Office of Water Federal Advisory Committee on Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in EPA's Clean Water Act Programs Common Base of Information June 22, 2005 Office of Water Presentation Overview   EPA and Clean Water Act ( CWA) mandates   Statutory authority for analytical methods in EPA's CWA programs   History of detection and quantitation   Chronological   Emphasis on history in EPA's CWA programs   Where we are today   Note: information is intended for those not intimately familiar with detection and quantitation, and may be largely repetitive for those involved over the years Office of Water EPA and Clean Water Act Mandates   EPA's mandate is to " protect human health and the environment"

  CWA's mandate is to " restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"

  Detection and quantitation limits must support these mandates   Examples   Measurements need to be made at ambient water quality criteria levels to assure protection of aquatic life   Measurements need to be made to support waste load allocations for total maximum daily loads ( TMDLs) Office of Water Congressional Authority for Analytical Methods   Clean Water Act ( CWA) Sections 301( a), 304( h), and 501( a) provide the statutory authority for test procedures ( analytical methods)

  Section 301( a) prohibits discharge of a pollutant without a permit   Section 304( h) requires EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants   Section 501( a) authorizes the EPA Administrator to prescribe regulations necessary to carry out CWA functions   CWA methods are promulgated at Title 40, parts 136 and 405   599, of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), written as, e. g., 40 CFR part 136 Office of Water Characteristics of an Analytical Method   In environmental analytical chemistry, a method is a series of steps ( a procedure) that leads to a result ( concentration or amount) for an analyte in a sample   Method performance characteristics include   Precision   Recovery   Specificity   Detection and quantitation limit ( sometimes termed " sensitivity")

  The focus of this FACA is on how to establish, evaluate,

and apply detection and quantitation limits Office of Water Detection/ quantitation Limit History   Seminal work on detection and quantitation is by Lloyd Currie, recently retired from NIST   Published in Analytical Chemistry in 1968 ( 40, p586)

  Introduced terms of   " critical level" ( LC), " critical value" ( CRV); the " detection decision"; sometimes " detection limit"

  " minimum detectable value" ( MDV), " detection limit" ( LD)

  " determination limit", " minimum quantifiable value" ( MQV);

limit of quantitation" ( LOQ); commonly " quantitation limit" ( LQ)

  Currie's work forms the basis the ISO/ IUPAC nomenclature and standards, and nearly all other approaches Office of Water Detection/ quantitation History   ML   On December 3, 1979, EPA proposed the 600 Series organic methods ( 44 FR 69463)

  GC/ MS Methods 624 and 625 contained a " limit of detection" for each compound   In Method 624, the LOD was defined as defined as the " minimum level at which entire system must recognizable mass spectra and acceptable calibration points"

  In Method 625, the LOD was defined as the " minimum level at which the analytical system must give mass spectral confirmation."

  The LOD in Methods 624 and 625   Were estimates of the lowest level that could be measured and the basis for the minimum level of quantitation ( ML) Office of Water Detection/ quantitation Limit  MDL   Method detection limit ( MDL) was first published in a paper by John Glaser and others at EPA's laboratory in Cincinnati in 1981 in Environmental Science and Technology ( 15, p1426)

  MDL based on Currie's work   Employs low level spikes rather than backgrounds   Uses Student's t test to allow for varying number of replicates   Has remained largely unchanged since publication Office of Water Detection/ quantitation  ACS   In 1980 and 1983, the American Chemical Society's ( ACS's) Committee on Environmental Improvement adopted an approach similar to Currie's   " Limit of detection" ( LOD) nearly identical to Currie's " critical value" ( LC) and EPA's MDL   " Limit of quantitation" nearly the same as Currie's " limit of quantitation" ( LQ) Office of Water MDL and ML Promulgation   On October 26, 1984 ( 49 FR 43234), EPA promulgated:

  The 600 and 1600 Series organic methods at 40 CFR 136,

appendix A   The 600 Series methods contained MDLs as detection limits   Methods 1624 and 1625 contained MLs as detection limits   The MDL procedure at 40 CFR 136, appendix B   Method 200.7 for metals by ICP/ MS at 40 CFR 136, appendix C   Method 200.7 contained MDLs as detection limits Office of Water VEPCO Suit and Settlement   In early 1985, members of the power industry brought suit against EPA   The suit claimed, among other things, that the MDL procedure in appendix B should be applicable to the organic methods in appendix A only   On July 12, 1985, EPA signed a settlement agreeing to industry's condition   The settlement did not preclude future use of the MDL by EPA or the right of the litigants to bring suit over future use Office of Water Use of ML in OCPSF Rule   On November 5, 1987 ( 52 FR 42522), EPA published a final rule for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers ( OCPSF) industrial category   The rule was the first use of the ML as an effluent limit and data censoring point   Data below the MLs listed in Methods 1624 and 1625 were not considered in calculating effluent limits   No limit was set below 10 µ g/ L   Significant because MDLs were not used for effluent limits or regulatory compliance; instead, MLs were used   Nearly all subsequent effluent guidelines were censored to the ML Office of Water WQBEL Guidance   In 1994, EPA published draft " National Guidance for the Permitting, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Water Quality based Effluent Limitations Set Below Analytical Detection/ Quantitation Levels" ( WQBEL Guidance)

  Guidance suggested use of the ML as a compliance evaluation threshold when the ambient water quality criterion was below the detection limit of the most sensitive analytical method   Opposition   Industry  ML too low   States  ML not as protective as the MDL.

  EPA did not finalize WQBEL Guidance, but it precipitated further discussions of detection and quantitation limits Office of Water Refinement of ML   In support of the WQBEL Guidance, EPA refined the ML to be consistent with the ISO/ IUPAC LOQ ( at the time)

and the ACS LOD   ML = 10 times the standard deviation of 7 replicates   ML = 3.18 times the MDL   Directed at 10% RSD, although 10% RSD may not be achievable for some analytes in some methods Office of Water Alternate Minimum Level ( AML)

  In 1995, in response to the WQBEL Guidance, the Inter

Industry Analytical Group ( IIAG) advanced the " alternate minimum level" ( AML)

  AML = 10 times the interlaboratory standard deviation, adjusted to the true concentration and a 95 % prediction limit   Standard deviation modeled linearly as a function of concentration   AML led to modeling standard deviation vs concentration Office of Water Rocke and Lorenzato Two component Model   In 1995, David Rocke and Stefan Lorenzato published a paper ( Technometrics 37 p176) giving details of a twocomponent model of variability ( as standard deviation) vs concentration   Region in which standard deviation remains constant with increasing concentration   Region of Currie's critical value ( LC) and EPA's MDL   Region in which standard deviation increases proportional to concentration   Region of quantitation   Region between constant and proportional standard deviation   Transition region Office of Water ASTM IDE and IQE   In the mid to late 1990s, Robert Gibbons, David Coleman, Nancy Grams, and others worked through IIAG and within ASTM Committee D19 to develop the " interlaboratory detection estimate" ( IDE) and " interlaboratory quantitation estimate" ( IQE)

  IDE and IQE used a model of standard deviation or relative standard deviation ( RSD) as a function of concentration as the basis for establishing detection and quantitation estimates Office of Water EPA Method 1631 for Mercury   On June 8, 1999 ( 64 FR 30417), EPA promulgated Revision B to EPA Method 1631for determination of mercury by purge and trap and atomic fluorescence   MDL established at 0.2 ng/ L   ML established at 0.5 ng/ L   The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and others brought suit over, among other things, the detection and quantitation limits in EPA Method 1631 and how they were developed Office of Water Settlement Agreement   In Clause 6 of a Settlement Agreement signed October 19, 2000, EPA agreed to:

  Re assess procedures for determining detection and quantitation limits   Peer review the re assessment   Provide opportunity for comment on the re assessment   Publish a notice and invite comment on the re assessment by February 28, 2003   Publish a notice of final action on the re assessment by September 30, 2004 Office of Water Re assessment Study Plan Peer Review   In 2001, EPA developed a Study Plan for the reassessment   Although not required by the Settlement Agreement, EPA:

  Submitted the Study Plan to peer review and the litigants in December 2001   Conducted the peer review in accordance with the EPA Science Policy Council's Peer Review Handbook   Revised the Study Plan based on comments received from the peer review and the litigants   EPA also conducted a literature search on detection and quantitation to support the re assessment Office of Water Study Plan for the Re assessment   The re assessment Study Plan:

  Described roles and responsibilities for implementing the Plan   Provided a background discussion of detection and quantitation limit concepts   Outlined a series of 11 steps to the re assessment. Examples:

  Develop list of detection and quantitation concepts to be evaluated; e. g., ISO/ IUPAC ( Currie) LC, LD, LQ; ASTM IDE and IQE; ACS LOD and LOQ   Develop a list of criteria against which the concepts would be evaluated   Evaluate the concepts   Peer review the evaluation/ re assessment Office of Water Evaluation of Concepts   Evaluation criteria for detection and quantitation   The concept must be scientifically valid   It can and has been tested   It has been subjected to peer review and publication   It is supported by a well defined procedure   It has been accepted by the scientific community   The error rate is known or can be estimated   The concept must include routine variability   The concept must be applicable in a single laboratory   The detection limit concept should identify the concentration at which there is 99% confidence that the analyte is present Office of Water Evaluation of Concepts ( cont'd)

  Evaluation criteria for detection and quantitation ( cont'd)

  The quantitation limit should identify the concentration at which the reliability of the measurement is consistent with the capabilities of a method practiced by an experienced staff in a well operated laboratory   Detection and quantitation limits must be applicable to the variety of decisions made under CWA, and should support State and local obligations to implement measurement requirements at least as stringent as those set by the Federal Government Office of Water Datasets Used in the Evaluation   EPA evaluated each concept using datasets developed by EPA or submitted to EPA   ICP/ MS   9 metals at 12 concentrations from 10   25,000 ng/ L   Multi technique ( Episode 6000) study   11 analytes/ techniques; e. g., TSS, ammonia, phosphorus;

organics by GC and GC/ MS; metals by GFAA, ICP/ OES, and ICP/ MS   7 replicates at 16 concentrations, from 0.1   100x the MDL   American Automobile Manufacturer Association's study of 12 metals by ICP/ MS and mercury by CVAA   Method 1631 ( mercury) interlaboratory method validation study Office of Water Evaluation of Datasets   EPA calculated detection and quantitation limits using the various concepts   EPA MDL and ML; ACS LOD and LOQ; ISO/ IUPAC LC, LD, and LQ; ASTM IDE and IQE   Two concepts were combined because their implementation is identical   EPA MDL and ACS LOD @ 3x the standard deviation   EPA ML and ACS LOQ @ 10x the standard deviation   Comparisons of results published in tables in Appendix C to the technical support document ( TSD) Office of Water Technical Support Document   Results of EPA's evaluation of detection and quantitation limits were published in a " technical support document"

( TSD)

  TSD was subjected to peer review and submitted to litigants   TSD was revised based on comments received Office of Water Federal Register Proposal   On March 12, 2003 ( 48 FR 11770), EPA published a proposal in the Federal Register. The proposal:

  Met requirements in Clause 6. a. of the Settlement Agreement   Announced the availability of the re assessment, peer review,

and TSD   Proposed changes to the MDL procedure based on the reassessment and comments received   Proposed codification of the ML procedure at part 136   Invited comments on the re assessment and proposal   Based on requests, EPA extended ( re opened) the comment period on the proposal to August 13, 2003 Office of Water Comments on EPA's Proposal   Some comments were supportive of EPA's reassessment and proposal, but many were strongly critical   Some commenters provided suggestions for improving EPA's MDL and ML procedures; others provided suggestions for alternative procedures   Based on comments received, EPA revised the reassessment and TSD Office of Water Final Re assessment   On November 8, 2004 ( 69 FR 64704), EPA published a " Revised Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches"

  The revised assessment met requirements in Clause 6. f of the Settlement Agreement   The revised assessment was supported by a " revised assessment document" ( RAD), successor to the TSD Office of Water Withdrawal of Proposal   Also on November 8, 2004 ( 69 FR 64707), EPA withdrew the proposed changes to the MDL and codification of the ML   FR notice announced EPA plans to work with stakeholders to address concerns about use of detection and quantitation limits in EPA's CWA programs   The withdrawal was preceded by a September 15, 2004 ( 69 FR 55547) notice of EPA's intent to perform an assessment of the detection and quantitation situation   The FR withdrawal and September 15 notice left the status of the MDL and ML unchanged Office of Water FACA Formation   On December 29, 2004 ( 69 FR 77972), EPA announced a half day public meeting to be held January 26, 2005 to report findings in the " Situation Assessment Report on Detection and Quantitation Approaches and Uses in [ EPA's] Clean Water Act Programs" and formation of today's Federal Advisory Committee   On May 24, 2005 ( 70 FR 29743), EPA announced today's first meeting of the " Federal Advisory Committee to Examine Detection and Quantitation Approaches in [ EPA's] Clean Water Act Programs" Office of Water Where we are today   Lots of background information   This presentation   EPA's FACA and detection/ quantitation web sites   Water Docket for the re assessment and final assessment   Includes TSD and RAD   Notwithstanding the background information, EPA wants the FAC to operate from a clean slate to arrive at scientifically sound concepts and implementations of detection and quantitation   No prejudices; no intransigencies; no worries Office of Water Additional Information For additional information contact:

