes and high latitudes. Special Condition nos. 10 and 17
require magniX to account for the intended aircraft application. If
magniX engines can operate at high altitudes and high latitudes, they
could apply the referenced issue paper to the certification program.
The FAA made no changes to these special conditions as a result of this
comment.
    Comment Summary: TCCA recommended that the FAA clarify the
requirement in Special Condition no. 32(a) by including a reference to
14 CFR 33.4, Instructions for continued airworthiness.
    FAA Response: The FAA has modified the special condition to add the
requested reference to Sec.  33.4 to clarify that magniX must provide
the service and maintenance instructions in accordance with the ICA.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
magniX magni350 and magni650 Model engines. Should magniX apply at a
later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only magniX magni350 and magni650 model
engines. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for magniX USA, Inc., (magniX), magni350
and magni650 model engines. The applicant must also comply with the
certification procedures set forth in title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 21.

1. Applicability

    Unless otherwise noted in these special conditions, the design must
comply with the airworthiness standards for aircraft engines set forth
in 14 CFR part 33, except those airworthiness standards specifically
and explicitly applicable only to reciprocating and turbine aircraft
engines.

2. Engine Ratings and Operating Limits

    In addition to Sec.  33.7(a), the design must comply with the
following:
    Ratings and operating limits must be established and included in
the type certificate data sheet based on:
    (a) Shaft power, torque, rotational speed, and temperature for:
    (1) Rated takeoff power;
    (2) Rated maximum continuous power; and
    (3) Rated maximum temporary power and associated time limit.
    (b) Duty Cycle and the rating at that duty cycle. The duty cycle
must be declared in the engine type certificate data sheet.
    (c) Cooling fluid grade or specification.
    (d) Power-supply requirements.
    (e) Any other ratings or limitations that are necessary for the
safe operation of the engine.

3. Materials

    The engine design must comply with 14 CFR 33.15.

4. Fire Protection

    The engine design must comply with 14 CFR 33.17.
    In addition, high-voltage electrical wiring interconnect systems
must be protected against arc faults. Any non-protected electrical
wiring interconnects must be analyzed to show that arc faults do not
cause a hazardous engine effect.

5. Durability

    The engine design and construction must minimize the development of
an unsafe condition of the engine between maintenance intervals,
overhaul periods, or mandatory actions described in the applicable
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA).

6. Engine Cooling

    The engine design and construction must comply with Sec.  33.21. In
addition, if cooling is required to satisfy the safety

analysis as described in Special Condition no. 17, the cooling system
monitoring features and usage must be documented in the engine
installation manual.

7. Engine-Mounting Attachments and Structure

    The engine-mounting attachments and related engine structures must
comply with 14 CFR 33.23.

8. Accessory Attachments

    The engine must comply with 14 CFR 33.25.

9. Overspeed

    (a) A rotor overspeed must not result in a burst, rotor growth, or
damage that results in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in Special
Condition no. 17(d)(2). Compliance with this paragraph must be shown by
test, validated analysis, or a combination of both. Applicable assumed
rotor speeds must be declared and justified.
    (b) Rotors must possess sufficient strength with a margin to burst
above certified operating conditions and above failure conditions
leading to rotor overspeed. The margin to burst must be shown by test,
validated analysis, or a combination thereof.
    (c) The engine must not exceed the rotor speed operational
limitations that could affect rotor structural integrity.

