[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85129-85133]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26809]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-5809; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-055-AD;
Amendment 39-18709; AD 2016-23-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-19-12 for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. AD
2006-19-12 required inspecting the lower web of the aft fairing of the
engine struts for any discoloration, and doing related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary; inspecting the heat shield
castings for any damage and doing corrective action if necessary;
installing gap cover strips; and replacing insulation blankets with new
insulation blankets. This new AD retains those requirements and also
requires, depending on airplane configuration, one-time or repetitive
detailed inspections for cracking and deformation, as applicable, of
the aft fairing lower structure, and one-time or repetitive
conductivity inspections of the aft fairing lower structure, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD
also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted by a
report that an aft fairing lower spar web exceeded the allowable
conductivity limits. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 30,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
October 30, 2006 (71 FR 55727, September 25, 2006).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
5809.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
5809; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-917-
6438; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2006-19-12, Amendment 39-14769 (71 FR 55727,
September 25, 2006) (``AD 2006-19-12''). AD 2006-19-12 applied to
certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72621)
(``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a report that an aft fairing
lower spar web exceeded the allowable conductivity limits. The NPRM
proposed to continue to require inspecting the lower web of the aft
fairing of the engine struts for any

discoloration, and doing related investigative and corrective actions
if necessary; inspecting the heat shield castings for any damage and
doing corrective action if necessary; installing gap cover strips; and
replacing insulation blankets with new insulation blankets. The NPRM
also proposed to require, depending on airplane configuration, one-time
or repetitive detailed inspections for cracking and deformation, as
applicable, of the aft fairing lower structure; one-time or repetitive
conductivity inspections of the aft fairing lower structure; and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM
also added airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct degradation of the aft fairing lower web, which
could lead to cracking of the web and could allow flammable fluids to
leak into the heat shield pan castings, and increase the risk of an
uncontained fire and subsequent structural damage.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Exclude a Certain Line Number From the Applicability

    Boeing requested that we exclude line number (L/N) 940 from the
applicability of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the effectivity of
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated January 5, 2012;
and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March
6, 2015; erroneously included L/N 940.
    Boeing commented that a modification (installation of new gap cover
strip fillers, new Velcro strips, and improved aft fairing insulation
blankets) was introduced in production starting on L/N 940. Boeing
noted that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated
January 5, 2012, which is an optional terminating action in the
proposed AD, specifies procedures for that modification. Boeing stated
that, therefore, the proposed AD would mandate that the service
information be accomplished for L/N 940 even though the optional
terminating action was already incorporated in production. Boeing
commented that since the terminating action was incorporated in
production for L/N 940, the unsafe condition stated in the proposed AD
does not exist and the one-time inspection using Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015, is not
required for that airplane.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Since L/N 940 already has
the terminating action incorporated during the airplane's production,
we have excluded L/N 940 from the applicability in paragraph (c) of
this AD.

Request To Change the Compliance Time

    Boeing requested that we change the compliance time in paragraph
(j) of the proposed AD from ``24 months after the effective date of
this AD'' to ``750 days after the effective date of this AD.'' Boeing
stated that the compliance time of 750 days aligns with the proposed
compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time is
expressed in months for ease of compliance time awareness. We converted
days to months, and 750 days is equivalent to 24 months. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Inspection Language for Clarity

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the proposed AD to
clarify that the detailed inspections of the aft fairing lower
structure are intended to detect cracks and deformation, and the
conductivity inspections of the aft fairing lower structure are
intended to detect thermal degradation of the structure.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph
(j) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Address and Clarify Compliance for Certain Airplane Groups

    Air New Zealand requested that we clearly address compliance for
certain airplane groups. Air New Zealand commented that we have not
clearly addressed compliance in the proposed AD for Group 1,
Configurations 2 and 4, airplanes; and Group 2, Configuration 2,
airplanes. Air New Zealand stated it has airplanes that have
accomplished the actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, dated
March 29, 2011; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 1,
dated August 23, 2011; but have yet to accomplish the actions in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015.
Air New Zealand stated that if Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026,
dated March 29, 2011; Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 1,
dated August 23, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision
2, dated January 5, 2012; have been accomplished, the terminating
action in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD is achieved by accomplishing
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6,
2015.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree to clarify the
airplane configurations to make the compliance requirements in
paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD easier to understand and follow.
    Although paragraph (j) of the proposed AD did not explicitly state
the various configurations and groups for the initial inspection, it
was intended that the initial inspection would be done for all
airplanes and that the repetitive inspections would apply only to the
configurations identified in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD in the
sentence that specifies to do repetitive inspections.
    In paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, we have specified that the initial
detailed inspections must be done for all configurations, including
associated groups, within 24 months after the effective date of this
AD. In paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, we have specified that repetitive
inspections must be done (until the terminating action specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD is done) for airplanes that belong to Group 1,
Configurations l and 3, and for Group 2, Configuration 1, airplanes
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038,
dated March 6, 2015.
    For Group 1, Configurations 2 and 4, airplanes, and Group 2,
Configuration 2, airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015, operators do not
need to do the repetitive inspections on those airplanes. For those
airplanes, the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026
would have already been done and only the initial inspection required
by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD would need to done. Note that those
airplanes are listed in table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6,
2015, which does not specify repetitive inspections.
    We have modified paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify the airplane
configurations by identifying which groups are affected. We have also
modified paragraph (k) of this AD to accommodate the changes in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

Request To Use Boeing Information Notice

    Air New Zealand requested that we add Boeing Information Notice
(IN) 777-54-0038, IN 01, dated December

