Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45307 

State education agencies that administer 

child nutrition programs and with 

organizations representing State and 

local inspection agencies. These 

discussions provided FNS an 

opportunity to inform State and local 

officials about the new inspection 

requirement and to hear their concerns. 

FNS also issued an interim rule to 

solicit pubic comments. 

Nature of Concerns and Need To Issue 

This Rule 

The main concern of the State and 

local program operators and inspection 

agencies is the cost associated with the 

increased inspection requirement. Some 

schools now have to pay or pay more for 

the food safety inspections, and some 

inspection agencies have limited staff to 

handle the increased inspection load. 

Although we are aware that compliance 

with this requirement may still be 

difficult in some areas, it is our 

responsibility to implement these 

mandatory statutory requirements 

which are non-discretionary. 

Extent to Which FNS Meets Those 

Concerns 

FNS has considered the comments 

and suggestions offered by State and 

local program operators, inspection 

agencies and others, but we are unable 

to make changes that are inconsistent 

with the inspection requirement as 

prescribed by the law. We will continue 

to provide information and guidance to 

those affected by this rule and to 

encourage regulatory agencies to help 

schools comply with this rule. 

To minimize the impact of this rule, 

FNS will continue to apply the 

inspections requirement to preparation 

and service sites rather than to 

individual meal programs (NSLP and 

SBP). FNS will allow inspections 

performed under the Summer Food 

Service Program and the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program to count 

toward this requirement if all the meal 

programs use the same food service 

facility. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule has a preemptive 

effect with respect to any State or local 

laws, regulations or policies which 

conflict with its provisions or which 

would otherwise impede its full 

implementation. This rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect 

unless so specified in the Effective Date 

paragraph of this rule. Prior to any 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

this rule or the application of its 

provisions, all applicable administrative 

procedures under section 210.18(q) 

must be exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this final rule in 

accordance with the Department 

Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis,’’ to identify any major civil 

rights impacts the rule might have on 

children on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, sex, age or disability. 

After a careful review of the rule’s intent 

and provisions, FNS has determined 

that it does not affect the participation 

of protected individuals in the National 

School Lunch and School Breakfast 

Programs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35, see 5 CFR part 

1320) requires that OMB approve all 

collections of information by a Federal 

agency from the public before they can 

be implemented. Respondents are not 

required to respond to any collection of 

information unless it displays a current 

valid OMB control number. The 

information collection requirements 

associated with this action were 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget on May 29, 2009 under 

OMB Control Number 0584–0006, 

Expiration date May 31, 2012, which 

contains the information collection 

activities in the NSLP. 

The entire School Food Safety 

Inspection data collection burden for 

both NSLP and SBP operators is 

contained only in OMB Control Number 

0584–0006 and not the SBP (OMB 

Control Number 2, Expiration May 31, 

2012) because the NSLP is a larger 

nutrition program and food safety 

inspections conducted in the NSLP 

count toward the inspection 

requirement in both meal programs. The 

burden hours estimate provided in the 

notice of proposed information 

collection published on May 12, 2005 

(70 FR 25014) has increased from 

9,483,231 to 9,558,282 due to an 

adjustment in the number of School 

Food Authorities and schools 

participating in the NSLP and SBP. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

FNS is committed to compliance with 

the E-Government Act (E-Gov), 2002 

which requires Government agencies to 

provide the public the option of 

submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. FNS has requested that 

State agencies submit electronically the 

inspections report required by this rule. 

Public Participation 

In Section 501(b) of Public Law 108– 

265, Congress specifically afforded the 

Secretary the option to implement the 

inspections requirement through an 

interim rule, while soliciting public 

comments. State and local program 

operators and inspection agencies 

commented on the interim rule 

published in the Federal Register (70 

FR 34627) on June 15, 2005. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 210 

Food and Nutrition Service, Grant 

programs—education, Grant programs— 

health, Infants and children, Nutrition, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, School breakfast and 

lunch programs, Surplus agricultural 

commodities. 

7 CFR Part 220 

Food and Nutrition Service, Grant 

programs—education, Grant programs— 

health, Infants and children, Nutrition, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, School breakfast and 

lunch programs. 

Accordingly, the interim rule that was 

published at 70 FR 34627 on June 15, 

2005 amending 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 

is adopted as a final rule without 

changes. 

Dated: August 24, 2009. 

Julia Paradis, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21133 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1 and 33 

[Docket No. 2007–28502; Amendment No. 