10. Engine Control Systems

    (a) Applicability.
    The requirements of this special condition apply to any system or
device that is part of the engine type design, that controls, limits,
monitors, or protects engine operation and is necessary for the
continued airworthiness of the engine.
    (b) Engine control.
    The engine control system must ensure the engine does not
experience any unacceptable operating characteristics or exceed its
operating limits, including in failure conditions where the fault or
failure results in a change from one control mode to another, from one
channel to another, or from the primary system to the back-up system,
if applicable.
    (c) Design assurance.
    The software and complex electronic hardware, including
programmable logic devices, must be--
    (1) Designed and developed using a structured and systematic
approach that provides a level of assurance for the logic commensurate
with the hazard associated with the failure or malfunction of the
systems in which the devices are located; and
    (2) Substantiated by a verification methodology acceptable to the
Administrator.
    (d) Validation.
    All functional aspects of the control system must be substantiated
by test, analysis, or a combination thereof, to show that the engine
control system performs the intended functions throughout the declared
operational envelope.
    (e) Environmental limits.
    Environmental limits that cannot be adequately substantiated by
endurance demonstration, validated analysis, or a combination thereof
must be demonstrated by the system and component tests in Special
Condition no. 27.
    (f) Engine control system failures.
    The engine control system must--
    (1) Have a maximum rate of Loss of Power Control (LOPC) that is
suitable for the intended aircraft application;
    (2) When in the full-up configuration, be single fault tolerant, as
determined by the Administrator, for electrical, electrically
detectable, and electronic failures involving LOPC events;
    (3) Not have any single failure that results in hazardous engine
effects; and
    (4) Not have any likely failure or malfunction that lead to local
events in the intended aircraft application.
    (g) System safety assessment.
    The applicant must perform a system safety assessment. This
assessment must identify faults or failures that affect normal
operation, together with the predicted frequency of occurrence of these
faults or failures. The intended aircraft application must be taken
into account to assure the assessment of the engine control system
safety is valid.
    (h) Protection systems.
    The engine control devices and systems' design and function,
together with engine instruments, operating instructions, and
maintenance instructions, must ensure that engine operating limits will
not be exceeded in-service.
    (i) Aircraft-supplied data.
    Any single failure leading to loss, interruption, or corruption of
aircraft-supplied data (other than power command signals from the
aircraft), or aircraft-supplied data shared between engine systems
within a single engine or between fully independent engine systems,
must--
    (1) Not result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in Special
Condition no. 17(d)(2), for any engine installed on the aircraft; and
    (2) Be able to be detected and accommodated by the control system.
    (j) Engine control system electrical power.
    (1) The engine control system must be designed such that the loss,
malfunction, or interruption of the control system electrical power
source will not result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in
Special Condition no. 17(d)(2), the unacceptable transmission of
erroneous data, or continued engine operation in the absence of the
control function. The engine control system must be capable of resuming
normal operation when aircraft-supplied power returns to within the
declared limits.
    (2) The applicant must identify and declare, in the engine
installation manual, the characteristics of any electrical power
supplied from the aircraft to the engine control system for starting
and operating the engine, including transient and steady-state voltage
limits, and any other characteristics necessary for safe operation of
the engine.

11. Instrument Connection

    The applicant must comply with 14 CFR 33.29(a), (e), and (g).
    (a) In addition, as part of the system safety assessment of Special
Condition no. 10(g), the applicant must assess the possibility and
subsequent effect of incorrect fit of instruments, sensors, or
connectors. Where practicable, the applicant must take design
precautions to prevent incorrect configuration of the system.
    (b) The applicant must provide instrumentation enabling the flight
crew to monitor the functioning of the engine cooling system unless
evidence shows that:
    (1) Other existing instrumentation provides adequate warning of
failure or impending failure;
    (2) Failure of the cooling system would not lead to hazardous
engine effects before detection; or
    (3) The probability of failure of the cooling system is extremely
remote.

12. Stress Analysis

    (a) A mechanical, thermal, and electromagnetic stress analysis must
show a sufficient design margin to prevent unacceptable operating
characteristics and hazardous engine effects.
    (b) Maximum stresses in the engine must be determined by test,
validated analysis, or a combination thereof and must be shown not to
exceed minimum material properties.

13. Critical and Life-Limited Parts

    (a) The applicant must show, by a safety analysis or means
acceptable to the Administrator, whether rotating or moving components,
bearings, shafts,

static parts, and non-redundant mount components should be classified,
designed, manufactured, and managed throughout their service life as
critical or life-limited parts.
    (1) Critical part means a part that must meet prescribed integrity
specifications to avoid its primary failure, which is likely to result
in a hazardous engine effect as defined in Special Condition no.
17(d)(2) of these special conditions.
    (2) Life-limited part means a rotor and major structural static
part, the failure of which can result in a hazardous engine effect due
to low-cycle fatigue (LCF) mechanism or any LCF driven mechanism
coupled with creep. A life limit is an operational limitation that
specifies the maximum allowable number of flight cycles that a part can
endure before the applicant must remove it from the engine.
    (b) In establishing the integrity of each critical part or life-
limited part, the applicant must provide to the Administrator the
following three plans for approval:
    (1) An engineering plan that establishes and maintains that the
combination of loads, material properties, environmental influences,
and operating conditions, including the effects of engine parts
influencing these parameters, are sufficiently well-known and
predictable by validated analysis, test, or service experience. The
engineering plan must ensure each critical part or life-limited part is
withdrawn from service at an approved life before hazardous engine
effects can occur. The engineering plan must establish activities to be
executed both pre- and post-certification. In addition to the
activities that must be completed prior to certification, including a
reporting system that flows, back to magniX, problematic issues that
develop in engines while they operate in-service, to be addressed by
the design process. magniX must perform appropriate damage-tolerance
assessments to address the potential for failure from material,
manufacturing, and service-induced anomalies within the approved life
of the part. The approved life must be published in the mandatory ICA.
    (2) A manufacturing plan that identifies the specific manufacturing
definition (drawings, procedures, specifications, etc.) necessary for
the manufacturer to consistently produce critical or life-limited parts
with the design attributes required by the engineering plan.
    (3) A service-management plan defines in-service processes for
maintenance and repair of critical or life-limited parts that maintain
attributes consistent with those required by the engineering plan.
These processes must be part of the mandatory ICA.