10, 2015 (``Boeing IN 777-54-0038''), to paragraph (j) of the proposed
AD. Air New Zealand stated that the information notice shows the
required parts needed to accomplish Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015.
    We acknowledge the intent of the commenter's request. However, the
parts identified in Boeing IN 777-54-0038 do not affect the unsafe
condition or the requirements of this AD as Boeing IN 777-54-0038
contains interchangeability information and the alternate parts are not
required. Therefore, operators can comply with paragraph (j) of this AD
by accomplishing the actions specified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038,
dated March 6, 2015. In addition, it is not appropriate to cite Boeing
INs as sources of service information in ADs because INs are not FAA-
approved documents. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Clarify Required Actions

    Air New Zealand requested that we clarify the required actions in
the proposed AD. Air New Zealand stated that it has airplanes on which
the actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, dated March 29,
2011; Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 1, dated August 23.
2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated January
5, 2012; has been accomplished, but the actions in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015, have not
been accomplished. Air New Zealand stated that it thinks if Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-54-0026 has been previously complied with,
terminating action is achieved once Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015, is accomplished.
    We agree to clarify the actions in this AD. We infer Air New
Zealand is requesting credit for having done Boeing Service Bulletin
777-54-0026, dated March 29, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-
0026, Revision 1, dated August 23. 2011. Paragraph (k) of this AD
describes terminating action for paragraph (j)(2) of this AD and refers
to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated January 5,
2012. We have added a new paragraph (l) to this AD to give credit for
prior accomplishment of the actions in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-
0026, dated March 29, 2011; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026,
Revision 1, dated August 23, 2011. We have redesignated the subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Clarify the Word ``New'' in the Proposed AD

    Boeing requested that we revise the Related Service Information
under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph of the NPRM and paragraph (k) of the
proposed AD to replace the words ``new aft fairing insulation
blankets'' with ``improved aft fairing insulation blankets with new
batting material.'' Boeing stated that the insulation blankets
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated
January 5, 2012, have improved thermal protection properties to the
insulation blankets, as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-54-0021, Revision 1, dated March 16, 2006, due to being
made from different materials. Boeing stated that, therefore, to avoid
confusion between paragraphs (g)(4) and (k) of the proposed AD when
referring to ``new'' insulation blankets, the distinction needs to be
made.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have changed this final
rule accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated
January 5, 2012. The service information describes procedures for a
detailed inspection of the gap cover strips and heat shield pan
castings for damage, corrective actions, and installation of new gap
cover strip fillers, new Velcro strips, and improved aft fairing
insulation blankets with new batting material.
    We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-
0038, dated March 6, 2015. The service information describes procedures
for one-time and repetitive detailed inspections for any cracking and
deformation, as applicable, of the aft fairing lower structure;
conductivity inspections of the aft fairing lower structure; and
related investigative and corrective actions.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 99 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and other actions      Up to 11            Up to $16,179,      Up to $17,114,      Up to $1,694,286,
 [retained actions from AD 2006-   work[dash]hours x   depending on        depending on        depending on
 19-12].                           $85 per hour =      airplane            airplane            airplane
                                   $935, depending     configuration.      configuration.      configuration.
                                   on airplane
                                   configuration.
Inspections [new action]........  Up to 24            $0................  Up to $2,040,       Up to $201,960,
                                   work[dash]hours x                       depending on        depending on
                                   $85 per hour =                          airplane            airplane
                                   $2,040, depending                       configuration.      configuration.
                                   on airplane
                                   configuration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary related
investigative and corrective actions that will be required based on the
results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these inspections and replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                           Labor cost            Parts cost         Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related investigative actions...........  Up to 36 work[dash]hours x              $0  Up to $3,060, depending on
                                           $85 per hour = $3,060,                      airplane configuration.
                                           depending on airplane
                                           configuration.
Corrective actions......................  Up to 38 work[dash]hours x              $0  Up to $3,230, depending on
                                           $85 per hour = $3,230,                      airplane configuration.
                                           depending on airplane
                                           configuration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2006-19-12, Amendment 39-14769 (71 FR 55727, September 25, 2006), and
adding the following new AD:

2016-23-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18709; Docket No. FAA-
2015-5809; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-055-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2006-19-12, Amendment 39-14769 (71 FR 55727,
September 25, 2006) (``AD 2006-19-12'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certified in any category,
as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-
0038, dated March 6, 2015; except for line number 940.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that an aft fairing lower spar
web exceeded the allowable conductivity limits. An investigation
concluded that wear to the pan casting and gap cover strips allowed
increased heat into the aft fairing heat shield cavity. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct degradation of the aft fairing
lower web, which could lead to cracking of the web and could allow
flammable fluids to leak into the heat shield pan castings, and
increase the risk of an uncontained fire and subsequent structural
damage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection, Installation, and Replacement Actions, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (f) of
AD 2006-19-12, with no changes. For Model 777-200 and -300 series
airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-54-0021, Revision 1, dated March 16, 2006: Except as provided by
paragraph (h) of this AD, within 12 months after October 30, 2006
(the effective date of AD 2006-19-12), do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0021, Revision 1, dated March 16,
2006.
    (1) Do a general visual inspection of the lower web of the aft
fairing for any discoloration and do any related investigative
action.
    (2) Do a general visual inspection of the heat shield castings
for any damage (crack(s), dent(s), gouge(s), warpage, fretting, or
missing/loose nutplates).
    (3) Install gap cover strips on the heat shield pans.
    (4) Replace insulation blankets on the heat shield pans with new
insulation blankets.

(h) Retained Repair Instructions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of
AD 2006-19-12, with no changes. If any damage, discoloration, heat
damage, or crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0021, Revision 1, dated March 16,
2006.