1–65, 33–30] 

RIN 2120–AJ06 

Airworthiness Standards; Aircraft 

Engine Standards Overtorque Limits 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule will amend the 

certification standards for aircraft 

engines to establish requirements for 

approval of maximum engine 

overtorque. Specifically, this action will 

add a new engine overtorque test, 

amend engine ratings and operating 

limits, and define maximum engine 

overtorque for certain turbopropeller 

and turboshaft engines. The rule will 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
45308 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

harmonize applicable United States 

(U.S.) and European standards and 

simplify airworthiness approvals for 

import and export of aircraft engines. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective November 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule contact Tim Mouzakis, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, Standards Staff, 

ANE–110, Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), New England 

Region, 12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7114; facsimile 

(781) 238–7199; electronic mail 

‘‘Timoleon.Mouzakis@faa.gov.’’ 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. 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. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, the FAA is charged 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, including 

minimum safety standards for aircraft 

engines. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority because it 

updates the existing regulations for 

aircraft engine standards overtorque 

limits. 

Background 

Part 33 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR part 33) prescribes 

airworthiness standards for original and 

amended type certificates for aircraft 

engines. The European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) Certification 

Specification—Engines (CS–E) 

prescribes corresponding airworthiness 

standards to certify aircraft engines in 

Europe. While part 33 and the CS–E are 

similar, they differ in several respects. 

These differences result in added costs, 

delays, and time required for 

certification. In addition, U.S. aircraft 

engine manufacturers face additional 

costs when seeking certification of their 

engine designs by the EASA for export. 

CS–E contains specific standards for 

approval of maximum overtorque limits. 

Currently, part 33 does not contain 

explicit standards for a maximum 

engine overtorque limit. Engine 

manufacturers apply for and obtain FAA 

approvals of maximum overtorque 

limits based on the results of 

certification engine tests and analysis 

that do not directly address 

considerations for maximum overtorque 

limits. 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC), through its Engine 

Harmonization Working Group (EHWG), 

to provide advice and recommendations 

on proposed standards for engine 

overtorque. We published that tasking 

in the Federal Register on October 20, 

1998 (63 FR 56059). This final rule is 

based on ARAC’s recommendations. 

Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on March 

26, 2008 (73 FR 15955). The proposal 

adds a new definition to § 1.1, changes 

to § 33.7, and introduces § 33.84. These 

proposed changes would add a new 

engine overtorque test, amend engine 

ratings and operating limitations, and 

define maximum engine overtorque for 

certain turbopropeller and turboshaft 

engines. The proposal would harmonize 

U.S. and European standards for 

approving engine overtorque transients 

for turbopropeller and turboshaft 

engines with free power turbines. The 

comment period closed June 24, 2008. 

Summary of Comments 

The FAA received four comment 

letters, one from a British engine 

manufacturer (Rolls-Royce Corporation), 

one from a foreign regulatory authority 

(Transport Canada), and two from law 

students at the University of Central 

Missouri. All four comment letters 

support the general intent of the 

proposed rule. However, Transport 

Canada raised specific concerns that 

were addressed by clarifying revisions 

to proposed §§ 33.7 and 33.84. A 

detailed discussion of changes to the 

final rule is presented below. 

Discussion of the Final Rule 

The final rule establishes a standard 

for applicants to use when applying for 

and obtaining approval of a maximum 

engine overtorque limit. This rule 

harmonizes FAA and EASA standards 

and simplifies airworthiness approvals 

for the import and export of 

turbopropeller and turboshaft engines 

with free power turbines. The rule also 

improves safety by stating clear 

requirements for maximum engine 

overtorque limits. 

Below are specific comments from 

Transport Canada and our responses to 

them. 

1. The approach proposed, to seek an 

‘‘approval’’ for overtorque, is 

inconsistent with the approach used for 

‘‘overspeed’’ and ‘‘overtemperature’’. 

Transport Canada suggested the 

approach for ‘‘overtorque’’ be similar to 

‘‘overspeed’’ and ‘‘overtemperature’’. 

We do not agree. Overspeed and 

overtemperature are transients which 

are approved when they occur during 

normal engine operation, e.g., a short 

duration transient exceedance of a 

rating (speed, temperature, or torque) as 

the engine stabilizes at a new operating 

condition following an acceleration. As 

proposed in the NPRM, the ‘‘maximum 

engine overtorque’’ is optional to the 

applicant. This optional operating 

condition is not an approved transient, 

but an ‘‘over limit’’ condition which 

may occur due to a failure. The 

applicant can choose whether to declare 

any maximum engine overtorque. 

However, to ensure the regulation is 

clear, we have revised proposed § 33.7 

to clarify that engine ratings and 

operating limitations include both the 

existing transient engine overtorque and 

the new maximum engine overtorque 

‘‘over limit’’. We also revised 

§ 33.87(a)(8) to clarify the requirement 

applies to all transient functions, 

including engine overtorque. This 

makes clear that transient engine 

overtorque is addressed in § 33.87(a)(8) 

and maximum engine overtorque in 

§ 33.84. 