14. Lubrication System

    (a) The lubrication system must be designed and constructed to
function properly between scheduled maintenance intervals in all flight
attitudes and atmospheric conditions in which the engine is expected to
operate.
    (b) The lubrication system must be designed to prevent
contamination of the engine bearings and lubrication system components.
    (c) The applicant must demonstrate by test, validated analysis, or
a combination thereof, the unique lubrication attributes and functional
capability of (a) and (b).

15. Power Response

    The design and construction of the engine, including its control
system, must enable an increase--
    (a) From the minimum power setting to the highest-rated power
without detrimental engine effects;
    (b) From the minimum obtainable power while in-flight and while on
the ground to the highest-rated power within a time interval determined
to be safe for aircraft operation; and
    (c) From the minimum torque to the highest-rated torque without
detrimental engine or aircraft effects to ensure aircraft structural
integrity or aircraft aerodynamic characteristics are not exceeded.

16. Continued Rotation

    If the design allows any of the engine main rotating systems to
continue to rotate after the engine is shut down while in-flight, this
continued rotation must not result in any hazardous engine effects, as
specified in Special Condition no. 17(d)(2).

17. Safety Analysis

    (a) The applicant must comply with Sec.  33.75(a)(1) and (a)(2)
using the failure definitions in Special Condition no. 17(d).
    (b) If the failure of such elements is likely to result in
hazardous engine effects, then the applicant may show compliance by
reliance on the prescribed integrity requirements such as Sec.  33.15,
Special Condition no. 9, Special Condition no. 13, or combinations
thereof, as applicable. The failure of such elements and associated
prescribed integrity requirements must be stated in the safety
analysis.
    (c) The applicant must comply with Sec.  33.75(d) and (e) using the
failure definitions in Special Condition no. 17(d) of these special
conditions.
    (d) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the following
definitions apply to the engine effects when showing compliance with
this condition:
    (1) A minor engine effect does not prohibit the engine from meeting
its certificated performance requirements and the intended functions in
a manner consistent with Sec.  33.28(b)(1)(i), Sec.  33.28(b)(1)(iii)
and Sec.  33.28 (b)(1)(iv), and the engine complies with the
operability requirements such as Special Condition no. 15 (Power
response), Special Condition no. 25 (Operation demonstration), and
Special Condition no. 31 (Operation with a variable pitch propeller),
as appropriate.
    (2) The engine effects in Sec.  33.75(g)(2) are hazardous engine
effects with the addition of:
    (i) Electrocution of the crew, passengers, operators, maintainers,
or others; and
    (ii) Blockage of cooling systems that are required for the engine
to operate within temperature limits.
    (3) Any other engine effect is a major engine effect.
    (e) The intended aircraft application must be taken into account to
assure the analysis of the engine system safety is valid.

18. Ingestion

    (a) Ingestion from likely sources (foreign objects, birds, ice,
hail) must not result in hazardous engine effects defined by Special
Condition no. 17(d)(2), or unacceptable power loss.
    (b) Rain ingestion must not result in an abnormal operation such as
shutdown, power loss, erratic operation, or power oscillations
throughout the engine operating range.
    (c) If the design of the engine relies on features, attachments, or
systems that the installer may supply, for the prevention of
unacceptable power loss or hazardous engine effects following potential
ingestion, then the features, attachments, or systems must be
documented in the engine installation manual.
    (d) Ingestion sources that are not evaluated must be declared in
the engine installation manual.