(i) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, With Revised Format

    This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (h) of
AD 2006-19-12, with a revised format. This paragraph provides credit
for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions
were performed before October 30, 2006 (the effective date of AD
2006-19-12), using Boeing Special

Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0021, dated June 23, 2005, except
where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0021, dated
June 23, 2005, does not provide an international annealed copper
standard (IACS) value for determining the results of the inspection
for heat damage, the maximum acceptable IACS value is 42 percent.

(j) New Requirements: Detailed and Conductivity Inspections and Related
Investigative and Corrective Actions (Repetitive Inspections for
Certain Airplanes)

    (1) For Group 1, Configurations 1, 2, 3, and 4, airplanes; and
Group 2, Configurations 1 and 2, airplanes; identified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015:
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed
inspection of the aft fairing lower structure for any cracking and
deformation, and do a conductivity inspection of the aft fairing
lower structure for the IACS value (thermal degradation indication),
as applicable, and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-
0038, dated March 6, 2015. Do all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions before further flight.
    (2) For Group 1, Configurations 1 and 3, airplanes, and Group 2,
Configuration 1, airplanes, identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-54-0038, dated March 6, 2015: Repeat the
inspections specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 24 months until the terminating action
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD is done.

(k) Optional Terminating Action

    Accomplishing a detailed inspection of the gap cover strips and
heat shield pan castings for damage and applicable corrective
actions, and installation of new gap cover strip fillers, new Velcro
strips, and improved aft fairing insulation blankets with new
batting material, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated January 5,
2012, prior to or concurrently with accomplishing detailed and
conductivity inspections and all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD,
terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this AD; except, where Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026,
Revision 2, dated January 5, 2012, specifies to contact the
manufacturer, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD that are identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated January 5, 2012, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, dated March 29, 2011; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 1, dated August 23, 2011.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(n)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2006-19-12 are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this
AD.
    (5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-917-
6438; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (o)(5) and (o)(6) of this AD.

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 30, 2016.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0026, Revision 2, dated
January 5, 2012.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0038,
dated March 6, 2015.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 30, 2006, Amendment 39-14769 (71 FR 55727, September 25,
2006).
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0021,
Revision 1, dated March 16, 2006.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 28, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26809 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51201-51203]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19730]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92898; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend its Price List

September 8, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 31, 2021, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate the (1)
underutilized monthly rebate payable to Designated Market Makers
(``DMM'') with 750 or fewer assigned securities in the previous month,
and (2) underutilized Supplemental Liquidity Provider (``SLP'') Tier 5.
The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on September 1,
2021. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website
at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to eliminate the (1)
underutilized monthly rebate payable to Designated Market Makers
(``DMM'') with 750 or fewer assigned securities in the previous month,
and (2) underutilized SLP Tier 5.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on September 1,
2021.
Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate an underutilized DMM rebate and
an underutilized adding tier for SLPs, as follows.
Underutilized DMM Rebate
    Currently, the Exchange offers an additional per share credit to
DMMs in each eligible assigned More Active Security with a stock price
of at least $1.00 on current rebates of $0.0034 or less, i.e., adding
credits of $0.0015, $0.0027, $0.0031, and $0.0034 per share.
Specifically, DMMs are eligible for an incremental rebate $0.0002 per
share in each eligible assigned More