2. The definition of ‘‘Maximum 

engine overtorque’’ in § 1.1 is not 

necessary since part 33 does not have 

similar definitions for ‘‘overspeed’’ or 

‘‘overtemperature’’. 

The FAA does not agree. Overspeed 

and overtemperature in part 33 are 

transient events and part of the normal 

operation of the engine as defined in the 

type design. Maximum engine 

overtorque is an ‘‘over limit’’ condition 

that could last up to 20 seconds and is 

a result of some failure. A definition in 

§ 1.1 is necessary as maximum engine 

overtorque is unique in its application 

to turbopropeller and turboshaft 

engines. Explanation is required to 

define the context in which this 

condition would apply and specific 

exclusions related to it. Transient 

overspeed and overtemperature are 

general and well understood terms used 

widely throughout part 33. No 

maintenance action is necessary by the 

aircraft operator provided the cause of 

the failure is corrected, and the engine 

meets the new maximum engine 

overtorque limit requirement. 

3. The proposed § 33.84 overtorque 

test requirement should be independent 

from the § 33.87 endurance test 

requirement. Transport Canada also 

proposed the overtorque test 

requirement be at least 10% torque over 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45309 

the highest torque limit for any rating 

longer than 2 minutes. 

We agree, in part, that the overtorque 

and endurance tests may be performed 

separately. However, we did not set an 

overtorque limit because it is the 

applicant’s responsibility to decide the 

maximum engine overtorque for the 

engine. 

Lastly, we made a clarifying change to 

wording in the first sentence of 

§ 33.84(b)(4). This change did not alter 

our intent or the meaning of the 

proposed regulation. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. We have 

determined that there are no new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and determined there are no differences 

with these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Assessment, and Unfunded 

Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This final rule coordinates FAA 

engine requirements with existing 

EASA engine requirements that 

manufacturers must currently meet in 

order for their engines to be used in 

European operations. Consequently, this 

rule will allow engine manufacturers to 

meet one requirement rather than 

separate requirements for FAA/EASA 

certification. There were no public 

comments on the economic impact of 

the NPRM. As a result, the expected 

outcome will be a minimal impact with 

positive net benefits. 

A regulatory evaluation was not 

prepared. This final rule incorporates 

existing certification practices, while 

maintaining the existing level of safety. 

The benefits of this rule justify the costs 

and the existing level of safety will be 

preserved. The Office of Management 

and Budget has determined that this 

final rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it harmonizes U.S. 

aviation standards with those of other 

civil aviation authorities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

We stated in the initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis that we believed the 

rule would be a cost-relieving rule as it 

harmonizes with the EASA aviation 

regulations. We received no comments 

to the contrary. 

Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Analysis 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and do not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. This rule uses 

international standards as the basis for 

regulation and thus is consistent with 

the Trade Agreements Act. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
45310 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate, therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order, and is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulationspolicies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

14 CFR Part 33 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends parts 1 and 33 of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 1 

and 33) as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.1 by adding the 

definition of ‘‘Maximum engine 

overtorque’’ in alphabetical order, to 

read as follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Maximum engine overtorque, as it 

applies to turbopropeller and turboshaft 

engines incorporating free power 

turbines for all ratings except one 

engine inoperative (OEI) ratings of two 

minutes or less, means the maximum 

torque of the free power turbine rotor 

assembly, the inadvertent occurrence of 

which, for periods of up to 20 seconds, 

will not require rejection of the engine 

from service, or any maintenance action 

other than to correct the cause. 

* * * * * 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 4. Amend § 33.7 by redesignating 

paragraph (c)(16) as (c)(18) and adding 

new paragraphs (c)(16) and (c)(17) to 

read as follows: 

§ 33.7 Engine ratings and operating 

limitations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(16) Transient engine overtorque, and 

number of overtorque occurrences. 

(17) Maximum engine overtorque for 

turbopropeller and turboshaft engines 

incorporating free power turbines. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 33.84 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 33.84. Engine overtorque test. 

(a) If approval of a maximum engine 

overtorque is sought for an engine 

incorporating a free power turbine, 

compliance with this section must be 

demonstrated by testing. 

(1) The test may be run as part of the 

endurance test requirement of § 33.87. 

Alternatively, tests may be performed 

on a complete engine or equivalent 

testing on individual groups of 

components. 

(2) Upon conclusion of tests 

conducted to show compliance with 

this section, each engine part or 

individual groups of components must 

meet the requirements of § 33.93(a)(1) 

and (a)(2). 

(b) The test conditions must be as 

follows: 

(1) A total of 15 minutes run at the 

maximum engine overtorque to be 

approved. This may be done in separate 

runs, each being of at least 21⁄2 minutes 

duration. 