19. Liquid Systems

    (a) Each liquid system used for lubrication or cooling of engine
components must be designed and constructed to function properly in all
flight attitudes and atmospheric conditions in which the engine is
expected to operate.
    (b) If a liquid system used for lubrication or cooling of engine
components is not self-contained, the

interfaces to that system must be defined in the engine installation
manual.
    (c) The applicant must establish by test, validated analysis, or a
combination of both that all static parts subject to significant gas or
liquid pressure loads will not:
    (1) Exhibit permanent distortion beyond serviceable limits or
exhibit leakage that could create a hazardous condition when subjected
to normal and maximum working pressure with margin.
    (2) Exhibit fracture or burst when subjected to the greater of
maximum possible pressures with margin.
    (d) Compliance with Special Condition no. 19(c) must take into
account:
    (1) The operating temperature of the part;
    (2) Any other significant static loads in addition to pressure
loads;
    (3) Minimum properties representative of both the material and the
processes used in the construction of the part; and
    (4) Any adverse physical geometry conditions allowed by the type
design, such as minimum material and minimum radii.
    (e) Approved coolants and lubricants must be listed in the engine
installation manual.

20. Vibration Demonstration

    (a) The engine must be designed and constructed to function
throughout its normal operating range of rotor speeds and engine output
power, including defined exceedances, without inducing excessive stress
in any engine parts because of vibration and without imparting
excessive vibration forces to the aircraft structure.
    (b) Each engine design must undergo a vibration survey to establish
that the vibration characteristics of those components that may be
subject to induced vibration are acceptable throughout the declared
flight envelope and engine operating range for the specific
installation configuration. The possible sources of the induced
vibration that the survey must assess are mechanical, aerodynamic,
acoustical, or electromagnetic. This survey must be shown by test,
validated analysis, or a combination thereof.

21. Overtorque

    When approval is sought for a transient maximum engine overtorque,
the applicant must demonstrate by test, validated analysis, or a
combination thereof, that the engine can continue operation after
operating at the maximum engine overtorque condition without
maintenance action. Upon conclusion of overtorque tests conducted to
show compliance with this special condition, or any other tests that
are conducted in combination with the overtorque test, each engine part
or individual groups of components must meet the requirements of
Special Condition no. 29.

22. Calibration Assurance

    Each engine must be subjected to calibration tests to establish its
power characteristics and the conditions both before and after the
endurance and durability demonstrations specified in Special Conditions
nos. 23 and 26.

23. Endurance Demonstration

    The applicant must subject the engine to an endurance
demonstration, acceptable to the Administrator, to demonstrate the
engine's limit capabilities.
    The endurance demonstration must include increases and decreases of
the engine's power settings, and dwellings at the power settings for
durations that produce the extreme physical conditions the engine
experiences at rated performance levels, operational limits, and at any
other conditions or power settings that are required to verify the
limit capabilities of the engine.

24. Temperature Limit

    The engine design must demonstrate its capability to endure
operation at its temperature limits plus an acceptable margin. The
applicant must quantify and justify to the Administrator the margin at
each rated condition. The demonstration must be repeated for all
declared duty cycles and associated ratings, and operating
environments, that would impact temperature limits.

25. Operation Demonstration

    The engine design must demonstrate safe operating characteristics,
including but not limited to power cycling, starting, acceleration, and
overspeeding throughout its declared flight envelope and operating
range. The declared engine operational characteristics must account for
installation loads and effects.

26. Durability Demonstration

    The engine must be subjected to a durability demonstration to show
that each part of the engine has been designed and constructed to
minimize any unsafe condition of the system between overhaul periods or
between engine replacement intervals if the overhaul is not defined.
This test must simulate the conditions in which the engine is expected
to operate in-service, including typical start-stop cycles.

27. System and Component Tests

    The applicant must show that systems and components will perform
their intended functions in all declared environmental and operating
conditions.

28. Rotor Locking Demonstration

    If shaft rotation is prevented by locking the rotor(s), the engine
must demonstrate:
    (a) Reliable rotor locking performance;
    (b) Reliable unlocking performance; and
    (c) That no hazardous engine effects, as specified in Special
Condition no. 17(d)(2), will occur.

29. Teardown Inspection

    The applicant must comply with either (a) or (b) as follows:
    (a) Teardown evaluation.
    (1) After the endurance and durability demonstrations have been
completed, the engine must be completely disassembled. Each engine
component and lubricant must be within service limits and eligible for
continued operation in accordance with the information submitted for
showing compliance with Sec.  33.4, Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness.
    (2) Each engine component having an adjustment setting and a
functioning characteristic that can be established independent of
installation on or in the engine must retain each setting and
functioning characteristic within the established and recorded limits
at the beginning of the endurance and durability demonstrations.
    (b) Non-Teardown evaluation.
    If a teardown is not performed for all engine components, then the
life limits for these components and lubricants must be established
based on the endurance and durability demonstrations and documented in
the ICA in accordance with Sec.  33.4.

30. Containment

    The engine must provide containment features that protect against
likely hazards from rotating components as follows--
    (a) The design of the case surrounding rotating components must
provide for the containment of the rotating components in the event of
failure, unless the applicant shows that the margin to rotor burst
precludes the possibility of a rotor burst.
    (b) If the margin to burst shows that the case must have
containment features in the event of failure, the case must provide for
the containment of the failed

rotating components. The applicant must define by test, validated
analysis, or a combination thereof, and document in the engine
installation manual, the energy level, trajectory, and size of
fragments released from damage caused by the main rotor failure, and
that pass forward or aft of the surrounding case.

31. Operation With a Variable Pitch Propeller

    The applicant must conduct functional demonstrations including
feathering, negative torque, negative thrust, and reverse thrust
operations, as applicable, with a representative propeller. These
demonstrations may be conducted in a manner acceptable to the
Administrator as part of the endurance, durability, and operation
demonstrations.

32. General Conduct of Tests

    (a) Maintenance of the engine may be made during the tests in
accordance with the service and maintenance instructions submitted in
compliance with Sec.  33.4.
    (b) The applicant must subject the engine or its parts to
maintenance and additional tests that the Administrator finds necessary
if--
    (1) The frequency of the service is excessive;
    (2) The number of stops due to engine malfunction is excessive;
    (3) Major repairs are needed; or
    (4) Replacement of a part is found necessary during the tests or
due to the teardown inspection findings.
    (c) Upon completion of all demonstrations and testing specified in
these special conditions, the engine and its components must be--
    (1) Within serviceable limits;
    (2) Safe for continued operation; and
    (3) Capable of operating at declared ratings while remaining within
limits.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 10, 2021.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19926 Filed 9-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 34879]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11527]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4698-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4698-DR), dated April 2, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 13, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 2, 2023.

    Cross, Lonoke, and Pulaski Counties for permanent work
[Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-11527 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Summary of Teleconference with the Clean Energy Group

Regarding the Proposed Stationary Existing RICE NESHAP

November 2, 2009

Attendees

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA	Cathy Waxman, National Grid

Bob Wayland, EPA	Paul Lynch, National Grid

Melanie King, EPA	Victoria Simon, NYPA

Bill Maxwell, EPA	Dan Cunningham, PSEG

Michael Horowitz, EPA	Erin Gorman, PSEG

Bruce Alexander, Exelon	Zach Nuepo, Sempra/Southern California Gas

Cliff Gibson, Exelon	Carrie Jenks, M.J. Bradley & Associates

Bill McFarland, Exelon	Steve Piper, M.J. Bradley & Associates

John Quinn, Constellation	Kathleen Robertson, M.J. Bradley & Associates

Bill Slade, ConEd

Purpose of Meeting

	The purpose of this teleconference was to discuss the proposed national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE).  The
proposed NESHAP for existing stationary RICE was published in the
Federal Register on March 5, 2009 (74 FR 9698).

Summary of Meeting

The Clean Energy Group (CEG) requested this teleconference with EPA to
discuss their comments on the proposed NESHAP.  These comments can be
found in the rulemaking docket as document number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0088.  During the teleconference, the CEG
reiterated the major issues presented in their comments, including:
requirements for emergency engines at nuclear facilities, requirements
for black start diesel engines, demand response engines, and
startup/shutdown/malfunction requirements.  The CEG members stated that
black start diesel engines are mainly older engines with an average of
450 HP, and that they are not intended to operate for extended periods
of time and do not have sufficient cooling for extended operation.  The
CEG group members agreed to provide EPA with operating data for their
emergency and black start engines.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10127-10128]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03306]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4573-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4573-DR), dated December 10, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued January 13, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and

Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of December 10, 2020.

