[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65648-65649]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR19-26-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Revised Statement
of Operating Conditions to be effective 11/29/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/14/18.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>76.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/19.

    Docket Number: RP19-206-001.
    Applicants: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, L.C.C.
    Description: Tariff filing per 260,402:MCGP further extension
request to be effective N/A.
    Accession Number: 20181214-5201.
    File Date: 12/14/18.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-460-000.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Annual Fuel Assessment 2018 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/13/2018.
    Accession Number: 20181213-5032.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-461-000.
    Applicants: UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per
260.402: 501-G Filing to be effective N/A.
    Accession Number: 20181213-5128.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-462-000.
    Applicants: UGI Sunbury, LLC.
    Description: UGI Sunbury, LLC submits tariff filing per 260.402:
501-G Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/13/2018.
    Accession Number: 20181213-5129.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. ET 12/2618.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-463-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: Negotiated Rate--Yankee to Direct Energy 798335 eff 12-14-
18 to be effective 12/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/13/2018.
    Accession Number: 20181213-5137.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-464-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Perm release
from Dominion to Manchester to be effective 12/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/14/18.
    Accession Number: 20181214-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-465-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--MarketLink
Permt Rls--Dominion Fairless to be effective 12/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/14/18.
    Accession Number: 20181214-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-466-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Yankee to
Direct Energy 798340 eff 12-15-18 to be effective 12/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/14/18.
    Accession Number: 20181214-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-467-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 121418 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy H-2275-89 to be effective 12/15/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/14/18.
    Accession Number: 20181214-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but

intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 17, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27733 Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35421-35423]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0662; FRL-9465-02-R3]

Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements for 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
The revision certifies that Maryland's existing nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) program, covering the Baltimore nonattainment
area, the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City nonattainment area, and
the Washington, DC nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), is at least as
stringent as applicable Federal requirements. EPA is approving these
revisions to the Maryland SIP in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0662. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yongtian He, Permits Branch (3AD10),
Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. He can also be reached via electronic
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 7, 2022 (87 FR 12631), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed
approval of Maryland's SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore, MD, Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE, and Washington, DC-MD-VA
nonattainment areas. The formal SIP revision (#20-05) was submitted by
Maryland on June 3, 2020.
    In the SIP revision, MDE is certifying that its existing NNSR
program, covering the Baltimore nonattainment area (which includes Anne
Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties and the city
of Baltimore), the Maryland portion of Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic
City nonattainment area (which includes Cecil County in Maryland), and
the Maryland portion of the Washington, DC nonattainment area (which
includes Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince Georges
Counties in Maryland) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, is at least as
stringent as the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165 for ozone and its
precursors.
    On October 1, 2015 (effective December 28, 2015), EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR
65292 (October 26, 2015). Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS,
the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is
violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air
quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The
Baltimore nonattainment area, the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
nonattainment area, and the Washington, DC-MD-VA area were classified
as marginal nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 4,
2018 (effective August 3, 2018) using 2014-2016 ambient air quality
data. See 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    On December 6, 2018, EPA issued the final SIP Requirements Rule,
which establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air
quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation
plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Areas that were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas are
required to attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than August 3,
2021. See 83 FR 10376 (March 9, 2018) and 83 FR 62998 (December 6,
2018). On April 13, 2022, EPA proposed to determine that the

Baltimore and Philadelphia nonattainment areas had not timely attained
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See 87 FR 21842. EPA has not yet taken final
action on that proposal.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    This rule is specific to Maryland's NNSR requirements for the
Baltimore nonattainment area, the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City
nonattainment area, and the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area.
NNSR is a preconstruction review permit program that applies to new
major stationary sources or major modifications at existing sources
located in a nonattainment area. The specific NNSR requirements for the
ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165. The SIP
Requirements Rule explained that, for each nonattainment area, a NNSR
plan or plan revision was due no later than 36 months after the
effective date of area designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone standard
(i.e., August 3, 2021).
    The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR 51.165. See 40 CFR
51.1114. For the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the SIP for each ozone
nonattainment area designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS must also
contain NNSR provisions that include the anti-backsliding requirements
at 40 CFR 51.1105. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(12).
    Maryland's longstanding SIP approved NNSR program, established in
Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) Air Quality Rule COMAR 26.11.17--
Nonattainment Provisions for Major New Sources and Major Modifications,
applies to the construction and modification of major stationary
sources in nonattainment areas. COMAR 26.11.17 currently includes
provisions allowing ozone interprecursor trading. On January 31, 2020,
MDE submitted a SIP revision (#20-02) to incorporate the interprecursor
trading provisions of COMAR 26.11.17 into the Maryland SIP. On October
27, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which
EPA proposed to approve Maryland SIP revision #20-02). See 85 FR 68029
(October 27, 2020). MDE's SIP Revision #20-05 submission to EPA
referenced those interprecursor trading provisions of COMAR 26.11.17 in
its certification that Maryland's NNSR program was consistent with
Federal requirements. Subsequently, on January 29, 2021, the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that ozone
interprecursor trading is not permissible under the CAA and vacated
ozone interprecursor trading, i.e., the interprecursor trading
provision in the Federal NNSR regulations. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 985
F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021). EPA subsequently removed the language
allowing interprecursor trading for ozone from our NNSR regulations.
See 86 FR 37918 (July 19, 2021). After the court decision and EPA's
withdrawal of the interprecursor trading provisions, by letter dated
October 26, 2021, Maryland withdrew SIP revision #20-02 with the
interprecursor trading provisions in its entirety. Additionally, in a
separate clarification letter dated October 26, 2021, MDE requested
that EPA withdraw from EPA's consideration those portions of SIP
revision #20-05 which related to ozone interprecursor trading.
Consequently, the proposed rule on interprecursor trading that was
published on October 27, 2020 (85 FR 68029) was withdrawn on March 7,
2022. See 87 FR 12631.
    Other specific requirements of 40 CFR 51.1114, the requirements of
CAA sections 110 and 172, the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR
51.165, and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in
the NPRM, and will not be restated here. No public comments were
received on the NPRM.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maryland's June 3, 2020's SIP revision addressing
the NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Baltimore, MD, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE, and
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment areas as a revision to the Maryland
SIP. EPA has concluded that the State's submission fulfills the 40 CFR
51.1114 revision requirement, meets the requirements of CAA sections
110 and 172 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Maryland's 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
Certification SIP revision for NNSR may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment New Source Review
Requirements'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable geographic      submittal     EPA approval date     Additional
             revision                        area                 date                              explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS            The Baltimore Area              6/3/2020  6/10/2022, [Insert   ..............
 Nonattainment New Source Review    (includes Anne Arundel,                   Federal Register
 Requirements.                      Baltimore, Carroll,                       citation].
                                    Harford, and Howard
                                    Counties and the city
                                    of Baltimore), the
                                    Philadelphia-Wilmington-
                                    Atlantic City Area
                                    (includes Cecil County
                                    in Maryland), and the
                                    Washington, DC Area
                                    (includes Calvert,
                                    Charles, Frederick,
                                    Montgomery, and Prince
                                    Georges Counties in
                                    Maryland).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-12255 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39792-39793]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0062]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Devices;
Exception From General Requirements for Informed Consent

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0586.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Medical Devices; Exception From General Requirements for Informed
Consent OMB Control Number 0910-0586--Extension