Active Security with a stock price of at least $1.00 where NYSE CADV is
equal to or greater than 4.0 billion shares, when adding liquidity with
orders, other than Mid-Point Liquidity (``MPL'') Orders, in such
securities and the DMM either:
    1. Has providing liquidity in all assigned securities as a
percentage of NYSE CADV that is an increase of 0.30% more than the
DMM's April 2020 providing liquidity in all assigned securities as a
percentage of NYSE CADV, or
    2. has providing liquidity in all assigned securities as a
percentage of NYSE CADV that is an increase of at least 40% more than
the DMM's April 2020 providing liquidity in all assigned securities as
a percentage of NYSE CADV for DMMs with 750 or fewer assigned
securities in the previous month.
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the second alternative way to
qualify for the incremental rebate in its entirety and to remove it
from the Price List. The second qualification method has been
underutilized by member organizations insofar as no DMMs with 750 or
fewer assigned securities has qualified for the incremental rebate in
the past six months. As such, Exchange does not anticipate any member
organization in the near future would qualify for the rebate that is
the subject of this proposed rule change.
Underutilized SLP Tier 5
    Under current SLP Tier 5, an SLP adding liquidity in securities
with a per share price of $1.00 or more with orders, other than MPL
Orders, is eligible for a per share credit of $0.0031 (or $0.0012 if a
Non-Displayed Reserve Order) if the SLP: (1) Meets the 10% average or
more quoting requirement in an assigned security pursuant to Rule 107B;
(2) adds liquidity for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate
(including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same or an
affiliated member organization) of an average daily volume (``ADV'') of
more than 0.60%% of Tape A consolidated ADV (``CADV'') \4\ (for SLPs
that are also DMMs and subject to Rule 107B(i)(2)(A), more than 0.60%
after a discount of the percentage for the prior quarter of Tape A CADV
in DMM assigned securities as of the last business day of the prior
month); (3) has Adding ADV,\5\ including non-SLP Adding ADV but
excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, that is at least 0.80% of Tape
A CADV; and (4) executes an ADV, including non-SLP Adding ADV but
excluding any liquidity added by a DMM, of at least 250,000 shares in
Retail Price Improvements Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The terms ``ADV'' and ``CADV'' are defined in footnote * of
the Price List.
    \5\ Footnote 2 to the Price List defines ``Adding ADV'' as ADV
that adds liquidity to the Exchange during the billing month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate SLP Tier 5 in its entirety and
to remove it from the Price List. The tier has been underutilized by
member organizations insofar as no SLP has qualified for the tiered
display or tiered non-display credit in the past two months. As such,
Exchange does not anticipate any member organization in the near future
would qualify for the rebate that is the subject of this proposed rule
change. As a result of the deletion of SLP Tier 5, the Exchange would
renumber the remaining SLP tiers as follows. Current SLP Tier 1A would
become new SLP Tier 2. Current SLP Tier 2 would become new SLP Tier 3.
Current SLP Tier 3 would become new SLP Tier 4. Finally, current SLP
Tier 4 would become new SLP Tier 5.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) & (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange believes that the proposed elimination of the
incremental rebate for DMMs with 750 or fewer assigned securities is
reasonable because DMMs have underutilized the alternative
qualification for this incentive. No DMM has qualified for the rebate
in the past six months. The Exchange does not anticipate any member
organization in the near future qualifying for the rebate that is the
subject of this proposed rule change. Similarly, the Exchange believes
that the proposed elimination of SLP Tier 5 is reasonable. No SLP has
qualified for the rebate in the past two months, and the Exchange does
not anticipate any member organization in the near future qualifying
for SLP Tier 5. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate
rebates and credits when such incentives become underutilized. The
Exchange also believes eliminating underutilized incentive programs
would also simplify the Price List. The Exchange further believes that
removing the alternative qualification for the incremental DMM rebate
and SLP Tier 5 from the Price List, as well as renumbering the
remaining SLP tiers, would add clarity and transparency to the Price
List.
The Proposal Is an Equitable Allocation of Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates fees among
its market participants because the underutilized alternative
qualification for a DMM rebate and SLP tier the Exchange proposes to
eliminate would be eliminated in their entirety, and would no longer be
available to any member organization in any form. Similarly, the
Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates fees among its
market participants because elimination of the underutilized rebate and
credits would apply to all similarly-situated member organizations on
an equal basis. All such member organizations would continue to be
subject to the same fee structure, and access to the Exchange's market
would continue to be offered on fair and nondiscriminatory terms.
The Proposal Is Not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory. The proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because it
neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular
category of market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposal
is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed elimination of the
alternative qualification for the incremental DMM rebate and SLP Tier 5
credits would affect all similarly-situated market participants on an
equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes that
eliminating rebates and credits that are underutilized and ineffective
would no longer be available to any DMM or SLP, respectively, on an
equal basis. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change would
protect investors and the public interest because the deletion of
underutilized fees would make the Price List more accessible and
transparent and facilitate market participants' understanding of the
fees charged for services currently offered by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal relates
solely to elimination of an underutilized DMM rebate and SLP tiered
credits and, as such, would not have any impact on intra- or inter-
market competition because the proposed change is solely designed to
accurately reflect the services that the Exchange currently offers,
thereby adding clarity to the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \9\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \10\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \11\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2021-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-49. 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 website (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 website 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2021-49 and should be submitted on
or before October 5, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19730 Filed 9-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48391-48392]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20855]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; FRL-9984-46--Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Eureka Mills Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces
the deletion of the Eureka Mills Superfund Site (Site) located in
Eureka, Utah, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Utah, through the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective September 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: Eureka
City Hall, 255 W Main Street, Eureka, UT 84628; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Hours: M-Fri: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Armando Saenz, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, EPR-SR,
Denver, CO 80202,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Eureka Mills Superfund Site, Eureka, Utah. A Notice of Intent to Delete
for this Site was published in the Federal Register (83 FR 38672-38675)
on August 7, 2018.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
September 6, 2018. Two comments were received. One comment discusses
air pollution and air monitoring in China and India. The other comment
is about air travel. These comments are not germane to the proposed
ruling. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the
docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001, on www.regulations.gov, and in the
local repositories listed above.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: September 17, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``UT'',
``Eureka Mills'', ``Eureka''.

[FR Doc. 2018-20855 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6243-6244]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02339]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
February 6, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii)

and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed
Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Settlement of an injunctive action;
    institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 30, 2014.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02339 Filed 1-30-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64963-64965]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1038; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-250-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark
0070 and 0100 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    During a normal walkaround check on a F28 Mark 0100 aeroplane, a
large crack was discovered in the lower portion of the right (RH)
MLG [main landing gear] piston. The affected MLG unit had
accumulated 7909 flight cycles (FC) at the time of detection. * * *
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG
failure, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane
during the landing roll-out.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 6,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE
Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31
(0)252-627-211; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1038;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-250-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 based on 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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0221, dated October 14, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a normal walkaround check on a F28 Mark 0100 aeroplane, a
large crack was discovered in the lower portion of the right (RH)
MLG [main landing gear] piston. The affected MLG unit had
accumulated 7909 flight cycles (FC) at the time of detection. The
piston has been sent to Goodrich, the landing gear manufacturer, for
detailed investigation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG
failure, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane
during the landing roll-out.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time
detailed visual inspection of the MLG pistons, the replacement of
any MLG pistons on which cracks are detected, and the reporting of
all findings to the aeroplane TC [type certificate] holder. The
inspection results, in combination with the findings of the crack/
metallurgical investigation of the cracked piston by Goodrich, will
be used to determine the necessity of additional and/or more
detailed inspections, or any other corrective action. This AD is
considered an interim measure, and further action is likely to
follow.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-32-158,
dated October 2, 2009. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $1,530, or $255 per product.