    Calhoun County for Public Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03306 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57173-57175]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22788]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67828; File No. SR-C2-2012-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Order
Auctions

September 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 30, 2012, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``Exchange'' or
``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposed to amend its Rules regarding complex order
auctions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On a class-by-class basis, the Exchange may activate the electronic
complex order request for responses (``RFR'') auction (``COA''), which
is a process by which eligible complex orders\3\ are given an
opportunity for price improvement before being routed to the complex
order book (``COB''). Rule 6.13(c) provides that prior to routing a
complex order to the COB, eligible complex orders may be subject to a
COA. On receipt of a COA-eligible order and request from the
Participant representing the order that it be processed through COA,
the Exchange will send an RFR message to all Participants who have
elected to receive RFR messages.\4\ The RFR message identifies the
component series, the size of the COA-eligible order and any
contingencies, but not the side of the market. Eligible Participants
may then submit responses to the RFR message

(``RFR Responses'') during the Response Time Interval.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An eligible complex order, referred to in Rule 6.13 as a
``COA-eligible order,'' means
    acomplex order that, as determined by the Exchange on a class-
by-class basis, is eligible for a COA considering the order's
marketability (defined as a number of ticks away from the current
market), size, complex order type, and complex order origin type
(i.e. non-broker-dealer public customer, broker-dealers that are not
Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-
Makers or specialists on an options exchange). All determinations by
the Exchange on COA-eligible order parameters are announced to
Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular. See Rule
6.13(c)(1)(B) and Interpretation and Policy .01 to Rule 6.13.
    \4\ See Rule 6.13(c)(2).
    \5\ The Exchange will determine, on a class-by-class basis,
which of the following two groups of Participants may submit
responses to the RFR message (``RFR Responses'') during the Response
Time Interval: (a) Each Market-Maker registered in the relevant
option class, and each Participant acting as agent for orders
resting at the top of the COB in the relevant options series; or (b)
all Participants. See Rule 6.13(c)(3). A ``Response Time Interval''
means the period of time during which RFR Responses may be entered,
the length of which is determined by the Exchange on a class-by-
class basis but may not exceed three seconds. See Rule
6.13(c)(3)(B). RFR response sizes will be limited to the size of the
COA-eligible order for allocation purposes and may be expressed on a
net price basis in a multiple of the minimum increment or in a
smaller increment that may not be less than $0.01, as determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis. RFR responses are not
visible other than by the COA system. See Rule 6.13(c)(3)(A). Rule
6.13(c)(4) through (8) describes the processing, execution, and
routing of COA-eligible orders, firm quote requirements for COA-
eligible orders, and handling of unrelated complex orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responders to the auction, not knowing the side of the COA order,
may send RFR Responses on both sides of the market. The System\6\ only
considers RFR Responses on the opposite side of the COA order. RFR
Responses that are on the same side as the COA order cannot trade with
it and thus are unnecessary, and as a result, the System automatically
rejects these RFR Responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The System is the automated trading system used by the
Exchange for the trading of
    options contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to provide that the RFR
message will identify the side of the market of the COA-eligible order
and to clarify that RFR Responses must be on the opposite side of the
market of the COA order. Identification of the side of the market of
the COA order in the RFR message will eliminate the entry of
unnecessary RFR Responses on the same side of the market of the COA
order that the System automatically rejects. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will therefore improve the efficiency of the
COA process by eliminating excess RFR Responses that can never actually
trade with the COA order. The Exchange believes that providing this
additional information to Trading Permit Holders in the RFR message
could result in more meaningful and effective RFR Responses. RFR
Responses that exist at the end of the Response Time Interval with
respect to COA-eligible orders will still be firm. The Exchange will
announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by
Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the
effective date. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days
following the effective date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
protects investors and is in the public interest because it will
eliminate the submission of unnecessary RFR Responses on the same side
of the market as a COA order (which the System rejects because they
cannot trade with the COA order), which will ultimately make the COA
process more efficient. The Exchange believes this added efficiency
could lead to more meaningful and competitive price RFR Responses,
which responses may result in better prices for customers.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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-C2-2012-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-030. 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 the 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-C2-2012-030 and should be
submitted on or before October 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22788 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20642-20643]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08274]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0244; FRL-10022-55-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Nebraska; Revisions to Title 129 of the
Nebraska Administrative Code; Chapter 39 Visible Emissions From Diesel-
Powered Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Nebraska on July 16, 2020. This proposed action will amend
the SIP to revise title 129 of the Nebraska Administrative Code by
removing a portion of the SIP that addresses visible emissions from
diesel-powered motor vehicles. Visible emissions from diesel-powered
motor vehicles are addressed in the state statute. Therefore, these
proposed revisions remove duplicative language that is redundant to the
state statute. The proposed revisions do not substantively change any
existing statutory or regulatory requirement or impact the stringency
of the SIP or air quality nor do they impact the State's ability to
attain or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
EPA's proposed approval of this rule revision is in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0244 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allie Donohue, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7986; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-
0244, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to amend Nebraska's SIP to include revisions
to title 129 of the Nebraska Administrative Code. The EPA is proposing
to approve revisions to the Nebraska SIP submitted by the State of
Nebraska on July 16, 2020. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to amend
the Nebraska SIP by removing a portion of the SIP as follows: Title
129. Chapter 39. Visible Emissions from Diesel-powered Motor Vehicles.
EPA is proposing approval of these revisions as they do not
substantively change any existing statutory or regulatory requirement.
These revisions do not impact the stringency of the SIP or air quality.
    Nebraska statutes 60-6,363, 60-6,364, 60-6,365, and 60-6,367
continue to provide the state of Nebraska the authority to use
smokemeter tests and enforce against excessive opacity from diesel
powered motor vehicles.\1\ Nebraska statute 60-6,363 defines diesel-
powered motor vehicle, motor vehicle, smoke, smokemeter, opacity, and
smoke control systems. Nebraska Statute 60-6,364 lists exceptions to
the definition of diesel-powered motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Nebraska state statutes can be found at https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/browse-chapters.php?chapter=60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title 129, Chapter 39 states, ``No person shall operate a diesel-
powered motor vehicle on any public street or highway in such a manner
that smoke discharged from the exhaust is of a shade or density equal
to or darker than that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart or
an equivalent opacity of twenty percent (20%) for ten (10) consecutive
seconds or longer.'' Nebraska statute 60-6,365 has the same
requirements with the exclusion of the phrase, ``public street.'' EPA
finds that this term does not impact the stringency of the SIP. Title
129. Chapter 39 also states, ``A suspected violator may demand that the
suspected vehicle be tested by an approved smokemeter prior to a trial
on the alleged violation,'' which is also listed in Nebraska statute
60-6,367 verbatim. Title 129. Chapter 39 states, ``smokemeter tests
shall be conducted (a) by or under the supervision of a person or
testing facility authorized by the Director to conduct such tests, and
(b) by installing an approved smokemeter on the exhaust pipe and
operating the suspected vehicle in a manner similar to the manner of
operation at the time of the alleged violation.'' Nebraska statute 60-