    In the Federal Register of June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32827), FDA issued
an interim final rule to amend its regulations to establish a new
exception from the general requirements for informed consent, to permit
the use of investigational in vitro diagnostic devices to identify
chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents without informed
consent in certain circumstances. The Agency took this action because
it was concerned that, during a potential terrorism event or other
potential public health emergency, delaying the testing of specimens to
obtain informed consent may threaten the life of the subject. In many
instances, there may also be others who have been exposed to, or who
may be at risk of exposure to, a dangerous chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear agent, thus necessitating identification of
the agent as soon as possible. FDA created this exception to help
ensure that individuals who may have been exposed to a chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear agent are able to benefit from the
timely use of the most appropriate diagnostic devices, including those
that are investigational.
    Section 50.23(e)(1) (21 CFR 50.23(e)(1)) provides an exception to
the general rule that informed consent is required for the use of an
investigational in vitro diagnostic device. This exception applies to
those situations in which the in vitro investigational diagnostic
device is used to prepare for, and respond to, a chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear terrorism event or other public health
emergency, if the investigator and an independent licensed physician
make the determination and later certify in writing that: (1) There is
a life-threatening situation necessitating the use of the
investigational device, (2) obtaining informed consent from the subject
is not feasible because there was no way to predict the need to use the
investigational device when the specimen was collected and there is not
sufficient time to obtain consent from the subject or the subject's
legally authorized representative, and (3) no satisfactory alternative
device is available. Under the rule, these determinations are made
before the device is used, and the written certifications are made
within 5 working days after the use of the device. If use of the device
is necessary to preserve the life of the subject and there is not
sufficient time to obtain the determination of the independent licensed
physician in advance of using the investigational device, Sec.
50.23(e)(2) provides that the certifications must be made within 5
working days of use of the device. In either case, the certifications
are submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and, under Sec.
50.23(e)(3) (76 FR 36989, June 24, 2011), to FDA within 5 working days
of the use of the device.
    Section 50.23(e)(4) provides that an investigator must disclose the
investigational status of the device and what is known about the
performance characteristics of the device at the time test results are
reported to the subject's health care provider and public health
authorities, as applicable. Under Sec.  50.23(e)(4), the investigator
provides the IRB with the information required by Sec.  50.25 (21 CFR
50.25) (except for the information described in Sec.  50.25(a)(8)) and
the procedures that will be used to provide this information to each
subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
    FDA estimates that there are approximately 150 laboratories that
could perform testing that uses investigational in vitro diagnostic
devices to identify chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear
agents. FDA estimates that in the United States each year there are
approximately 450

naturally occurring cases of diseases or conditions that are identified
in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's list of category
``A'' biological threat agents. The number of cases that would result
from a terrorist event or other public health emergency is uncertain.
Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA estimates
that it will take about 2 hours to prepare each certification. We
estimate the operating and maintenance cost of $200 for copying and
mailing the information to FDA.
    Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA
estimates that it will take about 1 hour to prepare a report disclosing
the investigational status of the in vitro diagnostic device and what
is known about the performance characteristics of the device and submit
it to the health care provider and, where appropriate, to public health
authorities.
    In the Federal Register of April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18294), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                              Number of        Number of       Total annual        Average burden per                     operating and
              21 CFR section                 respondents     responses per      responses               response            Total hours    maintenance
                                                               respondent                                                                     costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written certification (sent to FDA)--                 150                3              450   0.25 (15 minutes)..........          113             $200
 50.23(e)(3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information.

                           Table 2--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
                                     Number of      disclosures    Total annual       Average
           21 CFR Part              respondents         per         disclosures     burden per      Total hours
                                                    respondent                      disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written certification (sent to               150               3             450               2             900
 IRB)--50.23(e)(1) and (2)......
Informed consent information--               150               3             450               1             450
 50.23(e)(4)....................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: August 17, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-17702 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


for each period separately.
    (1) The date(s) the missing data is used.
    (2) The equation(s) in which the missing data is used.
    (3) The description of the unique or unusual circumstance that led
to missing data use, including information on any equipment or
components involved and any procedures that were not followed.
    (4) The description of the procedures used to substitute an
unavailable value of a parameter.
    (5) The description of how the owner or operator will avoid the use
of missing data in the future, such as mitigation strategies or changes
to standard operating procedures.
0
9. Section 98.238 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a definition for ``Associated gas venting or flaring'' in
alphabetical order;
0
b. Removing the definition for ``Component'';
0
c. Adding definitions for ``Compressor mode'' and ``Compressor source''
in alphabetical order;
0
d. Removing the definitions for ``Equipment leak'' and ``Equipment leak
detection'';
0
e. Adding definitions for ``Manifolded compressor source'' and
``Manifolded group of compressor sources'' in alphabetical order;
0
f. Revising the definition for ``Meter/regulator run'';
0
g. Adding definitions for ``Reduced emissions completion'' and
``Reduced emissions workover'' in alphabetical order; and
0
h. Revising the definition for ``Sub-basin category, for onshore
natural gas production''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  98.238  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Associated gas venting or flaring means the venting or flaring of
natural gas which originates at wellheads that also produce hydrocarbon
liquids and occurs either in a discrete gaseous phase at the wellhead
or is released from the liquid hydrocarbon phase by separation. This
does not include venting or flaring resulting from activities that are
reported elsewhere, including tank venting, well completions, and well
workovers.
* * * * *
    Compressor mode means the operational and pressurized status of a
compressor. For a centrifugal compressor, ``mode'' refers to either
operating -mode or not-operating-depressurized -mode. For a
reciprocating compressor, ``mode'' refers to either: operating -mode,
standby-pressurized -mode, or not-operating-depressurized -mode.
    Compressor source means any type of vent or valve (i.e., wet seal,
blowdown valve, isolation valve, or rod packing) on a centrifugal or
reciprocating compressor.
* * * * *
    Manifolded compressor source means a compressor source (as defined
in this section) that is manifolded to a common vent that routes gas
from multiple compressors.
    Manifolded group of compressor sources means a collection of any
combination of manifolded compressor sources (as defined in this
section) that are manifolded to a common vent.
    Meter/regulator run means a series of components used in regulating
pressure or metering natural gas flow or both. At least one meter, at
least on regulator, or any combination of both on a single run of
piping is considered one meter/regulator run.
* * * * *
    Reduced emissions completion means a well completion following
hydraulic fracturing where gas flowback that is otherwise vented is
captured, cleaned, and routed to the flow line or collection system,
re-injected into the well or another well, used as an on-site fuel
source, or used for other useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw
material would serve, with no direct release to the atmosphere.
    Reduced emissions workover means a well workover with hydraulic
fracturing (i.e., refracturing) where gas flowback that is otherwise
vented is captured, cleaned, and routed to the flow line or collection
system, re-injected into the well or another well, used as an on-site
fuel source, or used for other useful purpose that a purchased fuel or
raw material would serve, with no direct release to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
    Sub-basin category, for onshore natural gas production, means a
subdivision of a basin into the unique combination of wells with the
surface coordinates within the boundaries of an individual county and
subsurface completion in one or more of each of the following five
formation types: Oil, high

permeability gas, shale gas, coal seam, or other tight gas reservoir
rock. The distinction between high permeability gas and tight gas
reservoirs shall be designated as follows: High permeability gas
reservoirs with >0.1 millidarcy permeability, and tight gas reservoirs
with <=0.1 millidarcy permeability. Permeability for a reservoir type
shall be determined by engineering estimate. Wells that produce only
from high permeability gas, shale gas, coal seam, or other tight gas
reservoir rock are considered gas wells; gas wells producing from more
than one of these formation types shall be classified into only one
type based on the formation with the most contribution to production as
determined by engineering knowledge. All wells that produce hydrocarbon
liquids (with or without gas) and do not meet the definition of a gas
well in this sub-basin category definition are considered to be in the
oil formation. All emission sources that handle condensate from gas
wells in high permeability gas, shale gas, or tight gas reservoir rock
formations are considered to be in the formation that the gas well
belongs to and not in the oil formation.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04408 Filed 3-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20590

In the matter of:

INTRA-ALASKA CLASS						        DOCKET 14694

SERVICE MAIL RATES						        DOCKET 14695

EQUALIZATION NOTICE OF LARRY’S FLYING SERVICE, INC

Larry’s Flying Service, Inc., an Alaskan carrier currently authorized
to transport United States Mail, hereby gives notice of its intent to
equalize its mail rates to the lowest authorized rates legally in effect
over all routes on its system, either directly or indirectly.

By Order 2004-2-12, the Department of Transportation established a new
linehaul rate for markets where Part 121 bush service is provided by
aircraft certificated by the manufacturer for 19 seats or more on one
flight a week or more.  The language of the Order sets the rate “for
markets where a carrier scheduling and operating at least one round trip
a week with Part 121 aircraft in passenger service qualifies for the
carriage of mail”.  This language establishes a single lawful rate for
each market, and appears to obviate the need for any sort of
equalization notice.   None-the-less, with an abundance of caution,
Larry’s Flying Service, Inc. hereby gives notice of its equalization
to the lowest lawful rate in any market where it operates service.

Larry’s Flying Service, Inc. equalizes its rates to the lowest rate,
or combination of rates, applicable in the markets it serves directly or
by connection at an intermediate point.

Equalization under this notice is effective immediately, and is
effective for an indefinite period.  This notice will remain in effect
until terminated by written notice filed at least ten days in advance.

Whereas Larry’s Flying Service, Inc. gives this notice of equalization
of its mail rates, Larry’s Flying Service, Inc requests equitable
tender and full tender of bypass mail pursuant to the provisions of the
Rural Service Improvement Act and the practices and procedures of the
Department of Transportation and the United States Postal Service.

Respectfully submitted,

,

Secretary Treasurer


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65562-65571]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1207; Special Conditions No. 25-517-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Series Airplane;
Flight-Envelope Protection (Icing and Non-Icing Conditions); High-
Incidence Protection and Alpha-Floor Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
series airplanes. These airplanes will have novel or unusual design
features, associated with flight-envelope protection in icing and non-
icing conditions, that use low-speed incidence protection and an alpha-
floor function that automatically advances throttles whenever the
airplane angle of attack reaches a predetermined value. 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 November 5, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airframe and
Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the
FAA approved, an extension to the application for FAA type
certification to November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 series airplane
has a conventional layout with twin, wing-mounted, Rolls-Royce Trent
XWB engines. It features a twin-aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout,
and accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 series airplane configuration
accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

    Under title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must show that the Model A350-900 series airplane meets the applicable
provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-
129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for the Model A350-900 series airplane 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, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Model A350-900 series airplanes 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 must issue
a finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92 574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    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.  21.17(a)(2).
    The current airworthiness standards do not contain adequate safety
standards for the unique features of the high-incidence protection
system and the alpha-floor system for the Airbus Model A350-900 series
airplane. Part I of the following special conditions is in lieu of
Sec. Sec.  25.103, 25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and
25.1323(d). Part II is in lieu of Sec. Sec.  25.21(g), 25.105, 25.107,
25.121, 25.123, 25.125, and 25.143.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design features: High-incidence protection
and alpha-floor systems.
    The high-incidence protection system replaces the stall-warning
system during normal operating conditions by prohibiting the airplane
from stalling. The high-incidence protection system limits the angle of
attack at which the airplane can be flown during normal low-speed
operation, impacts the longitudinal airplane handling characteristics,
and cannot be overridden by the crew. The existing regulations do not
provide adequate criteria to address this system.
    The function of the alpha-floor system is to increase automatically
the thrust on the operating engines under unusual circumstances where
the airplane pitches to a predetermined high angle of attack or bank
angle. The regulations do not provide adequate criteria to address this
system.

Discussion

    The current airworthiness standards do not contain adequate safety
standards for the high-incidence protection system and the alpha-floor
system for Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. Special conditions
are needed.
    The high-incidence protection system prevents the airplane from
stalling and therefore, the stall-warning system is not needed during
normal flight conditions. However, during failure conditions (which are
not shown to be extremely improbable), the requirements of Title 14
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) sections 25.203 and 25.207 apply,
although slightly modified (i.e., the flight characteristics at the
angle of attack for CLMAX must be suitable in the
traditional sense, and stall warning must be provided in a conventional
manner).
    The alpha-floor function automatically advances the throttles on
the operating engines under flight circumstances of low speed if the
airplane reaches a predetermined high angle of attack. This function is
intended to provide increased climb capability.
    These special conditions are intended to parallel the requirements
provided in EASA A350 Certification Review Item (CRI):
     B-1, ``Stalling and Scheduled Operating Speeds,'' and
     B-09, ``Flight in Icing Conditions,'' to adapt the new
standards for performance and handling characteristics of transport-
category airplanes in icing conditions introduced by Amendment 25-121
to the envelope-protected Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane.
    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. 25-12-09-SC for the
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on December 19, 2012 (77 FR 75066). Comments were received
from Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) and Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional
De Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC).

TCCA Comments and FAA Responses

    1. TCCA commented that, despite informal attempts to obtain
harmonization on requirements for high-incidence protection systems,

harmonization has not been achieved. However, TCCA also correctly
points out that this will be the subject of an ARAC harmonization
effort through the Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (FTHWG).
    The FAA agrees with TCCA that the ARAC FTHWG will attempt to reach
a harmonized position with regard to TCCA and ANAC comments; these
special conditions are necessary in the interim.
    2. TCCA also commented that the concept of using VSR to
establish operational speeds in both icing and non-icing conditions was
well established, and not significantly commented upon, in earlier
rulemaking efforts. Because these special conditions modify that
concept in icing conditions, TCCA requested that this point be
carefully evaluated.
    The FAA agrees with TCCA that this point should be carefully
evaluated in the ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA considers
that the robust flight-envelope protection requirements of these
special conditions provide compensating requirements that result in an
adequate level of safety.
    3. In consideration of a recent accident on a test airplane, TCCA
requested that consideration be given to including specific
requirements for having the protection system functioning in ground-
effect during takeoff and landing.
    The FAA agrees that this point deserves consideration, and notes
that it should be carefully evaluated in the ARAC FTHWG. However, at
this time, the FAA considers that the general requirements (those that
apply in all phases of flight) of these special conditions provide an
adequate level of safety.
    4. The TCCA notes that many airframe ice-protection systems have a
probable failure condition (single failure) where some or all of the
airframe ice protection is lost. TCCA further notes that no proposed
demonstration requirements are specified for failures of airframe ice
protection, which are most likely in the probable/remote range.
    The FAA acknowledges this point, and notes that it will be further
evaluated in the ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, it is the FAA's
opinion that these special conditions, along with the requirements of
Sec.  25.1309, provide an adequate level of safety.
    5. Demonstration requirements for failures of the airframe ice-
protection system less than extremely improbable should be specified,
according to the TCCA.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA believes that the general
requirements of these special conditions, along with the general
requirements of Sec.  25.1309, provide an adequate level of safety.
    6. TCCA also opined that the protection system should be effective
in foreseeable maneuvers such as the sideslip that is developed during
takeoff and landing in crosswind conditions.
    The FAA agrees that this point should receive additional evaluation
in the ARAC FTHWG. However, after consideration, it is the FAA's
position that the general requirements of these special conditions,
combined with the current demonstration requirements in crosswind
conditions, provide an adequate level of safety.
    7. TCCA recommended introducing a new requirement: ``The protection
system must be designed to operate and perform its intended function in
sideslip angles appropriate to normal airplane operation.''
    The FAA intends that this point will be part of the analysis
conducted by the ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, it is the FAA's
position that the general requirements of these special conditions,
combined with the general flight-test requirements in various sideslip
conditions, provide an adequate level of safety.
    8. TCCA also recommended guidance on the adverse effects of
airframe and system tolerances that should be taken into account when
determining VMin1g.
    The FAA considers that the general requirements of these special
conditions, along with the guidance in AC 25-7, provide an adequate
level of safety. However, additional evaluation may be conducted in the
ARAC FTHWG.
    9. TCCA requested clarification on whether the stall warning
required for each abnormal configuration likely to be used, following
system failure, should include both icing and non-icing requirements.
    Whether the stall warning must include both icing and non-icing
requirements depends upon the failure scenario, and whether it meets
Sec.  25.1309. Reliance on Sec.  25.1309 requirements provides an
adequate level of safety in this case. However, this subject may be
revisited in the upcoming ARAC FTHWG.
    10. TCCA recommended that the FAA issue guidance on accounting for
the adverse effects of airframe and system tolerances as a result of
leading-edge degradation due to damage within permissible limits, and
contamination due to dirt and insects (when demonstrating handling
characteristics to alpha max).
    The FAA may issue such guidance, subsequent to evaluation in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, it is the FAA's opinion that the
general requirements of these special conditions, along with the
guidance in AC 25-7, provide an adequate level of safety.
    11. TCCA also recommended additional flight testing requirements to
ensure the ``robustness'' of the high-angle-of-attack protection
systems, in both icing and non-icing conditions.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA considers that additional
flight testing requirements are not necessary, as the requirements of
these special conditions provide an adequate level of safety.
    12. TCCA requested that the FAA add further clarification for
sections 5.1(b)(3)i and 5.1(b)(3)ii of these special conditions
regarding the requirement for straight or turning flight, and power
setting.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully revisited in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA considers that the
requirements of these sections are sufficiently defined in section
5.1(a).
    13. TCCA recommended that the FAA delete section 5.3(b), if it
adopted TCCA's earlier comments.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG.
    14. TCCA recommended that operational speeds should be determined
based on a factored VSR or Vmin1g in icing
conditions, in addition to the requirement for minimum maneuver
margins. TCCA has provided specific proposals for those factors.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA considers that the
requirements of these special conditions provide an adequate level of
safety because minimum maneuver margins are typically more limiting
than those based on factored VSR or Vmin1g.

ANAC Comments

    1. ANAC questioned the use of different operational-speed bases for
icing and non-icing conditions.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, it is the FAA's opinion that the
differing requirements for icing and non-icing conditions are
appropriate and provide an adequate level of safety. The non-icing
speed basis is used for nearly

every flight, while the icing speed basis is based on an assumed
lengthy accumulation of ice, which may not be present on every flight
in icing conditions. Therefore, the safety trade-off (i.e., differing
requirements) between increased approach speeds and margin to stall is
more appropriate in icing conditions.
    2. ANAC proposed to have the same basic requirements in icing and
non-icing, allowing only some degradation in handling characteristics
at VCLmax in icing conditions.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA considers that the rationale
for differing requirements in icing and non-icing conditions is
appropriate and provides an adequate level of safety.
    3. ANAC recommended that the same high-incidence-protection
demonstration of ``maximum rate achievable'' should be required for
icing conditions.
    The FAA agrees that this point should be carefully evaluated in the
ARAC FTHWG. However, at this time, the FAA considers that the
requirements of these special conditions provide an adequate level of
safety. Historically, the FAA has allowed a small degradation for stall
demonstrations in icing conditions (i.e., exceptions for high-entry-
rate stalls). We have extended this philosophy to the requirements of
these special conditions.

Additional FAA Response to Comments

    The FAA acknowledges these comments, which will be fully discussed
and resolved in the upcoming ARAC FTHWG sessions. The FAA notes that
these special conditions are intended to parallel the requirements
provided in EASA (as the certificating authority) A350 Certification
Review Item (CRI):
     B-1, ``Stalling and Scheduled Operating Speeds,'' and
     B-09, ``Flight in Icing Conditions,'' to adapt the new
standards for performance and handling characteristics of transport-
category airplanes in icing conditions introduced by Amendment 25-121
to the envelope-protected Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane.
    In the meantime, the FAA, as the validating authority, finds that
these special conditions provide an adequate level of safety. No
changes to the special conditions were made based on TCCA and ANAC
comments.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus 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.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Airbus
Model A350-900 series airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good
cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon
publication.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane. It is not a rule of
general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

0
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 Airbus Model A350-900 series
airplanes.
    The current airworthiness standards do not contain adequate safety
standards for the unique features of the high-incidence protection
system and the alpha-floor system for the Airbus A350. Part I of the
following special conditions is in lieu of Sec. Sec.  25.103,
25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and 25.1323(d). Part
II is in lieu of Sec. Sec.  25.21(g), 25.105, 25.107, 25.121, 25.123,
25.125, and 25.143.

    Note: In the following paragraphs, ``In icing conditions'' means
with the ice accretions (relative to the relevant flight phase) as
defined in 14 CFR Part 25, Amendment 121 appendix C.

Special Conditions Part I: Stall Protection and Scheduled Operating
Speeds

Foreword

    In the following paragraphs, ``In icing conditions'' means with the
ice accretions (relative to the relevant flight phase) as defined in 14
CFR part 25, Amendment 121 appendix C.

1. Definitions

    These special conditions address novel or unusual design features
of the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane and use terminology that
does not appear in 14 CFR part 25. For the purpose of these special
conditions, the following terms describe certain aspects of these novel
or unusual design features:
High-Incidence Protection System
    A system that operates directly and automatically on the airplane's
flying controls to limit the maximum angle of attack that can be
attained to a value below that at which an aerodynamic stall would
occur.
Alpha-Floor System
    A system that automatically increases thrust on the operating
engines when angle of attack increases through a particular value.
Alpha-Limit
    The maximum angle of attack at which the airplane stabilizes with
the high-incidence protection system operating and the longitudinal
control held on its aft stop.
VCLmax
    An airspeed calculated from a variety of factors including load
factor normal to the flight path at VCLmax, airplane gross
weight, aerodynamic reference wing area, and dynamic pressure.
Vmin
    The minimum steady flight speed in the airplane configuration under
consideration with the high-incidence protection system operating. See
paragraph 3 of these special conditions.
Vmin1g
    Vmin corrected to 1g conditions. See paragraph 3 of
these special conditions. It is the minimum calibrated airspeed at
which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path
and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than
that determined for Vmin.

2. Capability and Reliability of the High-Incidence-Protection System

    These special conditions are issued in lieu of the paragraphs of 14
CFR part 25 referenced below. Acceptable capability and reliability of
the high-incidence-protection system can be established by flight test,
simulation, and analysis, as appropriate. The capability and
reliability required are as follows:
    1--It must not be possible during pilot induced maneuvers to
encounter a stall and handling characteristics must be acceptable, as
required by section 5 of these Special Conditions.
    2--The airplane must be protected against stalling due to the
effects of

wind-shears and gusts at low speeds as required by section 6 of these
Special Conditions.
    3--The ability of the high-incidence protection system to
accommodate any reduction in stalling incidence must be verified in
icing conditions.
    4--The high-incidence protection system must be provided in each
abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be
used in flight following system failures.
    5--The reliability of the system and the effects of failures must
be acceptable in accordance with Sec.  25.1309.

3. Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed

    In lieu of Sec.  25.103, Minimum steady flight speed and Reference
stall speed, the following requirements apply:
    (a) The minimum steady flight speed, Vmin, is the final
stabilized calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is
decelerated until the longitudinal control is on its stop in such a way
that the entry rate does not exceed 1 knot per second. (See Appendix A,
paragraph 3)
    (b) The minimum steady flight speed, Vmin, must be
determined in icing and non-icing conditions with:
    (1) The high-incidence protection system operating normally.
    (2) Idle thrust and alpha-floor system inhibited;
    (3) All combinations of flaps setting and, landing gear position
for which Vmin is required to be determined;
    (4) The weight used when VSR is being used as a factor
to determine compliance with a required performance standard;
    (5) The most unfavorable center of gravity allowable; and
    (6) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (c) The 1g minimum steady-flight speed, Vmin1g, is the
minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift
force (normal to the flight path) equal to its weight, while at an
angle of attack not greater than that at which the minimum steady
flight speed of sub-paragraph (a) was determined. It must be determined
in icing and non-icing conditions.
    (d) The reference stall speed, VSR, is a calibrated
airspeed defined by the applicant. VSR may not be less than
a 1g stall speed. VSR must be determined in non-icing
conditions and expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05NO14.011

    (e) VCLmax is determined in non-icing conditions with:
    (1) Engines idling, or, if that resultant thrust causes an
appreciable decrease in stall speed, not more than zero thrust at the
stall speed;
    (2) The airplane in other respects (such as flaps and landing gear)
in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which
VSR is being used;
    (3) The weight used when VSR is being used as a factor
to determine compliance with a required performance standard;
    (4) The center of gravity position that results in the highest
value of reference stall speed;
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system, but not less than 1.13 VSR and
not greater than 1.3 VSR;
    (6) Alpha-floor system inhibited; and
    (7) The high-incidence protection system adjusted, at the option of
the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the
normal production system.
    (8) Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the
longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed
reduction does not exceed 1 knot per second.

4. Stall Warning

    In lieu of Sec.  25.207, the following requirements apply:

4.1 Normal Operation

    If the capabilities of the high-incidence protection system are
met, then the conditions of paragraph 2 are satisfied. These conditions
provide an equivalent level of safety to Sec.  25.207, Stall Warning,
so the provision of an additional, unique warning device is not
required.

4.2 High-Incidence Protection System Failure

    Following failures of the high-incidence protection system, not
shown to be extremely improbable, such that the capability of the
system no longer satisfies items 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 2, stall
warning must be provided and must protect against encountering
unacceptable characteristics and against encountering stall.
    (a) Stall warning with the flaps and landing gear in any normal
position must be clear and distinctive to the pilot and meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) below.
    (b) Stall warning must also be provided in each abnormal
configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in
flight following system failures.
    (c) The warning may be furnished either through the inherent
aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give
clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of
flight. However a visual stall warning device that requires the
attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself.
If a warning device is used, it must provide a warning in each of the
airplane configurations prescribed in paragraph (a) above and for the
conditions prescribed below in paragraphs (d) and (e) below.
    (d) In non-icing conditions stall warning must meet the following
requirements: Stall warning must provide sufficient margin to prevent
encountering unacceptable characteristics and encountering stall in the
following conditions:
    (1) In power-off straight deceleration not exceeding 1 knot per
second to a speed 5 knots or 5 percent CAS, whichever is greater, below
the warning onset.
    (2) In turning flight stall deceleration at entry rates up to 3
knots per second when recovery is initiated not less than 1 second
after the warning onset.
    (e) In icing conditions stall warning must provide sufficient
margin to prevent encountering unacceptable characteristics and
encountering stall, in power off straight and turning flight
decelerations not exceeding 1 knot per second, when the pilot starts a
recovery maneuver not less than three seconds after the onset of stall
warning.
    (f) An airplane is considered stalled when the behavior of the
airplane gives the pilot a clear and distinctive indication of an
acceptable nature that the airplane is stalled. Acceptable indications
of a stall, occurring either individually or in combination are:
    (1) A nose-down pitch that cannot be readily arrested
    (2) Buffeting, of a magnitude and severity that is strong and
effective deterrent to further speed reduction; or
    (3) The pitch control reaches the aft stop and no further increase
in pitch attitude occurs when the control is held full aft for a short
time before recovery is initiated
    (g) An aircraft exhibits unacceptable characteristics during
straight or turning flight decelerations if it is not always possible
to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of aileron and
rudder controls, or abnormal nose-up pitching occurs.

5. Handling Characteristics at High Incidence

    In lieu of both Sec.  25.201 and Sec.  25.203, the following
requirements apply:

5.1 High-Incidence Handling Demonstrations

    In lieu of Sec.  25.201: High-incidence handling demonstration in
icing and non-icing conditions
    (a) Maneuvers to the limit of the longitudinal control, in the nose
up pitch, must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30[deg] banked
turns with:
    (1) The high-incidence protection system operating normally.
    (2) Initial power conditions of:

I: Power off
II: The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5
VSR1, where VSR1 is the reference stall speed
with flaps in approach position, the landing gear retracted and maximum
landing weight. (See Appendix A, paragraph 5)

    (3) Alpha-floor system operating normally unless more severe
conditions are achieved with inhibited alpha floor.
    (4) Flaps, landing gear and deceleration devices in any likely
combination of positions (see Appendix A, paragraph 6).
    (5) Representative weights within the range for which certification
is requested; and
    (6) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (b) The following procedures must be used to show compliance in
non-icing and icing conditions:
    (1) Starting at a speed sufficiently above the minimum steady
flight speed to ensure that a steady rate of speed reduction can be
established, apply the longitudinal control so that the speed reduction
does not exceed 1 knot per second until the control reaches the stop
(see Appendix A, paragraph 3).
    (2) The longitudinal control must be maintained at the stop until
the airplane has reached a stabilized flight condition and must then be
recovered by normal recovery techniques.
    (3) Maneuvers with increased deceleration rates
    (i) In non-icing conditions, the requirements must also be met with
increased rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to the maximum rate
achievable.
    (ii) In icing conditions, with the anti-ice system working
normally, the requirements must also be met with increased rates of
entry to the incidence limit, up to 3kt/s.
    (4) Maneuver with ice accretion prior to operation of the normal
anti-ice system
    With the ice accretion prior to operation of the normal anti-ice
system, the requirement must also be met in deceleration at 1kt/s up to
FBS (with and without alpha floor).

5.2 Characteristics in High-Incidence Maneuvers

    In lieu of Sec.  25.203: Characteristics in High Incidence (see
Appendix A, paragraph 7).
    In icing and non-icing conditions:
    (a) Throughout maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more
than 1 knot per second, both in straight flight and in 30[deg] banked
turns, the airplane's characteristics must be as follows:
    (1) There must not be any abnormal nose-up pitching.
    (2) There must not be any uncommanded nose-down pitching, which
would be indicative of stall. However reasonable attitude changes
associated with stabilizing the incidence at Alpha limit as the
longitudinal control reaches the stop would be acceptable. (See
Appendix A, paragraph 7.3)
    (3) There must not be any uncommanded lateral or directional motion
and the pilot must retain good lateral and directional control, by
conventional use of the controls, throughout the maneuver.
    (4) The airplane must not exhibit buffeting of a magnitude and
severity that would act as a deterrent from completing the maneuver
specified in 5.1.(a).
    (b) In maneuvers with increased rates of deceleration some
degradation of characteristics is acceptable, associated with a
transient excursion beyond the stabilized Alpha-limit. However the
airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics or characteristics
that would deter the pilot from holding the longitudinal control on the
stop for a period of time appropriate to the maneuver.

    (c) It must always be possible to reduce incidence by conventional
use of the controls.
    (d) The rate at which the airplane can be maneuvered from trim
speeds associated with scheduled operating speeds such as V2
and VREF up to Alpha-limit must not be unduly damped or be
significantly slower than can be achieved on conventionally controlled
transport airplanes.

5.3 Characteristics Up to Maximum Lift Angle of Attack

    (a) In non-icing conditions:
    Maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per
second up to the angle of attack at which VCLmax was
obtained as defined in paragraph 3 must be demonstrated in straight
flight and in 30[deg] banked turns with:
    (1) The high-incidence protection deactivated or adjusted, at the
option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible
with the normal production system.
    (2) Automatic thrust increase system inhibited
    (3) Engines idling
    (4) Flaps and landing gear in any likely combination of positions
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (b) In icing conditions:
    Maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per
second up to the maximum angle of attack reached during maneuvers from
5.1(b)(3)(ii) must be demonstrated in straight flight with:
    (1) The high-incidence protection deactivated or adjusted, at the
option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible
with the normal production system.
    (2) Automatic thrust increase system inhibited
    (3) Engines idling
    (4) Flaps and landing gear in any likely combination of positions
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (c) During the maneuvers used to show compliance with paragraphs
(a) and (b) above, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous
characteristics and it must always be possible to reduce angle of
attack by conventional use of the controls. The pilot must retain good
lateral and directional control, by conventional use of the controls,
throughout the maneuver.

6. Atmospheric Disturbances

    Operation of the high-incidence protection system must not
adversely affect aircraft control during expected levels of atmospheric
disturbances, nor impede the application of recovery procedures in case
of wind-shear. This must be demonstrated in non-icing and icing
conditions.

7. Alpha Floor

    In icing and non-icing conditions, the Alpha-floor setting must be
such that the airplane can be flown at the speeds and bank angles
specified in Sec.  25.143(h). It also must be shown that the alpha-
floor setting does not interfere with normal maneuvering of the
airplane. In addition, there must be no alpha-floor triggering unless
appropriate when the aircraft is flown in usual operational maneuvers
and in turbulence.

8. Proof of Compliance

    In addition to those in Sec.  25.21(b), the following requirement
applies:
    (b) The flying qualities must be evaluated at the most unfavorable
center of gravity (CG) position.

9. For Sec. Sec.  25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), and 25.1323(d), the
Following Requirements Apply

Sec.  25.145(a) Vmin in lieu of ``stall identification''
Sec.  25.145(b)(6) Vmin in lieu of VSW
Sec.  25.1323(d) ``From 1.23 VSR to Vmin'' in
lieu of ``1.23 VSR to stall warning speed'' and ``speeds
below Vmin'' in lieu of ``speeds below stall warning''

Special Conditions Part II: Credit for Robust Envelope Protection in
Icing Conditions

    1. In lieu of Sec.  25.21(g)(1), the following requirement applies:
    In lieu of Sec.  25.21, Proof of compliance:
    (g) The requirements of this subpart associated with icing
conditions apply only if certification for flight in icing conditions
is desired. If certification for flight in icing conditions is desired,
the following requirements also apply (see AC 25-25):
    (1) Each requirement of this subpart, except Sec. Sec.  25.121(a),
25.123(c), 25.143(b)(1) and (b)(2), 25.149, 25.201(c)(2), 25.207(c) and
(d), and 25.251(b) through (e), must be met in icing conditions.
Compliance must be shown using the ice accretions defined in Appendix
C, assuming normal operation of the airplane and its ice protection
system in accordance with the operating limitations and operating
procedures established by the applicant and provided in the Airplane
Flight Manual.
    2. Define the stall speed as provided in SC Part I, in lieu of
Sec.  25.103.
    3. The following requirements apply in lieu of Sec.
25.105(a)(2)(i):
    In lieu of Sec.  25.105, Take-off:
    (a) The take-off speeds prescribed by Sec.  25.107, the accelerate-
stop distance prescribed by Sec.  25.109, the take-off path prescribed
by Sec.  25.111, and the take-off distance and take-off run prescribed
by Sec.  25.113, must be determined, and the net take-off flight path
prescribed by Sec.  25.115, must be determined in the selected
configuration for take-off at each weight, altitude, and ambient
temperature within the operational limits selected by the applicant--
    . . .
    (2) In icing conditions, if in the configuration of Sec.  25.121(b)
with the ``Take-off Ice'' accretion defined in Appendix C:
    (i) the V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does
not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.  25.143(h) for
the takeoff configuration, or
    4. In lieu of Sec.  25.107(c) and (g), the following requirements
apply, with additional sections (c') and (g'):
    In lieu of Sec.  25.107, Take-off speeds:
    (c) in non-icing conditions V2, in terms of calibrated
airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at least the
gradient of climb required by Sec.  25.121(b) but may not be less
than--
    (1) V2MIN;
    (2) VR plus the speed increment attained
    (in accordance with Sec.  25.111(c)(2)) before reaching a height of
35 feet above the takeoff surface; and
    (3) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (c') in icing conditions with the ``take-off ice'' accretion
defined in Appendix C, V2 may not be less than--
    (1) the V2 speed determined in non-icing conditions
    (2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (g) in non-icing conditions, VFTO, in terms of
calibrated airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at
least the gradient of climb required by Sec.  25.121(c), but may not be
less than
    (1) 1.18 VSR; and
    (2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (g') in icing conditions with the ``Final take-off ice'' accretion
defined in Appendix C, VFTO, may not be less than
    (1) the VFTO speed determined in non-icing conditions
    (2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    5. In lieu of Sec. Sec.  25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A), 25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A),
and 25.121(d)(2)(ii), the following requirements apply:

    In lieu of Sec.  25.121, Climb: One-engine inoperative:
    (b) Take-off; landing gear retracted. In the take-off configuration
existing at the point of the flight path at which the landing gear is
fully retracted, and in the configuration used in Sec.  25.111 but
without ground effect,
    (2) The requirements of subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph must
be met:
    . . .
    (ii) In icing conditions with the ``Take-off Ice'' accretion
defined in Appendix C, if in the configuration of Sec.  25.121(b) with
the ``Take-off Ice'' accretion:
    (A) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does
not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.  25.143(h) for
the take-off configuration; or
    (c) Final take-off. In the en-route configuration at the end of the
take-off path determined in accordance with Sec.  25.111:
    (2) The requirements of subparagraph (c)(1) of this paragraph must
be met:
    . . .
    (ii) In icing conditions with the ``Final Take-off Ice'' accretion
defined in Appendix C, if:
    (A) The VFTO speed scheduled in non-icing conditions
does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.
25.143(h) for the en-route configuration; or
    (d)(2) The requirements of sub-paragraph (d)(1) of this paragraph
must be met (ii) In icing conditions with the approach Ice accretion
defined in Appendix C, in a configuration corresponding to the normal
all-engines-operating procedure in which Vmin1g for this
configuration does not exceed 110% of the Vmin1g for the
related all-engines-operating landing configuration in icing, with a
climb speed established with normal landing procedures, but not more
than 1.4 VSR (VSR determined in non-icing
conditions).
    6. In lieu of Sec.  25.123(b)(2)(i), the following requirements
apply:
    In lieu of Sec.  25.123, En-route flight paths:
    (b) The one-engine-inoperative net flight path data must represent
the actual climb performance diminished by a gradient of climb of 1.1%
for two-engined airplanes, 1.4% for three-engined airplanes, and 1.6%
for four engined airplanes.
    (2) In icing conditions with the ``En-route ice'' accretion defined
in Appendix C if
    (i) The minimum en-route speed scheduled in non-icing conditions
does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.
25.143(h) for the enroute configuration, or
    7. In lieu of Sec.  25.125(b)(2)(ii)(B), remove Sec.
25.125(b)(2)(ii)(C) and replaced with the following requirements:
    In lieu of Sec.  25.125, Landing.
    (b) In determining the distance in (a):
    (1) The airplane must be in the landing configuration.
    (2) A stabilized approach, with a calibrated airspeed of not less
than VREF, must be maintained down to the 50-foot height.
    (i) In non-icing conditions, VREF may not be less than:
    (A) 1.23VSR0;
    (B) VMCL established under Sec.  25.149(f); and
    (C) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (ii) In icing conditions, VREF may not be less than:
    (A) The speed determined in sub-paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
paragraph;
    (B) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h) with the landing ice accretion defined in appendix C.
    8. In lieu of Sec.  25.143(j)(2)(i), the following requirements for
controllability and maneuverability apply:
    In lieu of Sec.  25.143, General:
    (j) For flight in icing conditions before the ice protection system
has been activated and is performing its intended function, the
following requirements apply:
    (1) If activating the ice protection system depends on the pilot
seeing a specified ice accretion on a reference surface (not just the
first indication of icing), the requirements of Sec.  25.143 apply with
the ice accretion defined in appendix C, part II(e).
    (2) For other means of activating the ice protection system, it
must be demonstrated in flight with the ice accretion defined in
appendix C, part II(e) that:
    (i) The airplane is controllable in a pull-up maneuver up to 1.5 g
load factor or lower if limited by AOA protection; and
    (ii) There is no pitch control force reversal during a pushover
maneuver down to 0.5 g load factor
    9. In lieu of Sec.  25.207, Stall warning, change to read as the
requirements defined in Special Conditions Part I, above.

Appendix A--Guidance Material: Stalling and Scheduled Operating Speeds

1. Introduction

    This Guidance Material provides suggested means of compliance
for various aspects of Special Conditions Part I and replaces the AC
25-7C sections that are no longer applicable due to the conditions
of Special Conditions Part 1.

2. Alpha Protection Tolerances

    Flight testing for handling characteristics should be
accomplished with the airplane build and system tolerances set to
the most adverse condition for high-incidence protection. Flight
testing for minimum steady flight speed and reference stall speed
may be made with nominal airframe tolerances and AOA protection
system settings if the combined root-sum-square (square root of the
sum of the squares of each tolerance) effect of the tolerances is
less than 1 knot. If the effect is greater than 1 knot, the most adverse airframe build and high-incidence
protection system tolerance should be used.

3. Minimum Steady Flight Speed Entry Rate

    In lieu of Sec.  25.103(a) and Sec.  25.203(a), see paragraphs 3
and 5.2 of Special Conditions Part I.
    The minimum steady flight speed entry rate is defined as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05NO14.012

4. Maneuvering Capabilities at Scheduled Operating Speeds

(See Sec.  25.143(h))

    (1) The maneuver capabilities specified in Sec.  25.143 (h)
should be achieved at constant CAS.
    (2) A low thrust or power setting normally will be the critical
case for demonstrating the required maneuver capabilities. The
thrust/power settings specified in paragraph Sec.  25.143(h) are the
maximum values that may be used in such cases. However, if the angle
of attack at which the stick stop is reached (or other relevant
characteristic occurs) is reduced with increasing thrust or power,
it should be ensured that the required maneuver capabilities are
retained at all higher thrust or power settings appropriate to the
flight condition.
    (3) The thrust or power setting for the all-engines operating
condition at V2+xx should

include any value used in noise abatement procedure.

5. Power Setting for Power-On Handling to High Incidence

(In lieu of Sec.  25.201(a)(2), see paragraph 5.1 of Special
Conditions Part I)

    The power for power-on maneuver demonstrations to high incidence
is that power necessary to maintain level flight without ice at a
speed of 1.5 VSR1 at maximum landing weight, with flaps
in the approach position and landing gear retracted, where
VSR1 is the reference stall speed without ice in the same
conditions (except power and effect of ice). The flap position to be
used to determine this power setting is that position in which the
reference stall speed does not exceed 110% of the reference stall
speed with the flaps in the most extended landing position.

6. Position of Deceleration Devices During Handling to High Incidence

(In lieu of Sec.  25.201, see paragraph 5.1 of Special Conditions
Part I)

    Demonstrations of maneuvers to high incidence for compliance
with Sec.  25.201 should include demonstrations with deceleration
devices deployed for all flap positions unless limitations against
use of the devices with particular flap positions are imposed.
``Deceleration devices'' include spoilers when used as air brakes,
and thrust reversers when use in flight is permitted. High-incidence
maneuver demonstrations with deceleration devices deployed should
normally be carried out with an initial power setting of power off,
except where deployment of the deceleration devices while power is
applied is likely to occur in normal operations (e.g. use of
extended air brakes during landing approach). Demonstrations with
Alpha-floor both inhibited and operating normally should be
included.

7. Characteristics During High-Incidence Maneuvers

    In lieu of Sec.  25.203, see paragraph 5.2 of Special Conditions
Part I.
    (1) The behavior of the airplane includes the behavior as
affected by the normal functioning of any systems with which the
airplane is equipped, including devices intended to alter the high-
incidence handling characteristics of the airplane.
    (2) Unless the design of the automatic flight control system of
the airplane protects against such an event, the high-incidence
characteristics, when the airplane is maneuvered under the control
of the automatic flight control system should be investigated.
    (3) Any reduction of pitch attitude associated with stabilizing
the incidence at Alpha limit should be achieved smoothly, at a low
pitch rate, such that it is not likely to be mistaken for natural
stall identification.

8. Atmospheric Disturbances

    See paragraph 6 of Special Conditions Part I.
    In establishing compliance with paragraph 6 of Special
Conditions Part I, the high-incidence protection system and alpha-
floor system should be assumed to be operating normally. Simulator
studies and analyses may be used but will need to be validated by
limited flight testing to confirm handling qualities, at critical
loadings, up to the maximum incidence shown to be reached by such
studies and analyses.

9. Alpha Floor

    See paragraph 7 of Special Conditions Part I.
    Compliance with paragraph 7 of Special Conditions Part I should
be considered as being met if alpha-floor setting provides a
maneuvering capability of 40[deg] bank angle,
    --in the landing configuration
    --at VREF without ice, and at the recommended final
approach speed with ice
    --with the thrust for wings level unaccelerated -3[deg] glide
path,
    without alpha-floor triggering.

Appendix B--Guidance Material

    The following guidance is in lieu of AC 25-25, Performance and
Handling Characteristics in the Icing Conditions Specified in Part
25, Appendix C:

Section 3. ACCEPTABLE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE--FLIGHT TEST PROGRAM

    1. In lieu of b. Stall Speed, 25.103, the requirements in
Special Conditions Part 1, 3. Minimum Steady Flight Speed and
Reference Stall Speed are made.
    2. In lieu of d., Takeoff Path, Sec.  25.111, the following
guidance is made.
    If V2 speed scheduled in icing conditions is greater
than V2 in non-icing conditions take-off demonstrations
should be repeated to substantiate the speed schedule and distances
for take-off in icing conditions. The effect of the take-off speed
increase, thrust loss, and drag increase on the take-off path may be
determined by a suitable analysis.
    3. In lieu of i., Controllability and Maneuverability--General,
Sec.  25.143, the following guidance is made:
    a. Sec.  25.143(4)(c)4 Test maneuver for showing compliance with
Sec.  25.143(i)(3): Conduct steady heading sideslips to full rudder
input, 180 pounds rudder force, or full lateral control authority
(whichever comes first) at a trim speed corresponding to the minimum
AFM speed and the power or thrust for a minus 3 degrees flight path
angle.
    b. Sec.  25.143(5)(b) If activation of the ice protection system
depends on a means of recognition other than that defined in
paragraph (a) above, it is acceptable to demonstrate adequate
controllability with the ice accretion prior to normal system
operation, as follows. In the configurations listed below, trim the
airplane at the specified speed, conduct a pull-up maneuver to 1.5g
(or lower if limited by AOA protections) and pushover maneuver to
0.5g, and show that longitudinal control forces do not reverse.
    (1) High lift devices retracted configuration (or holding
configuration if different), holding speed, power or thrust for
level flight.
    (2) Landing configuration, VREF for non-icing
conditions, power or thrust for landing approach. (stop pull up
after achievement of 1.5g or peak load factor with Full Back Stick).
    4. In lieu of j., Longitudinal Control, Sec.  25.145(2)(c), the
following guidance is made for (c):

((1), (2), (a) and (b) are retained)

    In the configurations listed below, trim the airplane at the
minimum AFM speed. Reduce speed using elevator control to the
minimum steady achievable speed and demonstrate prompt recovery to
the trim speed using elevator control.
    1 High lift devices retracted configuration, maximum continuous
power or thrust.
    2 Maximum lift landing configuration, maximum continuous power
or thrust.
    5. In lieu of q., Stall Demonstration, Sec.  25.201, see the
requirements in Special Conditions Part I, Stall Protection and
Scheduled Operating Speeds.
    6. In lieu of r., Stall Warning, Sec.  25.207, see the
requirements in Special Conditions Part I, paragraph 4--Stall
Warning.
    7. In lieu of u., Natural Icing Conditions, Sec.  25.1419(b),
revise the ice accretion Tables 3 & 4 as follows:

                                      Table 3--Holding Scenario--Maneuvers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Configuration                       CG                  Trim speed                  Maneuver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flaps up, gear up..................  Optional (aft range)..  Holding, except at       Level, 40[deg]
                                                              Minimum AFM speed for   banked turn,
                                                              the high AoA maneuver.  Bank-to-bank rapid
                                                                                roll, 30[deg]-30[deg],
                                                                                Speed-brake
                                                                                extension, retraction,
                                                                                Deceleration to
                                                                                alpha-max (1 knot/second
                                                                                deceleration rate, wings
                                                                                level, power off).
Flaps in intermediate positions,     Optional (aft range)..  Minimum AFM speed.....  Level deceleration in a 1
 gear up.                                                                             knot/second deceleration
                                                                                until deceleration is
                                                                                stopped due to alpha-floor
                                                                                triggering.

Landing flaps, gear down...........  Optional (aft range)..  VREF (Minimum AFM        Level, 40[deg]
                                                              speed).                 banked turn,
                                                                                Bank-to-bank rapid
                                                                                roll, 30[deg]-30[deg],
                                                                                Speed-brake
                                                                                extension, retraction (if
                                                                                approved),
                                                                                Deceleration to
                                                                                alpha-max (1 knot/second
                                                                                deceleration rate, wings
                                                                                level, power off).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Table 4--Approach/Landing Scenario--Maneuvers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Ice accretion
 Test condition    thickness (*)      Configuration           CG            Trim speed            Maneuver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 First 13 mm (0.5   Flaps up, gear up  Optional (aft     Holding.........  No specific test.
                  inch).                                range).
1..............  Additional 6.3 mm  First              Optional (aft     Minimum AFM        Level
                  (0.25 in) (19 mm   intermediate       range).           speed.            40[deg] banked turn,
                  (0.75 in) total).  flaps, gear up.                                        Bank-to-bank
                                                                                rapid roll, 30[deg]-
                                                                                30[deg],
                                                                                Speed brake
                                                                                extension and
                                                                                retraction (if
                                                                                approved),
                                                                                1kt/s Level
                                                                                deceleration until
                                                                                the deceleration is
                                                                                stopped due to alpha-
                                                                                floor triggering.
2..............  Additional 6.3 mm  First              Optional (aft     Minimum AFM        Bank-to-bank
                  (0.25 in) (25 mm   intermediate       range).           speed.            rapid roll, 30[deg]-
                  (1.00 in) total).  flaps, gear up                                         30[deg],
                                     (as applicable).                                       Speed brake
                                                                                extension and
                                                                                retraction (if
                                                                                approved),
                                                                                1kt/s Level
                                                                                deceleration until
                                                                                the deceleration is
                                                                                stopped due to alpha-
                                                                                floor triggering.
3..............  Additional 6.3 mm  Landing flaps,     Optional (aft     VREF (Minimum      Bank-to-bank
                  (0.25 in) (31 mm   gear down).        range).           AFM speed).       rapid roll, 30[deg]-
                  (1.25 in) total).                                                         30[deg],
                                                                                Speed brake
                                                                                extension and
                                                                                retraction (if
                                                                                approved),
                                                                                Bank to
                                                                                40[deg]
                                                                                Deceleration
                                                                                to alpha-max.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) The indicated thickness is that obtained on the parts of the unprotected airfoil with the highest collection
  efficiency.

    8. In lieu of AC 25-25, 3. v., Failure conditions, Sec.
25.1309, the following guidance is made for (2)(d):
    (2) Acceptable Test Program
    (d) In the configurations listed below, trim the airplane at the
minimum AFM speed. Decrease speed to the minimum steady achievable
speed, plus 1 second and demonstrate prompt recovery using the same
recovery maneuver as for the non-contaminated airplane. It is
acceptable for stall warning to be provided by a different means
(for example, by the behavior of the airplane) for failure cases not
considered probable.
    1 High lift devices retracted configuration: Straight/Power Off.
    2 Landing configuration: Straight/Power Off.

Issued in Renton, Washington.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-26289 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P