Richard A. Reding, Chief Statistics and Analytical Support Branch Engineering and Analysis Division ( 4303T)

Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 Voicemail: 202 566 2237 E mail: reding. richard@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19628-19630]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07546]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0186; Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-11-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, -85B, -90B, -94B, -
110B1, and -115B turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by
multiple reports of failure of certain stage 1 high-pressure turbine
(HPT) stator shrouds due to accelerated corrosion and oxidation. This
proposed AD would require initial and repetitive on-wing borescope
inspections (BSIs) for corrosion and oxidation, of the affected stage 1
HPT stator shrouds, and removal from service before further flight, if
the parts fail the inspection. We are proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the stage 1 HPT stator shrouds, resulting in in-flight
shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
General Electric Company, One Neumann Way, MD Y-75, Cincinnati, OH;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Web site: www.GE.com.
You may view the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0186;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-11-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received one report of an aborted takeoff, and multiple reports
of stage 1 HPT stator shroud distress resulting in engine removals on
airplanes with GE90 turbofan engines. Investigation revealed that the
stage 1 HPT stator shrouds failed due to accelerated corrosion and
oxidation. GE is still investigating the cause of the accelerated
corrosion and oxidation. This condition, if not corrected, could result
in failure of the stage 1 HPT stator shrouds, resulting in in-flight
shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to
the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GE90 S/B 72-1076, dated
November 19, 2012, and SB No. GE90-100 S/B 72-0528, dated November 15,
2012. The SBs describe procedures for performing BSIs of the stage 1
HPT stator shrouds for accelerated corrosion and oxidation.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive on-wing BSIs
of stage 1 HPT stator shrouds, part number (P/N) 1847M52P14, and P/N
1847M52P16, for corrosion and oxidation, and removal from service
before further flight if the parts fail the inspection.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The SBs require completing and sending to GE the Inspection
Findings Report Form after each inspection. This proposed AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 100 GE90
engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about four hours per engine to perform one inspection.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators for one
inspection to be $34,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings >We determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0186; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NE-11-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 3, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE):
    (1) GE90-76B, -85B, -90B, and -94B turbofan engines with stage 1
high-pressure turbine (HPT) stator shrouds, part number (P/N)
1847M52P14, installed.
    (2) GE90-110B1 and -115B turbofan engines with stage 1 HPT
stator shrouds, P/N 1847M52P16, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of failure of certain
stage 1 HPT stator shrouds due to accelerated corrosion and
oxidation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the stage 1
HPT stator shrouds, resulting in in-flight shutdown of one or more
engines, loss of thrust control, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(f) Borescope Inspections of the Stage 1 HPT Stator Shrouds

    (1) Perform an initial on-wing borescope inspection (BSI) of the
stage 1 HPT stator shrouds for corrosion and oxidation before
accumulating 2,100 cycles since new (CSN), or within 100 cycles in
service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (2) Thereafter, repeat the BSI of the stage 1 HPT stator shrouds
every 250 cycles since last inspection (CSLI) or fewer, depending on
the results of the inspection.
    (3) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD:
    (i) Perform the inspections using Section 3.A of the
Accomplishment Instructions of GE Service Bulletin (SB) No. GE90 S/B
72-1076, dated November 19, 2012; and
    (ii) Use Section 3.B of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB
No. GE90 S/B 72-1076, dated November 19, 2012, to determine the next
inspection interval.
    (4) For engines listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD:
    (i) Perform the inspections using Section 3.A of the
Accomplishment Instructions of GE SB No. GE90-100 S/B 72-0528, dated
November 15, 2012; and
    (ii) Use Section 3.B of the Accomplishment Instructions of SB
No. GE90-100 S/B 72-0528, dated November 15, 2012, to determine the
next inspection interval.
    (5) Remove from service before further flight, any stage 1 HPT
stator shrouds found with any hole further than 0.35-inch from the
shroud leading edge and hole size more than 0.25-inch diameter, or
more than 0.049 square inch area.
    (6) The inspection findings reporting specified in Section 3.A
of the

Accomplishment Instructions of GE SB No. GE90 S/B 72-1076, dated
November 19, 2012, and in Section 3.A of the Accomplishment
Instructions of GE SB No. GE90-100 S/B 72-0528, dated November 15,
2012, are not required by this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jason Yang,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, One Neumann Way, MD Y-75, Cincinnati, OH;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Web site:
www.GE.com. You may view the referenced service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 26, 2013.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-07546 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P