6,367 repeats this statement but replaces the phrase ``in a manner
similar to the manner of operation'' with the phrase ``at engine
revolutions per minute equivalent to the engine revolution per
minute.'' EPA finds that this change in phrasing does not impact the
stringency of the SIP.
    Nebraska statutes 60-6,363, 60-6,364, 60-6,365, and 60-6,367 will
continue to provide Nebraska the authority to use smokemeter tests and
regulate visible emissions from diesel-powered motor vehicles. The SIP
revision being proposed for approval by this action removes a redundant
regulation from the SIP and does not have an adverse effect on air
quality in Nebraska.

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice of this SIP revision from September 28,
2019, to November 6, 2019, and held a public hearing on November 7,
2019. In a letter to the state dated November 7, 2019, the EPA stated
that the agency ``has no comment on the proposed repeal of this
regulation.'' EPA further recommended that NDEE include a justification
that the rule is redundant to state statute. The SIP revision meets the
substantive requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to amend the Nebraska SIP by approving the
State's request to remove Title 129 Section 39. Visible Emissions from
Diesel-powered Vehicles. The removal of this portion of the SIP will
ensure consistency between state and federally-approved rules. The EPA
has determined that these changes will not adversely impact air quality
because the regulation duplicates the State's statute, which applies in
the same jurisdiction.
    The EPA is processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is proposing to
remove provisions of the EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations from the
Nebraska State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: April 15, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart CC--Nebraska

0
2. In Sec.  52.1420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry ``129-39'' under the heading ``Title 129-Nebraska Air Quality
Regulations''.

[FR Doc. 2021-08274 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 4143]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-749-000]

Mega Energy of New England, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Mega Energy of New England, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is February 4, 2013.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 14, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00984 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P