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); and
    3. 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in
the AD docket.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2010-1038; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-250-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 6, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with
Goodrich (formerly Menasco, Colt Industries) main landing gear (MLG)
units having part number (P/N) 41050-7, 41050-8, 41050-9, 41050-10,
41050-11, 41050-12, 41050-13, 41050-14, 41050-15, 41050-16, 41060-1,
41060-2, 41060-3, 41060-4, 41060-5, or 41060-6.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    During a normal walkaround check on a F28 Mark 0100 aeroplane, a
large crack was discovered in the lower portion of the right (RH)
MLG piston. The affected MLG unit had accumulated 7909 flight cycles
(FC) at the time of detection. The piston has been sent to Goodrich,
the landing gear manufacturer, for detailed investigation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to MLG
failure, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane
during the landing roll-out.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time
detailed visual inspection of the MLG pistons, the replacement of
any MLG pistons on which cracks are detected, and the reporting of
all findings to the aeroplane TC [type certificate] holder. The
inspection results, in combination with the findings of the crack/
metallurgical investigation of the cracked piston by Goodrich, will
be used to determine the necessity of additional and/or more
detailed inspections, or any other corrective action. This AD is
considered an interim measure, and further action is likely to
follow.

Compliance

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

Inspection

    (g) Within 30 days after the effective day of this AD, do a
detailed visual inspection for cracks of the MLG pistons, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-32-158, dated October 2, 2009.
    (h) If any cracked MLG piston is found during the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight replace
the affected piston with a serviceable part, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-
158, dated October 2, 2009.
    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD, report the inspection results (including no
findings) to Fokker Services B.V. by using the Questionnaire
provided in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-158, dated October 2,
2009.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The applicability of the MCAI includes MLG part number
(P/N) 41050-6, which is not an affected part. P/N 41060-6, however,
is an affected part, and is included in the applicability of this
AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (k) For related information, refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2009-0221, dated October 14,
2009; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-158, dated October 2,
2009.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2010.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-26561 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


United States
Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Chemical Safety
   and Pollution Prevention
   (7101)
EPA 712-C-018
January 2012

Ecological Effects
Test Guidelines

OCSPP 850.3030:

Honey Bee Toxicity of Residues on Foliage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  NOTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  This guideline is one of a series of test guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.), and section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a).  Prior to April 22, 2010, OCSPP was known as the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).  To distinguish these guidelines from guidelines issued by other organizations, the numbering convention adopted in 1994 specifically included OPPTS as part of the guideline's number.  Any test guidelines developed after April 22, 2010 will use the new acronym (OCSPP) in their title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  	The OCSPP harmonized test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA.  This document provides guidance for conducting the test, and is also used by EPA, the public, and the companies that are subject to data submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or the FFDCA.  As a guidance document, these guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and the EPA may depart from the guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice.  At places in this guidance, the Agency uses the word "should."  In this guidance, the use of "should" with regard to an action means that the action is recommended rather than mandatory.  The procedures contained in this guideline are strongly recommended for generating the data that are the subject of the guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations. You may propose alternatives to the recommendations described in these guidelines, and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  	For additional information about these test guidelines and to access these guidelines electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select "Test Methods & Guidelines" on the left side navigation menu.  You may also access the guidelines in http://www.regulations.gov grouped by Series under Docket ID #s: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0576.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OCSPP 850.3030: Honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage.
(a) Scope --
      (1) Applicability.  This guideline is intended to be used to help develop data to submit to EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a).
      (2) Background.  The source materials used in developing this test guideline include OPP 141-2 Honey Bee Toxicity of Residues on Foliage (Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision L); and the Honey Bee -- Toxicity of Residues on Foliage Standard Evaluation Procedure.
(b) Purpose.  This guideline is intended for use in developing data on the residual toxicity to honey bees of chemical substances and mixtures ("test chemicals" or "test substances") subject to environmental effects test regulations.  This guideline describes an acute toxicity test in which honey bees are exposed to the test substance applied to foliage.  The Environmental Protection Agency will use data from this test in assessing the acute residual hazards to bees that a test substance may present in the environment.
(c) Definitions.  The definitions in OCSPP 850.3000 apply to this guideline.  In addition, the more specific definitions in this paragraph also apply:
	Acute Residual Toxicity is the adverse effects occurring over a period of time (hours or days) from a single dose of the test substance to foliage.
	Dose is the amount of test substance applied.  Dose is expressed as a mass, pounds of test substance per acre (lb/A) and for a pesticide pound(s) of active ingredient applied per acre (lb a.i./A).  The dose used in this test should be the maximum, single application dose allowable according to the end-use product labeling.
	Mortality: an animal is recorded as dead when it is completely immobile.
	RT25 is the residual time needed to reduce the activity of the test substance and bring bee mortality down to 25 percent (25%) in cage test exposures to field-weathered spray deposits (see paragraph (e)(2) of this guideline).  The time period determined by this toxicity value is considered to be time that the test substance is expected to remain toxic to bees in the field from the residual exposure of the test substance on vegetation at an expressed rate of application (lb a.i./A).
(d) General considerations --
     (1) Summary of test.  The honey bee (Apis mellifera) foliar residue study is a laboratory test designed to determine the length of time over which field-weathered foliar residues remain toxic to honey bees.  The test substance (e.g., a representative end-use product) is applied to crop foliage, the foliage is harvested at predetermined intervals post-application, and test bees are caged on the treated foliage for 24 hours.  Results are expressed in terms of the length of time following application, during which residues continue to cause significant mortality (24-h RT25) in test populations at an expressed rate of application (lb a.i./A).
	(2) General test guidance.  The general guidance in OCSPP 850.3000 applies to this guideline except as specifically noted herein.
	(3) Definitive test.  The goal of the definitive test is to determine the 24-h RT25, length of time post-application that residues of the test substance on foliage are toxic to honey bees.  For this determination, three treatment levels (three different time intervals between application and harvest) are typically used.  At a minimum, the test substance should be evaluated at the maximum label rate.  Multiples of the maximum label rate may be evaluated if desired.  A summary of test conditions is provided in Table 1 in paragraph (g) of this guideline, and validity elements for an acceptable definitive test are listed in Table 2 in paragraph (h) of this guideline.
(e) Test standards--
      (1) Test substance.  The substance to be tested is the specific form of a chemical or mixture of chemicals that is used to develop the data.  For pesticides, test substance is a representative end-use product.  OCSPP 850.3000 lists the type of information that should be known about the test substance before testing, and discusses methods for preparation of test substances.
      (2) Test duration.  The test consists of the placement of treated foliage into cages with bees followed by an observation period of 24 hours.  The treated foliage is harvested at various time intervals (3, 8 and 24 hours) post-application.  If mortality of bees exposed to the foliage harvested 24 hours after the application is greater than 25%, weathered, treated foliage samples should continue to be taken every 24 hours (i.e., 48, 72, 96, 120 hours, etc. after the application) and bees exposed to these additional samples for 24 hours until mortality of bees exposed to the treated foliage is 25% or less.
	(3) Test organism--
      (i) Species.  Honey bee, Apis mellifera, is the test species.
            (ii) Source.  Bees may be obtained from on-site colonies or from a commercial apiary.  All control and treatment bees used in a test should be from the same source and race.  Collection in early spring or late autumn should be avoided, as the bees have a changed physiology during this time.  If tests have to be conducted during these times, bees can be emerged in an incubator and reared for one week with "bee bread" (pollen collected from the comb) and sucrose solution.
            (iii) Age.  The test should be conducted using young adult worker bees that are of a similar age and feeding status.
		(iv) Acclimation.  No acclimation period is usually necessary.
            (v) Health status.  Bees used in the test should be in apparent good health.  Only bees from apparently disease-free colonies should be used, and they should be kept in conditions conforming to proper culture practices.  Bees treated with chemical substances, such as antibiotics, anti-varroa, etc., should not be used for toxicity tests for four weeks from the time of the end of the last treatment.
            (vi) Care and handling.  During holding and testing, bees should be shielded from excessive activity or other disturbance.  Bees should be handled only as much as is necessary to conform to test procedures.
            (vii) Diet and feeding.  A 50% weight/volume (w/v) solution of sugar/water (500 grams/liter) should be provided ad libitum throughout the holding and test periods.  Purified or distilled water should be used for the sugar solution.
      (4) Administration of test substance.  On the day of test initiation or the evening before exposure, young bees should be collected from frames kept in the incubator or directly from the hive, immobilized with cold temperatures, carbon dioxide gas (CO2) or nitrogen gas (N2), and placed in holding cages.  Exposure to CO2 and N2 gases should be kept to the minimum amount necessary to immobilize the bees.  Dead bees should be rejected and replaced by healthy bees before starting the test.  A portion of treated foliage, prepared as described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this guideline, is placed into a test chamber.  Bees in the holding cages are again immobilized, and introduced into the test chambers until each replicate test chamber contains at least 25 bees.  Test bees are also caged at the same time on control (untreated) foliage.  Bees are monitored and observed for mortality and signs of intoxication during the exposure period.
            (i) Preparation of treated foliage.  The test substance is applied to the test crop (alfalfa is preferred) at maximum label rate(s).  At predetermined post-treatment time intervals, treated foliage is harvested (90 gram (g) or 3,000 cubic centimeter (cc) allotment), and returned immediately to the laboratory to be chopped, mixed, and divided into 15-g or 500-cc portions and placed in test cages.  Foliage should be collected, using a random sampling scheme, from the top of the canopy (first 15-centimeter (cm) portion) of the plants and chopped into approximately 2.5 cm lengths.  Each portion is placed into a single test chamber.
            (ii) Treatment levels and post-treatment intervals.  At a minimum, the test substance should be evaluated at the maximum label rate.  Multiples of the maximum label rate may be evaluated if desired.  Residues are allowed to weather in the field for a specific time period prior to collection of foliage for testing.  Test samples are collected at 3, 8, and 24 hours after application.  If mortality rate of bees exposed to the 24-hour-old residues are expected or observed to be greater than 25%, sampling of test plots at 24-h intervals, followed by exposure of bees, should continue until mortality of bees exposed to the weathered foliage is 25% or less.  If so indicated by prior knowledge of the properties of the test substance, the post-treatment intervals may be spaced at some alternative time series.
	(5) Controls.
            (i) Paired negative (untreated) controls are included in the test.  Control plots are treated identically to treatment plots, except for applications of the test substance.  Control and test bees are kept under the same environmental conditions.
            (ii) A test is not acceptable if more than 20% of the control bees die during the test period.
            (iii) A concurrent positive control or reference test with a substance of known toxicity is not a condition for an acceptable test.  However, a quarterly or semiannual test with a laboratory standard (reference toxicant) is recommended as a means of detecting possible interlaboratory or temporal variation.  A laboratory standard is also recommended when there is any significant change in source of bees.
      (6) Number of test organisms and replicates.  In the definitive test, six replicates should be assigned to each treatment and control group, with a minimum of 25 bees for each replicate.  Test organisms are impartially or randomly assigned to dose levels in such a manner that the test results show no significant bias from the distributions.
	(7) Facilities, apparatus and supplies--
            (i) Facilities.  Tests should be conducted indoors to control lighting and other environmental variables, with bees being maintained in small test chambers.
            (ii) Test chambers.  Test chambers may be constructed of metal, plastic, wire mesh, or cardboard, or a combination of these materials.  Chambers should be constructed so that a vial containing sugar water may be attached.
		(iii) Field plots and harvest of foliage.
            (A) A single application of the test substance should be made to each of nine alfalfa plots.  Plots should be at least 1 square meter (m[2]) (10.8 square feet) in alfalfa grown according to standard agricultural practices.  Applications should be made with a hand sprayer.  Nine test substance treatment plots are used to obtain three plots for harvesting at each of three time intervals, at a minimum (see paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this guideline).  After test substance residues have aged for the appropriate time period, alfalfa foliage sufficient to place in six treatment cages (90 g or 3,000 cc total), should be harvested from three test plots using a random sampling scheme, and returned immediately to the laboratory for processing and placement in test cages.  The foliage from each of the three plots per time interval is chopped, mixed and then impartially allocated into 15-g or 500-cc portions for placement in each of six replicate test chambers.  An alternative procedure is to apply the test substance at three different initial times and harvest the alfalfa at the same time.  Additionally, three control plots are maintained and treated identically to the treatment plots, with the exception of test substance application.  At each of the three time intervals (additional time intervals may be appropriate; see paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this guideline) the three control plots are harvested, using a random sampling scheme, to obtain sufficient foliage to place in six control cages.
            (B) If the validity or integrity of the study is affected by weather (specifically, precipitation and/or temperature) then the tests should be replicated over time to reduce the variability due to weather conditions.  Precipitation and temperature are two extremely important factors in the breakdown of pesticide residue.
      (8) Environmental conditions.  Environmental parameters in the laboratory during the test should be maintained as follows:
            (i) Temperature and humidity.  Temperature should be maintained between 25 and 35 degrees Celsius ([o]C), with relative humidity between 50% and 80%.
            (ii) Lighting and photoperiod.  It is recommended that test bees be maintained in the dark except during transfer to test cages and observations.
	(9) Observations--
            (i) Analysis for test substance concentrations.  Test substance residues on treated foliage are measured in ppm fresh weight.  Foliage residue sampling and analysis should be made immediately after the application when test substance has dried and on harvested foliage (3, 8, 24 h post-application, or longer as needed) used for bee mortality testing.
            (ii) Field site conditions.  Environmental conditions should be monitored at the field site during and after test substance application.  Environmental information to be collected should include temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, wind speed, and estimated cloud cover.
		(iii) Measures of Effect--
                  (A) Mortality.  For a given weathered residue treatment or control, bees should be observed for mortality at least once during the first 4 h after exposure and at test termination (24 hours).  Dead bees should not be removed from the test chambers until the test is terminated.
                  (B) Appearance and behavior.  For a given weathered residue treatment or control, bees should be observed for all signs of intoxication and any other abnormal behavior once during the first 4 h after exposure and at test termination.  Observations should be recorded by treatment level and by time of occurrence.  Signs of intoxication are those behaviors apparently due to the test substance and may include a wide variety of behaviors, such as ataxia, lethargy, and hypersensitivity.  Prior to the evaluation at test termination, observations should be made without disturbing or removing bees from the test chambers; for these observations, estimates of mortality and effects are sufficient.