(2) A power turbine rotational speed 

equal to the highest speed at which the 

maximum overtorque can occur in 

service. The test speed may not be more 

than the limit speed of take-off or OEI 

ratings longer than 2 minutes. 

(3) For engines incorporating a 

reduction gearbox, a gearbox oil 

temperature equal to the maximum 

temperature when the maximum engine 

overtorque could occur in service; and 

for all other engines, an oil temperature 

within the normal operating range. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 169 / Wednesday, September 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45311 

(4) A turbine entry gas temperature 

equal to the maximum steady state 

temperature approved for use during 

periods longer than 20 seconds when 

operating at conditions not associated 

with 30-second or 2 minutes OEI 

ratings. The requirement to run the test 

at the maximum approved steady state 

temperature may be waived by the FAA 

if the applicant can demonstrate that 

other testing provides substantiation of 

the temperature effects when considered 

in combination with the other 

parameters identified in paragraphs 

(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section. 

■ 6. Amend § 33.87 by revising 

paragraph (a)(8) to read as follows: 

§ 33.87 Endurance test. 

(a) * * * 

(8) If the number of occurrences of 

either transient rotor shaft overspeed, 

transient gas overtemperature or 

transient engine overtorque is limited, 

that number of the accelerations 

required by paragraphs (b) through (g) of 

this section must be made at the 

limiting overspeed, overtemperature or 

overtorque. If the number of occurrences 

is not limited, half the required 

accelerations must be made at the 

limiting overspeed, overtemperature or 

overtorque. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 

2009. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–20960 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0432; Directorate 

Identifier 2008–NM–168–AD; Amendment 

39–15982; AD 2009–15–19] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; BAE 

Systems (Operations) Limited Model 

BAe 146–100A and 146–200A Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a 

typographical error in an existing 

airworthiness directive (AD) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 29, 2009. The error resulted in an 

incorrect AD number appearing in one 

location of the document. This AD 

applies to certain BAE Systems 

(Operations) Limited Model BAe 146– 

100A and 146–200A series airplanes. 

This AD requires inspecting for damage 

of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin 

and joint plates, and doing related 

investigative and corrective actions. 

DATES: Effective September 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (telephone 800–647–5527) 

is the Document Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1175; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

13, 2009, the FAA issued AD 2009–15– 

19, amendment 39–15982 (74 FR 37528, 

July 29, 2009), for certain BAE Systems 

(Operations) Limited Model BAe 146– 

100A and 146–200A series airplanes. 

This AD requires inspecting for damage 

of the horizontal stabilizer lower skin 

and joint plates, and doing related 

investigative and corrective actions. 

As published, the final rule 

incorrectly specified the AD number in 

a single location in the AD as ‘‘2008– 

15–19’’ instead of ‘‘2009–15–19.’’ 

No other part of the regulatory 

information has been changed; 

therefore, the final rule is not 

republished in the Federal Register. 

The effective date of this AD remains 

September 2, 2009. 

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

■ In the Federal Register of July 29, 

2009, on page 37529, in the first 

column, paragraph 2. of PART 39— 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES is 

corrected to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

2009–15–19 BAE Systems (Operations) 

Limited (Formerly British Aerospace 

Regional Aircraft): Amendment 39– 

15982. Docket No. FAA–2009–0432; 

Directorate Identifier 2008–NM–168–AD. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

24, 2009. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21039 Filed 9–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 206 

[Docket No. FR–4989–F–02] 

RIN 2502–AI34 

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage 

(HECM) Counseling Standardization 

and Roster 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends HUD’s 

HECM program regulations by 

establishing testing standards to qualify 

individuals as HECM counselors eligible 

to provide HECM counseling to 

prospective HECM borrowers. The rule 

also establishes a HECM Counseling 

Roster (Roster) of eligible HECM 

counselors and provides for their 

removal for cause. This rule is intended 

to contribute to improving the quality of 

HECM counseling. HECM counseling 

enables elderly homeowners to make 

more informed decisions when 

considering mortgage options and 

whether to pursue a HECM loan. This 

final rule follows the publication of a 

January 8, 2007, proposed rule, takes 

into consideration the public comments 

received on the proposed rule, and 

makes certain changes in response to 

public comment and upon further 

consideration of certain issues by HUD. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margaret Burns, Director, Office of 

Single Family Program Development, 

Office of Housing, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, 451 

Seventh Street, SW., Room 9278, 

Washington, DC 20410–8000; telephone 

number 202–708–2121 (this is not a tollfree number). Hearing- and speechimpaired individuals may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background—The January 8, 2007 

Proposed Rule 

Section 255 of the National Housing 

Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–20) (NHA) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES