[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16198-16199]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0072]

Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh
Coast Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the FKCC Swim around Key West
Special Local Regulation in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, from
8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on June 14, 2014. This action is necessary to
ensure the safety of race participants, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public from the hazards associated with
this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may
enter the regulated area without permission from the Captain of the
Port.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701 Table 1 will be enforced from
8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on June 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Ian G. Bowes,
Sector Key West Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-
292-8823, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the FKCC Swim
around Key West Special Local Regulation in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf
of Mexico in 33 CFR 100.701 on June 14, 2014. These regulations can be
found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 33 CFR 100.701.
    On June 14, 2014, Florida Keys Community College is hosting the
FKCC Swim around Key West, a swim event that will circumnavigate the
island of Key West starting and finishing at Smathers Beach. The event
will be held on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico in
Key West. Approximately 175 swimmers with assist boats and kayaks will
participate in the swim.

    The special local regulations encompass certain waters of the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico located around the island of Key
West. The special local regulations will be enforced from 8:30 a.m.
until 4:30 p.m. on June 14, 2014. The special local regulations area
will consist of the following area: A moving race area, where all
persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in
the swim event, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or
remaining. The race area is defined as all waters of the Atlantic Ocean
and Gulf of Mexico located approximately 50 yards offshore of the
island of Key West and extends 50 yards in front of the lead safety
vessel proceeding the first race participants; extends 50 yards behind
the safety vessel trailing the last race participants; and at all times
100 yards on either side of the race participants and safety vessels.
Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the race area by contacting the
Captain of the Port Key West by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area is
granted by the Captain of the Port Key West, or a designated
representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West
or the designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice
of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives. The Coast Guard may
be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies
in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
A.S. Young, Sr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
[FR Doc. 2014-06445 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77115-77116]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13213-003]

Lock 14 Hydro Partners; Notice of Application Ready for
Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 13213-003.
    c. Date filed: May 16, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Lock 14 Hydro Partners, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Heidelberg Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the Kentucky River Authority's Lock and Dam No. 14,
on the Kentucky River, near the Town of Heidelberg, Lee County
Kentucky. No lands managed by the Federal government are located within
the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David Brown Kinloch, Lock 14 Hydro Partners,
414 S. Wenzel Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40204,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13213-003.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The Heidelberg Project consists of: (1) An existing 248-foot-
long, 17-foot-high concrete lock and dam with a 319-foot-long stone
piled dike adjacent to the lock; (2) an existing 182-acre reservoir
having a storage capacity of 1,820-acre-feet; (3) a new 40-foot-high,
52-foot-wide trashrack; (4) a new powerhouse integral to the abandoned
lock containing four generating units for a total installed capacity of
2,640 kilowatts; and (5) a new 1,000-foot-long, 12.47 kilo-Volt
transmission line. The project is estimated to generate an average of
10,484,000 kilowatt-hours annually. The existing lock and dam are owned
by the Kentucky River Authority.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of

intent may be filed in response to this notice.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30324 Filed 12-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52457-52459]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20355]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721; FRL-8768-01-OCSPP]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection and Request for Comment; Chemical Data Reporting
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on
an Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled:
``Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 1884.13 and OMB Control No.
2070-0162, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled
to expire on April 30, 2022. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is
summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are
available in the docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721, through http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Sharkey, Data Gathering and
Analysis Division (7410M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA).
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1884.13.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0162.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2022. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection request addresses the
paperwork requirements contained in the most recent Chemical Data
Reporting (CDR) rule under the TSCA. Under TSCA section 8(a), EPA is
authorized to collect certain information on chemical substances
manufactured (including imported) or processed in the United States.
The CDR was formerly known as the Inventory Update Rule (IUR).
    The CDR collection provides chemical manufacture, processing, and
use information that helps EPA identify what chemicals the public may
be exposed to as consumers or in commercial and industrial settings.
The data also help EPA assess routes of potential exposure to those
chemicals. Beginning in 1986, EPA has used the CDR rule eight times to
collect basic manufacturing information for selected chemical
substances on the TSCA Inventory. More recent collections, beginning in
2006, included additional information relating to the manufacture,
processing, and use of those chemical substances. The reporting
requirements have been modified through rulemaking, with the most
recent major changes occurring in 2020 when EPA promulgated the TSCA
Chemical Data Reporting Revisions Under TSCA Section 8(a) rule (85 FR
20122, April 9, 2020) (FRL-10005-56) and the Small Manufacturer
Definition Update for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under
the TSCA Section 8(a) (85 FR 31986, May 28, 2020) (FRL-10008-14). The
2020 revisions included a phase-in approach for some of its provisions.
All provisions will be fully implemented for the 2024 CDR reporting
cycle. The changes are described on EPA's CDR web page, at: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/summary-reporting-requirement-changes-due-cdr-revisions-and-small, The CDR collection is on a four-
year reporting cycle and contains detailed manufacturing, processing,
and use information drawn from the principal reporting year; the rule
also contains basic information on production volume, by year, for the
three years prior to the principal reporting year (e.g., for the 2024
reporting cycle, the principal reporting year will be 2023; the three
years prior will be 2020, 2021, and 2022).
    EPA uses the CDR data in its chemical substance risk-management
efforts and for other uses. Individual sites manufacturing (including
importing) chemical substances will submit the required information.
The information will be stored electronically for reference by EPA
staff and others. Within the constraints of confidentiality claims, the
information will be made public through the Agency's website: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting. Further discussion on how the
information is used, stored, and collected is included in this
document.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to annual
average 135 hours per response. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture, process, import, or distribute in
commerce chemical substances and mixtures. The following North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to
certain entities. Potentially affected entities may include, but are
not limited to the following: 325 Chemical Manufacturing and 324
Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory; TSCA section 8 and
40 CFR 711.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 5,460.

    Frequency of response: Every four years.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
7.38.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 735,456 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $79,267,359. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $79,267,359 and an estimated cost of $0 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is an increase in total annual costs compared with that
identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. The primary reason for
changes in respondent burden and cost are a result of changes from
finalized regulatory actions in 2020. In addition, the increase in the
respondent burden and agency costs were caused by an increase in the
hourly wages and a change in the methodology to calculate loaded wages
(wages plus fringe benefits and overhead). Please refer to Handbook on
Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and
Other U.S. EPA Actions. This change is an adjustment.
    In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-
question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal
agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions
established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by
EPA and OMB prior to 1995. The Agency does not expect this change in
format to result in substantive changes to the information collection
activities or related estimated burden and costs.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments. If you have any questions about this ICR or the
approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-20355 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 29)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8018-8026]
[DOCID:fr12fe08-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0185; FRL-8528-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Incorporation of On-Board Diagnostic Testing and Other
Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program for the
Northern Virginia Program Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve three State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These
revisions pertain to the Commonwealth's motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program for the Northern Virginia area, which had
previously been SIP-approved by EPA. These revisions incorporate
several changes made by the Commonwealth since EPA last approved the I/
M program as part of the SIP in 2002. The most significant change to
the program is the incorporation of on-board diagnostic computer checks
of 1996 and newer model year vehicles as an element of the emission
inspection process for the Northern Virginia program area. In addition,
Virginia has also made numerous minor changes to the program, including
several changes to test procedures and standards, as well as changes to
its roadside testing regimen. The I/M program helps to

ensure that highway motor vehicles operate as cleanly as possible, by
requiring vehicles to be periodically tested and by identifying
vehicles having high emissions due to malfunctioning emission control
systems. Such vehicles must then be repaired and retested by their
owners, to the standards set by the Commonwealth's program. Vehicle I/M
programs address nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compound
emissions, both of which are precursors to formation of ground level
ozone pollution, as well as the pollutant carbon monoxide. This action
is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 13, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0185 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0185, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0185. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 during normal business hours at the

Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. Background
III. Summary of the Commonwealth's SIP Revisions
IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

    On December 18, 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia formally
submitted a revision to its prior approved enhanced I/M program SIP for
the Northern Virginia inspection and maintenance program. On April 2,
2003, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ)
submitted a SIP technical amendment to the December 18, 2002 SIP
revision. On June 18, 2007, VA DEQ submitted another SIP revision,
which contained updated I/M program regulations made since the time of
the last SIP submittal.
    The Northern Virginia I/M program area is comprised of the
following localities: the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,
Prince William, and Stafford; and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax,
Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park. It is designated by EPA as a
moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The Commonwealth's revised
program satisfies federal requirements under sections 182 and 184 of
the Clean Air Act applicable to enhanced I/M programs, and EPA is,
therefore, proposing to approve the Commonwealth's revisions to the SIP
approved I/M program.

II. Background

    On December 18, 2002, the VA DEQ submitted a formal request to EPA
to revise the Commonwealth's SIP in relation to its motor vehicle
enhanced I/M program. The Commonwealth later submitted two other SIP
revisions related to the enhanced I/M program--on April 2, 2003 and on
June 18, 2007. These latest revisions serve to amend the Commonwealth's
prior, EPA-approved enhanced I/M SIP, which was published as a final
rulemaking action in the September 1, 1999 edition of the Federal
Register (64 FR 47670).
    The Commonwealth's December 18, 2002 SIP revision consists of a
revised emissions inspection program regulation published in the June
17, 2002 edition of the Virginia Register of Regulations (Volume 18,
Issue 20), which amended a 1999 version of that regulation. Virginia's
regulation, codified at Title 9, Chapter 91 of the Virginia
Administrative Code (VAC), is entitled ``Regulations for the Control of
Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia Area,'' but is also
referred to here as the Virginia I/M regulation. The Commonwealth
amended its emissions inspection program regulations to reflect
technical changes that Virginia DEQ deemed necessary for continued
program operation since the inception of its enhanced emission
inspection program. Some of these regulatory amendments were made by
Virginia to reflect changing federal requirements and policies that
apply to enhanced emission inspection programs, and some updates were
to address changes made to relevant Virginia law since the inception of
the enhanced I/M program.
    The most significant of the changes comprised within the December
18, 2002 SIP revision is the incorporation of on-board diagnostic
checks of 1996 and newer vehicles subject to emissions testing.
Virginia also updated its testing procedures to stay abreast of changes

needed based upon past operation of the program, and modified
applicability of the program to address the changing dynamic of the
vehicle fleet operating in the program area. Finally, Virginia also
amended its regulation to enhance the Commonwealth's ability to
effectively enforce the emission inspection program.
    Virginia later submitted a SIP revision on April 2, 2003, which
makes a technical correction to the emission inspection program
regulation for Northern Virginia. This latter amendment corrects a
technical error in Virginia's prior emission inspection program
regulation concerning emission inspector identification numbers.
    Virginia's June 18, 2007 SIP revision contains newer regulatory
amendments made by Virginia since the June 2002 version of the
regulation contained in the December 18, 2002 SIP revision.
    The June 18, 2007 SIP revision revised provisions related to on-
road testing of vehicles (i.e., remote sensing) operating primarily in
Northern Virginia to ensure motorist compliance and to supplement State
enforcement activities.
    EPA is taking a single rulemaking action today upon the December
18, 2002, the April 2, 2003, and the June 18, 2007 SIP revisions.

III. Summary of the Commonwealth's SIP Revisions

A. Virginia's December 18, 2002 SIP Revision

    In 2002, Virginia issued a final rule revising the inspection and
maintenance of motor vehicles. This revised regulation was published in
the June 17, 2002 edition of the Virginia Register of Regulations
(Volume 18, Issue 20), and was submitted to EPA as part of the December
18, 2002 SIP revision. The program was revised to update the
regulations to reflect changes made in the operation of emissions
testing in Virginia since the last major update of the I/M regulation
in 1999. The regulation was also changed to reflect changes in Federal
requirements applicable to I/M programs since the enhanced I/M program
was SIP-approved by EPA. The program was also amended to reflect
changes in Virginia law relevant to the I/M program since the inception
of the enhanced I/M program.
    Among the most significant of the Commonwealth's regulatory
amendments was the incorporation and implementation of on-board
diagnostic testing as a mandatory testing element for 1996 and newer
vehicles equipped with second generation on-board diagnostics systems.
Other June 2002 State I/M regulatory amendments reflect changes in the
way the program was being operated since the regulations had previously
been amended in 1999. As was stated earlier, Virginia incorporated
regulatory updates to reflect changes in Federal and State law relevant
to the I/M program. Finally, some changes were made to improve the
Commonwealth's ability to oversee the program and to aid in enforcement
of the program.
    Virginia submitted its revised regulation as a formal SIP revision
to EPA on December 18, 2002, with a technical correction amendment
submitted on April 2, 2003. Below is a summary of the most significant
changes to the Commonwealth's vehicle emission inspection program
regulations submitted as part of the December 18, 2002 SIP revision:
    1. Incorporates on-board diagnostic testing for OBD-II compliant
vehicles and subjects OBD-II equipped 1997 and newer diesel-powered
vehicles to the program for the first time.
    2. Program coverage revised to exempt vehicles 25 years old and
older at the time of testing, in lieu of the previous exemption of 1968
and older model vehicles.
    3. Revision of acceleration-simulation mode (ASM) emission
standards and removal of ASM test procedure pre-screening requirements.
    4. Tightening of two-speed idle emission test standards, to reflect
advanced technology and related lower emission levels of 1990 and newer
vehicles.
    5. Relaxation of roadside remote sensing standards, and greater
flexibility for VA DEQ in use of various pollutants as roadside
screening criteria.
    6. Repeal of requirement for evaporative system purge testing.
    7. Revision of requirements for Federal and private fleet testing
and reporting, and addition of ``sensitive mission vehicle'' fleet
emission inspection station permit category.
    8. Revision of visible emissions standard to include a standard for
diesel-powered vehicles now subject to OBD testing.
    9. Elimination of deadlines for waiver limit increases that have
already passed; and requirement for vehicles that received a waiver in
another State to be tested if subject to Virginia's I/M program.
    10. Repeal of requirements limiting warranty eligibility for
certain emissions short tests.
    11. Modification of penalty schedule for major violations related
to emissions inspections.
    12. Revision of a number of definitions to reflect related
regulatory changes, and repeal of others that are no longer needed to
support the Commonwealth's regulations.
    A more detailed summary of each of these June 2002 regulatory
changes is detailed below, with additional information provided in the
technical support document prepared by EPA in support of this
rulemaking action.
1. Addition of On-Board Diagnostics Inspections
    Subject 1996 and newer subject vehicles equipped with second
generation on-board diagnostics systems (OBD-II) will receive
electronic checks of their on-board diagnostics systems in lieu of
other emissions tests. An OBD check consists of a visual check of the
dashboard indicators and an electronic examination of the OBD computer
for potential stored fault information. OBD-equipped 1997 and newer
light duty diesel vehicles are also required to be OBD tested.
    Virginia's I/M regulation established a start date of October 2002
to commence mandatory OBD checks of gasoline-powered vehicles under its
I/M program, with the option to delay testing if the VA DEQ determined
its OBD test equipment was unavailable or not ready. After the
occurrence of such an equipment-related delay, Virginia began mandatory
OBD testing on gasoline-powered vehicles in November 2005. For the
first time, Virginia's June 2002 regulation requires the addition of
mandatory OBD checks for light duty diesel-powered vehicles, to begin
no later than October 2006. However, in practice VA DEQ delayed diesel-
powered OBD checks and instead began diesel OBD checks as part of the
I/M program in May 2007 (for vehicles with registrations expiring July
2007).
    For most vehicles subject to OBD checks under Virginia's program,
an OBD check will be performed in lieu of tailpipe testing (i.e., ASM
or 2-speed idle tests). However, VA DEQ may also perform exhaust tests
on a limited basis, in addition to an OBD check, for quality control or
program evaluation purposes. Some vehicles that are known to have OBD
system problems may be exempted by VA DEQ from an OBD check and instead
be given tailpipe tests. Vehicles whose OBD system is determined to be
``not ready'' to be checked, as defined by Virginia regulation, will be
rejected from testing.

2. Model Year Coverage Revised to Exempt 25-Year-Old and Older Vehicles
From Testing
    Virginia revised its I/M program model year coverage, moving to a
rolling exemption for vehicles 25 years and older at the time of
inspection, in place of its previous age-based exemption for 1968 and
older vehicles. Virginia statute required this change, and DEQ has
implemented this practice since July 2000. The change results in a
decrease in the number of cars being tested under the I/M program, as
each year another model year is exempted. In 2004, the last year
Virginia provided data, VA DEQ estimated this model year coverage
change would result in the testing of approximately 19,400 fewer
vehicles. Virginia estimates that this will result in an increase of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of approximately 0.55 tons
per day in 2002, or about 3.5% of the total VOC emissions reductions
associated with the I/M program. No nitrogen oxide (NOX)
penalty has been associated with this change, as the vehicles affected
would have been tested with idle testing (in the 2002 and 2005
evaluation timeframes for which I/M programs were required to be
evaluated under the Federal I/M rule). Virginia did not calculate
carbon monoxide (CO) impacts from this change, as the Northern Virginia
region is classified as CO attainment, and a CO emissions inventory for
this timeframe was unavailable. Virginia has modeled the 25-year
rolling exemption in the attainment demonstration and reasonable
further progress plans for the Metropolitan Washington DC 1-hr ozone
nonattainment area.
3. Revision of ASM Test Standards/Removal of ASM Test Procedure Pre-
Screening Requirements
    Virginia's June 2002 I/M regulation revised the testing standards,
or cutpoints, for determining whether vehicles pass or fail Virginia's
2-mode ASM 5015/2525 tailpipe emissions test. Virginia had previously
required that start-up standards were to be used for one year after
program implementation, per EPA's ASM technical guidance document
entitled ``Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emissions
Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications''
(draft dated July 2000, final dated July 2004). Virginia's 2002 revised
rule applies final ASM standards, unless VA DEQ determines that phase-
in standards or interim standards (i.e., less stringent than final, but
more stringent than phase-in standards) should be used. Such a
determination would be based upon results of emissions inspections from
ASM tests performed under the program and after consultation with
vehicle manufacturers, EPA, and appropriate research organizations.
Virginia also removed ASM test standards for those model year vehicles
no longer subject to testing, due to its age-based exemption for
vehicles older than 25 years.
4. Revision of 2-Speed Idle Test Standards
    Under the June 2002 I/M rule revision, Virginia enacted more
stringent emissions test standards, or cutpoints, for 2-speed idle
tailpipe emissions testing conducted on some 1990 and newer vehicles.
VA DEQ determined that more stringent 2-speed idle testing was
justified, based upon an analysis of failure rates for these vehicles
subject to 2-speed idle testing and also by reviewing standards and
fail rates from other programs that use 2-speed idle testing.
Previously, 1990 and newer vehicles having advanced technology needed
only to meet standards applicable to 1981 and older vehicles. Some of
these newer, advanced technology vehicles with known faults were able
to pass the test under the previous, less stringent standard for 1981
and older vehicles. The revised 2-speed idle cutpoints are 110 parts
per million (ppm) of hydrocarbon (HC) and 0.75% carbon monoxide (CO),
where they had been 220 ppm HC and 1.2% CO. Virginia has been testing
under these more stringent cutpoints since October 2002. As part of the
SIP, VA DEQ estimated the number of additional vehicles that would fail
with the more stringent standards in place. For 2004, which was the
latest year for which Virginia provided an estimate, about 800
additional vehicles were expected to fail than would have if the less
stringent standards had remained in place.
5. Relaxation of Roadside Remote Sensing Standards and Flexibility for
VA DEQ To Use Various Pollutants for Roadside Screening Criteria
    Roadside remote sensing program requirements were revised by
Virginia in its June 2002 revised I/M program rule. Remote sensing is
used to ensure motorist compliance with the program. Remote sensing
reads a vehicle as it passes by a roadside sensor, after which the
vehicle's emissions are checked against standards set by the state. In
the case of Virginia's remote sensing program, if the vehicle is
checked twice in a 90-day period and has emissions beyond the
standards, the owner may be required to undergo an out-of-cycle
emissions test. Virginia relaxed its remote sensing emissions standards
as part of the June 2002 I/M rule revision to avoid the potential for
false failures of the remote sensing test (i.e., to avoid failing
vehicles using remote sensing that would otherwise pass regular
tailpipe emissions or OBD checks). Putting aside differences between
Virginia's regular tailpipe tests versus a remote sensing test, there
is a level of uncertainty when comparing vehicles in a station tailpipe
testing environment versus roadside remote sensing. Virginia revised
its remote sensing test standards to ensure an adequate margin of error
to avoid subjecting motorists to unnecessary out-of-cycle emissions
tests. Virginia also revised its remote sensing test criteria to allow
VA DEQ to use HC or CO, or a combination of both, as criteria for
remote sensing pass or fail.
    At the time of the December 2002 SIP revision, Virginia had not yet
performed mandatory remote sensing testing as part of its I/M program.
Virginia subsequently conducted a pilot remote sensing program to
evaluate potential problems with remote sensing prior to use of remote
sensing as a mandatory element of the I/M program, and as a result
subsequently revised its remote sensing program. Those changes, as well
as others related to remote sensing as a tool to ensure ongoing
motorist compliance were submitted as part of the June 18, 2007 SIP
revision, and are discussed below, in the portion of this rulemaking
related to that SIP submittal. EPA is taking action on both the
December 18, 2002 SIP revision, and the later, June 18, 2007 SIP
revisions, which updated the December 18, 2002 provisions. Where the
same regulatory provisions are included in both SIP submittals, EPA is
proposing to take action on the most recent version of the regulatory
provisions.
6. Revision of Requirements for Evaporative System Pressure and Purge
Testing
    As part of its June 2002 regulatory revisions, Virginia removed the
requirement to conduct evaporative system purge testing from the I/M
program. Purge testing was a means to measure the instantaneous purge
flow from the vehicle's evaporative canister to the engine's intake
manifold, in order to ensure proper operation of the evaporative
system. The purge test was to have been performed in conjunction with
ASM testing beginning in 1999. In a November 5, 1996 policy memo, EPA
determined purge testing to be intrusive and potentially damaging, and
therefore

did not enforce the implementation of this requirement. A suitable
alternative test has never materialized, and the latest version of
EPA's emission factor model, MOBILE6, has eliminated any HC emissions
benefit associated with purge testing. Virginia never implemented purge
testing as part of its I/M program, and EPA has never acted to enforce
that SIP provision of Virginia's prior approved SIP. Given this
reality, Virginia removed purge testing as an element of the I/M
program in its June 2002 revised rule.
    Implementation of evaporative pressure testing has been left to the
discretion of VA DEQ. The evaporative pressure test is a test to
measure levels of evaporated fuel between the fuel tank and the engine
to ensure the system is not compromised and releasing these emissions
to the ambient air. Virginia's prior approved SIP required evaporative
emissions testing to have begun in 1998, but such testing was delayed
due to technical limitations of the pressure test. EPA acknowledged
difficulties with evaporative canister-based pressure testing in a
November 5, 1996 policy memo (as well as discussing a potential fill
pipe-based alternative in conjunction with gas cap testing). Virginia
revised its I/M rule in June 2002 to indefinitely delay implementation
of pressure testing as an element of Virginia's I/M program, to a date
to be determined the director of the VA DEQ (with at least one year
notification to station owners in the event the test is to be
implemented).
    It should be noted that modern OBD systems have sensors to detect
leaks in the evaporative system, and to monitor the purge system, so
1996 and newer vehicles will be have their evaporative systems
monitored via an OBD check as part of the program. The MOBILE model now
reflects emissions benefits from this check of newer vehicles.
7. Revision of Requirements for Federal and Private Fleet Testing and
Reporting
    Virginia made several changes with respect to the testing of
federal fleet vehicles in its December 2002 SIP revision. Under the
prior approved SIP, federal fleets had been required to submit
compliance reports to VA DEQ, while private fleets were not subject to
compliance reporting. Virginia revised its I/M program rule in June
2002 to rescind the requirement that administrators of federal fleets
submit reports to VA DEQ to demonstrate fleet compliance, thus treating
federal and private fleets equally. At the same time, Virginia repealed
a related requirement for federal fleets to remit a $2 annual fee for
each vehicle not registered with the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles.
    Virginia also added ``sensitive mission vehicle emissions fleet
inspection station'' to the list of qualified applicants who can apply
to VA DEQ for inspection station permits. This change allows agencies
such as the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of
Investigation to establish inspection stations, in order to avoid
potential exposure of their sensitive mission vehicles (as defined
under Virginia's I/M rule) when undergoing emissions testing.
8. Revision of Visible Emissions Standard To Include a Standard for
Diesel-Powered Vehicles Subject to OBD Testing
    Virginia added a standard for visible air pollutant emissions for
diesel-powered vehicles that are now subject to OBD testing as part of
Virginia's I/M program in its June 2002 rule revision. The standard
limits emission of visible air pollutants from the tailpipe of a
subject diesel vehicle to a density of no more than 20% opacity for
longer than 10 consecutive seconds (after the engine reaches operating
temperature), per Reference Method 9.
9. Elimination of Deadlines for Waiver Limit Increases That Have
Already Passed and Established Criteria for Issuance by VA DEQ of
Temporary Waiver If Necessary Repair Parts Are Not Available
    Repair waivers are a form of I/M program compliance that allow the
motorist to comply with an I/M program without meeting the applicable
test standard. A waiver may be issued if the vehicle fails an
inspection, undergoes qualifying repairs up to a program-designated
repair cost waiver limit, and then fails its retest. EPA rules allowed
programs to phase-in waiver limits to a statutory limit of $450,
adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Virginia removed phase-in
deadlines for full waiver cost compliance under the June 2002 I/M rule
revision, instead stating that beginning January 2003 waiver
eligibility shall be $450 adjusted to reflect the increase in the CPI.
    Virginia amended its June 2002 I/M rule to include criteria for
issuance of a temporary waiver due to unavailability of components
necessary to complete repairs to pass the test or to qualify for a
waiver. To obtain a temporary waiver, the motorist must provide a
signed statement from an owner of a parts supplier stating that needed
parts are unavailable, including a description and part number(s) of
said parts.
10. Repeal of Requirements Limiting Warranty Eligibility for Certain
Emissions Short Tests
    Virginia repealed its short test standards for warranty eligibility
(9 VAC 5-91-470) in its June 2002 rule revision. In the past, this
language had served to ensure that short test emissions results did not
exceed 220 ppm of HC and 1.2% CO. However, with the June 2002 revision
of Virginia's 2-speed idle test standards and the change in I/M program
model year coverage to vehicles 25 years and newer, there are no longer
any vehicles subject to I/M (and which are eligible for federal
emissions warranty coverage) for which test cutpoints exceed the
threshold of 220 ppm HC and 1.2% CO. Therefore, the warranty
eligibility provisions of 9 VAC 5-91-470 are no longer relevant, and
have thus been repealed by Virginia.
11. Modification of Penalty Schedule for Major Violations Related to
Emissions Inspections
    In their June 2002 I/M rule revision, Virginia revised their list
of regulatory provisions (9 VAC 5-91-620) of which a violation
constitutes a major violation. Major violations are defined by Virginia
as the most serious offenses resulting from unacceptable performance in
conducting emissions inspections that would directly affect the
credibility, integrity, and emissions reductions associated with the I/
M program. Virginia indicated in the SIP revision that this revised
list of provisions (of which a violation constitutes a major violation)
is a reflection of the additional flexibility incorporated in the
revised regulation for emission inspection procedures.
12. Revision of a Number of Definitions To Reflect Related Regulatory
Changes, and Repeal Others That Are No Longer Needed To Support the
Commonwealth's Regulations
    Virginia revised a number of its definitions of terms in 9 VAC 5-
91-20, and repealed others altogether, in support of other changes made
to the Commonwealth's I/M rule in June 2002. Some terms were also
revised for improved clarity, while others were revised to correct
cross-references to other revised regulatory sections.
    Terms that were revised include: access code; actual gross weight;
affected motor vehicle; air system; alternative fuel; certified
enhanced analyzer system; chargeable inspection; curb idle; dedicated
alternative fuel vehicle; emissions control systems; enhanced emissions
inspection

program; evaporative system pressure test; flexible fuel vehicle;
formal hearing; fuel filler cap pressure test; gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR); informal fact finding; inspection fee; motor vehicle;
motor vehicle inspection report; on-board diagnostic system (OBD
system); on-board diagnostic system test (OBD system test); on-board
diagnostic vehicle (OBD vehicle); operated primarily; reinspection or
retest; remote sensing; thermostatic air cleaner; two-speed idle test
(TSI); and vehicle specific power (VSP).
    Terms that were repealed include: aborted test; alternative
evaporative system purge and pressure test; emissions repair facility;
emissions repair technician; evaporative system purge test; federal
employee; federal facility; gross weight; inspector access code;
inspector number; original equipment manufacturer (OEM); state
implementation plan; thermometer, certified; and Tier 1.
    Terms that were newly added by Virginia include: aborted test;
emissions control equipment; identification number; and implementation
plan (replacing state implementation plan, which has been removed).
    In addition to the items detailed above, Virginia made several
other changes to the I/M rule as part of the December 18, 2002 SIP
revision that are organizational in nature, or are otherwise minor in
importance, and are not discussed in detail in this action. Please
refer to the technical support document prepared in support of this
action, or to this version of the Commonwealth's I/M regulation, which
was published in the Virginia Register of Regulations on June 17, 2002
and can be found in the docket for this action.

B. Virginia's June 18, 2007 SIP Revision

    Virginia again revised its I/M program regulations codified in
Title 9, Chapter 91 of the Virginia Code in a final rule published in
the Virginia Register of Regulations on May 30, 2005 (Volume 21, Issue
19). Virginia submitted this latest version of its I/M regulation (9
VAC 5-91) as part of a June 18, 2007 SIP revision submitted to EPA. The
submitted portions of this more recent version of the Commonwealth's I/
M regulation supersedes those portions of 9 VAC 5-91 published earlier
that were submitted to EPA in the prior SIP submittal (i.e., the
December 18, 2002 SIP revision). Where Virginia has submitted the same
regulatory provisions in separate SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to
act upon the later version of the regulation.
    The Commonwealth's May 2005 regulation serves to make a number of
changes to Virginia's roadside testing program (i.e., remote sensing)
provisions of the regulation. The remote sensing program is a roadside
test to ensure that vehicles primarily operated in the I/M program area
do not grossly exceed emissions limits set by the I/M program. The
program serves both to identify high emitting vehicles subject to
regular I/M checks, and to monitor vehicles that are not subject to
traditional biennial emissions inspections in Virginia. Roadside
testing can serve to identify subject vehicles that have become high
emitters since their last regular biennial emission inspection, or that
may have been high emitters at the time of their most recent inspection
but passed that test in error. Roadside remote sensing observations may
require motorists with vehicles identified as high emitters by roadside
testing to undergo an additional ``off cycle'' I/M inspection, or in
the alternative to pay a civil penalty.
    In general, the Commonwealth amended the regulation to reflect new
remote sensing emissions standards, and the criteria for conducting
random, roadside ``off-cycle'' testing of motor vehicle emissions, as
well as protocols for testing and procedures to notify owners of test
results.
    The Commonwealth's regulatory changes relate primarily to:
    1. Changes in remote sensing model year applicability, relating to
vehicles subject to remote sensing;
    2. Protocols for determination of gross polluters and clean car
screening;
    3. Changes to remote sensing test procedures;
    4. Changes to remote sensing test standards;
    5. Financial assistance provisions;
    6. Changes in enforcement and compliance procedures; and
    7. Changes to regulatory definitions.
    A summary of these changes made by Virginia under the May 2005
final rule are detailed below:
1. Changes in Remote Sensing Model Year Applicability
    Virginia amended its regulation in order to comply with changes to
the Code of Virginia. Model year coverage, with respect to remote
sensing under 9 VAC 5-91-180, was expanded to include vehicles of model
year 1968 and newer. Previously, applicability for remote sensing was
limited to those ``affected vehicles'' subject to I/M testing (i.e.,
the 25 most recent model years). The Commonwealth also revised their
definition of ``operate primarily'' (for purposes of remote sensing) to
include a vehicle observed by roadside remote sensing equipment at
least three times in a two-month period (with no less than 30 days
between the first and last readings). Vehicles exceeding the standards
twice in any 120-day period (as opposed to the Commonwealth's previous
requirement for 90-day observation period) will be determined to have
violated the standards, and will require a confirmation test (ASM or
OBD test) at an emission inspection station.
2. Protocols for Determination of High Emitting Vehicles and Clean
Screening
    Virginia has amended is protocols for determining whether a vehicle
is a gross polluter. Virginia's ``high emitter index'' is a means of
categorizing probable emission failure rates of engine families. The
index is determined by calculating the historical emissions inspection
failure rate (by vehicle model year, make, model, and engine size) to
the historical emissions inspection failure rate of all the engine
families in that same group. Failure rates are based on the most recent
full year of emissions inspection test data. Vehicles with a high
emitter index of greater than 75 are deemed high emitters.
    Beginning January 1, 2005, motor vehicles that exceed the
Virginia's remote sensing emissions standards on two separate days in
any 120-day period shall be considered to have violated the emissions
standards. In addition, the department may use the high emitter index
as a screening requirement. Beginning July 1, 2005, based on analysis
of remote sensing failure rates and confirmation test results, the VA
DEQ may determine than an affected vehicle is a high emitter if the
vehicle exceeds remote sensing standards a single time and has a ``high
emitter index'' of greater than 75.
    Beginning July 1, 2005, clean screening will be used by Virginia to
identify affected vehicles eligible for an exemption from their next
scheduled emissions test. Up to five percent of the total vehicles
measured by on-road testing (i.e., remote sensing) during any 30-day
period may be identified as ``clean screen vehicles''. At the
discretion of VA DEQ, vehicles identified as such may receive a
``pass'' for their next scheduled emissions test, without undergoing a
regular, biennial emissions inspection.
3. Changes to Remote Sensing Test Procedures
    Virginia has amended its exhaust emissions standards for its remote
sensing program. Beginning July 1, 2005, motor vehicles determined to
exceed roadside remote sensing standards after two or more

measurements in any 120-day period, shall be considered to have
violated emissions standards and shall be subject to an off-cycle,
confirmation test. A vehicle exceeding the remote sensing standards a
single time (which is also determined by the VA DEQ to have a ``high
emitter index'' greater than 75) will be subject to an off-cycle,
confirmation test.
    Vehicles subject to confirmation testing may be subject to the
applicable emissions test for their vehicle, and vehicles 1996 and
newer may be subject to exhaust testing, in addition to an OBD system
test. A failed confirmation inspection (ordered by VA DEQ due to a
roadside, remote sensing test failure) will be a chargeable inspection,
while a passing confirmation test will not result in a test fee.
4. Changes to Remote Sensing Test Standards
    Virginia has revised its remote sensing exhaust emission standards
to establish separate standards for light-duty gasoline vehicles (i.e.,
passenger cars), light-duty gasoline trucks, and heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles. Additionally, Virginia has established standards that apply
in the case where two or more on-road, remote sensing measurements are
gathered for an applicable vehicle over a 120-day period. Separate
standards apply in the case of a single on-road measurement, where a
vehicle is also determined by VA DEQ to have a ``high emitter index''
of 75 or more.
    Virginia has for the first time established nitric oxide (NO)
remote sensing standards, in addition to existing standards for HC and
CO.
    All remote sensing measurements are to be measured based upon
vehicle specific power (VSP), which is a means of utilizing vehicle
speed, drag coefficient, tire rolling resistance and roadway grade to
characterize the load under which a vehicle is operating at the time a
remote measuring measurement is taken. Only valid remote sensor
measurements with a VSP between 3 and 22 shall be used to determine if
a vehicle violates the remote sensing standards.
    Finally, Virginia amended its 2-speed idle exhaust emissions test
standards to add standards for 1968-1974 model year vehicles. These
vehicles were no longer subject to regular, biennial emissions testing
under Virginia's June 2002 regulatory amendments, but are now affected
motor vehicles subject to roadside remote sensing tests, and, if
necessary, follow-up, 2-speed idle confirmation testing.
5. Financial Assistance Provisions
    Virginia's amended regulation establishes a financial assistance
program to subsidize repair costs of some vehicles determined to be in
violation of roadside remote sensing standards. Qualified individuals
may receive up to 50% of the cost of emission-related repairs or up to
50% of the waiver amount (after a co-payment of $100). To qualify, an
individual must be the registered owner of the vehicle (registered in
the program area), have a household income less than 133% of federal
poverty guidelines, and the vehicle must have a valid safety
inspection. Only individual vehicle owners are eligible for
assistance--commercial, non-profit, and government vehicles are
ineligible.
    Remote sensing roadside testing has been expanded to include
vehicles previously not subject to remote sensing. These affected
vehicles include those newer than model year 1968 (versus the previous
coverage of vehicles 25 model years old, or newer).
6. Changes to Enforcement and Compliance Procedures
    Upon determination by VA DEQ that a roadside, remote sensing
violation occurred, motorists will be informed in writing by that
department of such failure. Motor vehicle owners that receive a notice
of violation of roadside, remote sensing standards will be required to
furnish proof that their vehicle passed a confirmation test or received
a waiver within 30 days of a notice of violation of remote sensing
standards. At that time, civil charges will be assessed (unless the
vehicle is due for its regularly scheduled biennial emissions test
within 3 months of the date of the measured violation of the remote
sensing standard).
    Civil charges assessed for failure to pass (or receive a waiver)
from a confirmation test are to be based upon the degree by which the
vehicle exceeds the remote sensing standards. Violations up to 150% of
the applicable standard will result in a charge of no more than 50% of
the cost of a program waiver (i.e., $450, adjusted annually by the 1990
Consumer Price Index). Violations over 150% of the applicable remote
sensing standard will result in a civil charge no more than 100% of a
program waiver.
7. Changes to Regulatory Definitions
    Virginia revised several definitions in 9 VAC 5-91-120 in its May
30, 2005 regulatory amendment. The definitions of the following terms
were revised: affected motor vehicle; light duty truck (LDT); light
duty truck (LDT1); light duty truck (LDT2); light duty vehicle; and
operated primarily.
    Definitions for the following terms were added to 9 VAC 5-91-120:
confirmation test; heavy duty gasoline vehicle (HDGV); high emitter
index (HEI); light duty gasoline vehicle (LDGV); light duty gasoline
truck (LDGT1); light duty gasoline truck (LDGT2); and vehicle specific
power (VSP).

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion
concludes that

``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's revisions to the enhanced I/
M program SIP for the Northern Virginia I/M program area. These SIP
revisions were formally submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth on
December 18, 2002, on April 2, 2003, and on June 18, 2007. EPA's review
of this material indicates that the Commonwealth's revisions to the
prior, SIP-approved I/M program continue to adhere to Federal
requirements applicable to enhanced inspection and maintenance
programs.
    EPA reviewed the Commonwealth's revisions to the enhanced I/M
program in accordance with requirements for inspection and maintenance
programs in sections 182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act, and with Federal
rule requirements for I/M programs, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
S.
    Many of these changes made by the Commonwealth's most recent SIP
revisions have been in effect in Virginia's program since October 1,
2002, with some state statutory-driven changes having taken effect
earlier (e.g., model year coverage changes) and some changes phased in
according to later state regulatory deadlines (e.g., separate
provisions for mandatory OBD testing for gasoline-powered vehicles and
diesel-powered vehicles). The Commonwealth's revised roadside testing
program (i.e., remote sensing) regulatory changes have a state
effective date of June 2005. However, some of the provisions of these
rules had delayed or phased-in implementation and began more recently,
such as light duty diesel OBD testing.
    These revisions to the Commonwealth's I/M program have already
taken effect at the state level, and implementation of these provisions
has been noncontroversial at the state level. Virginia has relied upon
the revised I/M program (including the 2002 regulatory changes to the
program) as the basis for its modeling of the Greater Washington DC
Metropolitan area 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration and rate-of-
progress plans, and this most recent iteration of the program (i.e.,
the Commonwealth's May 2005 version of the I/M regulations) is modeled
as a control measure for Virginia's attainment demonstration SIP for
the Washington DC 8-hour ozone nonattainment plan. The revised I/M
program continues to achieve VOC and NOX emissions
reductions toward meeting the ozone national ambient air quality
standard. For additional information concerning EPA's review of
Virginia's SIP revisions, please refer to the Technical Support
Document prepared by EPA in support of this rulemaking.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order. This proposed rule to approve revisions to
Virginia's enhanced I/M program SIP does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 6, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-2552 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63302-63305]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0421; Special Conditions No. 25-571-SC]

Special Conditions: Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Model 767-2C
Airplane; Interaction of Fuel Systems and Structures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 767-
2C airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features
when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. These design
features include the addition of four body fuel tanks and a modified
fuel management system that, directly or as a result of failure or
malfunction, could affect the airplane's structural performance. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective on November 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 18, 2010, Boeing Commercial Airplanes applied for an
amendment to Type Certificate No. A1NM to include the new Model 767-2C.
The Boeing Model 767-2C, which is a derivative of the Model 767-200
currently approved under Type Certificate No. A1NM, is a transport
category airplane, intended for use as a freighter, powered by two
PW4062 engines with a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds.
    The Boeing Model 767-2C will have more fuel capacity than a
traditional freighter through the addition of four body fuel tanks. The
Model 767-2C contains fuel systems that could, directly or as a result
of failure or malfunction, affect the aircraft's structural
performance. Current regulations do not take into account loads for the
airplane due to the effects of fuel system failures on structural
performance; therefore, special conditions are needed.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 767-2C meets the
applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-0
through 25-130, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the
FAA. These regulations will be incorporated into Type Certificate No.
A1NM after type certification approval of the Model 767-2C.
    In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations,
special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these
special conditions. Type Certificate No. A1NM will be updated to
include a complete description of the certification basis for these
model airplanes.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model 767-2C because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already
included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the
same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions
would also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model 767-2C must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 767-2C will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: Fuel system changes including the addition of
forward and aft body fuel tanks, a main-to-center-tank gravity transfer
system, hydraulically-powered-pumps for jettison, a nitrogen generation
system for inerting of all fuel tanks, and a pressure-regulating closed
fuel tank vent system. Digital electronic controls (i.e., fuel
management systems) are added for control and monitoring of these
systems.

Discussion

    The fuel management system is designed to keep the fuel distributed
in accordance with fuel usage requirements. System failures of these
new and modified systems may result in adverse fuel distributions or
center-of-gravity excursions that increase the airplane loads. For
example, a failure of the main tank gravity drain valve may result in
less wing main tank fuel than normal management; or failure of the body
auxiliary tank transfer systems may result in excessive body fuel at
landing. Additionally, failures of the nitrogen generation system, fuel
transfer system, or vent/pressure regulating system may result in
excessive fuel tank pressures. These types of failures are addressed by
these special conditions.
    Special conditions have been applied on past airplane programs in
order to require consideration of the effects of systems on structures.
These special conditions are similar to those previously applied except
that the scope is limited to new fuel system features unique to the
Model 767-2C. These

special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-14-07-SC for the
Boeing Model 767-2C airplane was published in the Federal Register on
July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37670). No comments were received, and the special
conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 767-2C airplane. Should Boeing Commercial Airplanes apply
at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the
special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Commercial Airplanes Model 767-
2C airplane.
    1. Interactions of fuel systems and structures. General.
    a. For airplanes equipped with fuel systems that affect structural
performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or
malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure
conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the
requirements of 14 CFR part 25 subparts C and D.
    b. The criteria in Section 2 below must be used for showing
compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with
fuel systems that either directly or as a result of failure or
malfunction affect structural performance.
    c. The criteria only address the direct structural consequences of
the system responses and performances and cannot be considered in
isolation but should be included in the overall safety evaluation of
the airplane. These criteria may in some instances duplicate standards
already established for this evaluation. These criteria are only
applicable to structural elements whose failure could prevent continued
safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define acceptable
limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements when
operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not provided
in these special conditions.
    d. Depending on the specific characteristics of the airplane,
additional studies may be required that demonstrate the capability of
the airplane to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative
gust or maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load
alleviation system.
    e. The following definitions are applicable to these special
conditions:
    (1) Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the
structural requirements of part 25.
    (2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the
airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that
are included in the airplane flight manual (e.g., speed limitations,
avoidance of severe weather conditions, etc.).
    (3) Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight
limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions
before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload and Master Minimum Equipment List
limitations).
    (4) Probabilistic terms: The probabilistic terms (probable,
improbable, extremely improbable) used in these special conditions are
the same as those used in Sec.  25.1309.
    (5) Failure condition: The term failure condition is the same as
that used in Sec.  25.1309. However, these special conditions apply
only to system failure conditions that affect the structural
performance of the airplane (e.g., system failure conditions that
induce loads, change the response of the airplane to inputs such as
gusts or pilot actions, or lower flutter margins). The system failure
conditions include consequential or cascading effects resulting from
the first failure.
    2. Effects of Fuel System Failure on Structures. The following
criteria will be used in determining the influence of the fuel system
and its failure conditions on the airplane structural elements.
    a. Fuel system fully operative. With the fuel system fully
operative, the following apply:
    (1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating
configurations of the fuel system from all the limit conditions
specified in subpart C (or used in lieu of those specified in subpart
C), taking into account any special behavior of such a system or
associated functions or any effect on the structural performance of the
airplane that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any
significant nonlinearity (rate of fuel transfer, thresholds or any
other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or
conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
    (2) The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25
(i.e., static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors
to derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect
of nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to
ensure the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the
behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit
conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the
airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those
limit conditions.
    (3) The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements
of Sec.  25.629.
    b. Fuel system in the failure condition. For any fuel system
failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following
apply:
    (1) At the time of occurrence, starting from 1-g level flight
conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions,
must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of
failure and immediately after failure.
    (i) For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by
an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of
occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23OC14.000

    (ii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in
subparagraph 2b(1)(i). For pressurized cabins, these loads must be
combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
    (iii) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the
speeds defined in Sec.  25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that
result in speeds beyond VC/MC, freedom from
aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the
margins intended by Sec.  25.629(b)(2) are maintained.
    (iv) Failures of the fuel system that result in forced structural
vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could
result in detrimental deformation of the affected structural elements.
    (2) For continuation of flight, for an airplane in the system
failed state and considering any appropriate reconfiguration and flight
limitations, the following apply:
    (i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or used in
lieu of the following conditions) at speeds up to VC/
MC, or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of
the flight, must be determined:
    (A) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in
Sec. Sec.  25.331 and 25.345.
    (B) The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in
Sec. Sec.  25.341 and 25.345.
    (C) The limit rolling conditions specified in Sec.  25.349 and the
limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec. Sec.  25.367 and
25.427(b) and (c).
    (D) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in Sec.  25.351.
    (E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
25.473, 25.491, and 25.493.
    (ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure
must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph 2b(2)(i) of these
special conditions multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the
probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is
defined in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23OC14.001

    (iii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
2b(2)(ii) of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these
loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
    (iv) If the loads induced by the failure condition have a
significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects
must be taken into account.
    (v) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a
speed determined from Figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V' and V'' may
be based on the speed limitation specified

for the remainder of the flight using the margins defined by Sec.
25.629(b).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23OC14.002

    (vi) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to
V' in Figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition
combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by
Sec.  25.571(b).
    (3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by
other sections of part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability.
Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be
less than 10-\9\, criteria other than those specified in
this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show
continued safe flight and landing.
    c. Failure indications. For fuel system failure detection and
indication, the following apply:
    (1) The fuel system must be checked for failure conditions, not
extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the
level required by part 25 or significantly reduce the reliability of
the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flight crew
must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of
the fuel system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may use
special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use daily
checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems to achieve the
objective of this requirement. These identified inspections must be
limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal
detection and indication systems and where service history shows that
inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.
    (2) The existence of any failure condition, not extremely
improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the
structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight
limitations, requires a caution level alert for immediate flightcrew
awareness and a warning level alert for immediate flightcrew awareness
and corrective action. For example, a flightcrew alert during flight is
required for failure conditions that result in a factor of safety
between the airplane strength and the loads of subpart C below 1.25, or
flutter margins below V'', because it could significantly affect the
structural capability of the airplane.
    d. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be
dispatched in a known fuel system failure condition that affects
structural performance, or affects the reliability of the remaining
system to maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these
special conditions must be met, including the provisions of paragraph
2a for the dispatched condition, and paragraph 2b for subsequent
failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for
determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and
expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the
dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for
the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such
that the probability of being in this combined failure state and then
subsequently encountering limit load conditions is extremely
improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the
subsequent system failure rate is greater than 10-\3\ per
hour.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 16, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-25242 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P