(f) Treatment of results--
      (1) Descriptive summary statistics--
            (i) Environmental conditions.  Data should be summarized in tabular form, showing the range and mean temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and wind speed.
            (ii) Mortality.  Data should be summarized in tabular form, showing for each weathered age of foliage treatment and control the number of bees initially exposed, mortality at each observation time, and the percent mortality.
            (iii) Appearance and behavior.  Data should be summarized in tabular form, showing for each weathered age of foliage, appearance and behavior at each observation time, and the percent mortality.
      (2) Residual Time (RT25).  A test for comparing two paired populations (e.g., paired t-test) should be performed to detect significant difference of treatments from controls.  The 24-h RT25 is estimated using linear interpolation; Abbott's correction (see paragraph (j)(1) of this guideline) should be used in the event of control mortality.  Additional discussion about measurement endpoints and statistical procedures is found in OCSPP 850.3000.
(g) Tabular summary of test conditions.  Table 1 lists the important conditions that should prevail during the definitive test.  Meeting these conditions will greatly increase the likelihood that the completed test will be acceptable or valid.

Table 1. -- Summary of Test Conditions for Honey Bee Toxicity of Residues on Foliage Test
Test type
Toxicity of residues on foliage
Test duration
24 h for each aged residue interval (3, 8, and 24 h aged residue intervals are tested; additional residue intervals may be appropriate).
Temperature
25 - 35 [o]C
Relative humidity
50  -  80%
Lighting
Darkness, except during transfer of bees to treatment cages and observations
Test chamber
Metal, plastic, wire mesh, or cardboard
Test substance application
15-g or 500-cc portions of treated foliage (hand sprayer used to apply test solution to foliage) placed in a test cage
Age of test bees
Young adult worker bees of similar age and feeding status
Number of bees per chamber
25 (minimum)
Number of bees per treatment and control
150 (minimum)
Number of treatments
Minimum of 3 treatment groups (3, 8 and 24 h post application of maximum label rate) plus paired negative control(s) if mortality is <25% for the 24 h post-application treatment.
Feeding
50% sugar/water (w/v) solution ad libitum
Measure of Effect or Measurement Endpoint
RT25 based upon mortality at 24 hours after bees are caged on foliage

(h) Test validity elements.  This test would be considered to be unacceptable or invalid if one or more of the conditions in Table 2 occurred.  This list should not be misconstrued as limiting the reason(s) that a test could be found unacceptable or invalid.  However, except for the conditions listed in Table 2 and in OCSPP 850.3000, it is unlikely a study will be rejected when there are slight variations from guideline environmental conditions and study design unless the control organisms are significantly affected, the precision of the test is reduced, the power of a test to detect differences is reduced, and/or significant biases are introduced in defining the magnitude of effect on measurement endpoints as compared to guideline conditions.  Before departing significantly from this guideline, the investigator should contact the Agency to discuss the reason for the departure and the effect the change(s) will have on test acceptability. In the test report, all departures from the guideline should be identified, reasons for these changes given, and any resulting effects on test endpoints noted and discussed.

	Table 2. -- Test Validity Elements for Honey Bee Toxicity of Residue on Foliage Test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Test bees were not of similar age and feeding status.

2. More than 20% of the test bees in any control treatment were dead at the end of the test.

3. All bees in a test were not from the same source.

4. Concurrent negative (untreated) controls were not included in the test.

5. Environmental conditions (temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, wind speed and cloud cover) at the field site were not monitored.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Test organisms were not impartially or randomly assigned to test chambers.

(i) Reporting--
      (1) Background information.  Background information to be supplied in the report consists at a minimum of those background information items listed in paragraph (j)(1) of OCSPP 850.3000.
      (2) Guideline deviations.  Include a description of any deviations from the test guideline or any occurrences which may have influenced the results of the test.
      (3) Test substance.
            (i) End-use product (name, state or form, source), its purity (for pesticides, the identity (common name, IUPAC and CAS names, CAS number) and concentration of active ingredient(s)), and known physical and chemical properties that are pertinent to the test.
		(ii) Storage conditions of the test substance.
            (iii) Methods of preparation of test substance for application onto foliage, the maximum label rate, and the actual application rate (lb a.i./A) with the finished spray volume per acre.
            (iv) If residue analysis is performed on foliage, describe the stability of the test substance under storage conditions.
	(4) Test organisms.
      (i) Scientific name, race, and source.
		(ii) Culture method and conditions.
            (iii) Health status of colonies used for collection of test bees (e.g., any adult diseases, use and application date(s) of any prophylactic or preventative treatments).
		(iv) Collection method and date of collection.
		(v) Holding period.
		(vi) Age at initiation of exposure to an aged residue treatment.
      (5) Test system and conditions.  Description of the test system and conditions used in the definitive test.
		(i) Description of housing conditions: type, size, and material of test cages.
            (ii) Description of any feeding during the test (if applicable), including: method, type of food, source, amount given and frequency.
		(iii) Common and scientific name of treated crop.
		(iv) Plot size, and method and time of administration of test substance on plots.
		(v) Number of aging intervals tested.
            (vi) Time after application to plot of foliage collection (age intervals tested) and placement of foliage in test chambers.
		(vii) Plots per aging interval and negative control.
		(viii) Number of bees per test cage.
		(ix) Number of cages (replicates) per aging interval plot and negative control plot.
            (x) Methods used for test cage and treatment randomization as well as methods for impartial assignment of bees to test cages.
		(xi) Exposure duration to a given aged residue and duration of the study.
            (xii) Methods and frequency of environmental monitoring performed on treated plots during administration of test substance and weathering period for temperature and precipitation, and any other known weather conditions that would impact initial concentration or stability of residue levels on treated plots.
            (xiii) Methods and frequency of environmental monitoring performed during the definitive study or positive control study for test room temperature, humidity and lighting.
            (xiv) For the definitive test, all analytical procedures and preservation methods should be described.  The accuracy of the method, method detection limit, and limit of quantification should be given.
	(6) Results.
            (i) Laboratory environmental monitoring data results (test room temperature, humidity and lighting) in tabular form (provide raw data for measurements not made on a continuous basis), and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
      	(ii) Field site environmental monitoring data results (temperature, precipitation, wind speed, relative humidity, cloud cover) in tabular form (provide raw data for measurements not made on a continuous basis), and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
      	(iii) For a positive control or reference study the number of dead bees observed at 24 hours (provide the raw data).
      	(iv) For the definitive test, the number of dead bees which were observed at least once during the first 4 hours of exposure and at 24 hours (provide the raw data).
      	(v) For the definitive test, a description of signs of intoxication and other abnormal behavior, including time of onset, duration, severity, and number affected at each aged residue treatment and control(s) (provide the raw data).
      	(vi) For the definitive and any positive control or reference studies provide 24-h RT25 values.
      	(vii) Description of method used, including software package, for determining the 24-h RT25 value.
      	(viii) Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to detect significant differences of treatment groups from the controls.
(j) References.  The references in this paragraph should be consulted for additional background material on this test guideline.
	(1) Abbott, W.S., 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18:265-267.
	(2) Johansen, C. et al., 1977. Bee Research Investigations. Dept. of Entomology, Washington State University, unpublished, 22 pp.
	(3) Lagier, R.F. et al., 1974. Adjuvants Decrease Insecticide Hazard to Honey Bees. College of Agriculture Research Center, Washington State University Bulletin 801, 7 pp.
	(4) Mayer, D. and C. Johansen, 1990. Pollinator Protection: A Bee & Pesticide Handbook. Wicwas Press. Cheshire, CT.
	(5) Mayer, D. (approved by), 1996. Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) - Residue Bioassay. The Bee Group-Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center. Prosser, WA.
	(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision L Hazard Evaluation: Nontarget Insects.  Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., EPA-540/9-82-019.
	(7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985.  Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure, Honey Bee -- Toxicity of Residues on Foliage.  Office of Pesticides Programs, Washington, D.C., EPA-540/9-85-003.