Estimated Annual Cost ($MM)
                Total HAP Emissions Reductions (tons per year)
              Cost Effectiveness in $ per ton total HAP reduction
                       Additional testing and monitoring
                                       0
                                     0.059
                                      N/A
                                      N/A

B. Subpart NNN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule
      We evaluated the impacts to the affected sources based on all available information. Two significant sources were the 2010 and 2011/2012 emissions testing and subsequent conversations with NAIMA and individuals operating industry facilities. According to the 2010 and 2012 emissions test data, there are three glass-melting furnaces at two facilities that do not meet the proposed chromium compound emission limit.
      Our assessment of impacts is based on the data from tested glass-melting furnaces only, and may not be representative of untested glass-melting furnaces. We anticipate that 10 of the 30 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States are currently major sources and would be affected by these proposed amendments. We estimate that two of the 10 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources would install air pollution controls.
      We expect that today's proposed RTR amendments would result in reductions of 442 pounds of chromium compounds. Hexavalent chromium can be as much as 93 percent of the total chromium compounds emitted from wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces.
      We believe that all affected facilities will be able to comply with the today's proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl without additional controls, and that there will be no measurable reduction in emissions of these gases. Also, we anticipate that there will be no reductions in PM emissions due to these proposed PM standards because all sources currently meet the revised PM limit.
      Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices. We do not anticipate significant secondary impacts from the proposed amendments to the Wool Fiberglass MACT.
      The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the ability of each facility to meet the proposed emissions limits for PM, chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. The memorandum, Cost Impacts of the Proposed NESHAP RTR Amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category, includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is available in the docket.
      Under today's proposed amendments, eight of the 10 major source wool fiberglass facilities will not to incur any capital costs to comply with the proposed emissions limits. Five facilities would be subject to new costs for compliance testing on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which will total $80,000 annually for the entire industry. At this time, there are two facilities with a total of three gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that do not meet the proposed emissions limit for chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would install a sodium hydroxide scrubber on each of three glass-melting furnaces, for a total capital cost of $750,000. The total annualized cost for the scrubbers, including operating and maintenance costs, is estimated to be $300,000. There are a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at five major source facilities. Annual performance testing costs would be $10,000 per glass-melting furnace, resulting in total glass-melting furnace testing costs of $80,000.
      The 10 major source facilities would incur total annualized costs of $80,400 for additional compliance testing on their FA and RS manufacturing lines and six of those facilities would incur a total cost of $750,000 for operation and maintenance of their existing thermal oxidizers due to the proposed rule emission limits. The total annualized costs for the proposed amendments are estimated at $1.21 million (2011 dollars).
      Table 11 below summarizes the costs and emission reductions associated with the proposed amendments.
Table 11. Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Standards (NNN) in this Action
                              Proposed Amendment
                                     Est.
                              Capital Cost ($MM)
                       Est. Total Annualized Cost ($MM)
                        Total HAP Emissions Reductions
                              Cost Effectiveness
                                No. Facilities
                       Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces
                         Installation of NaOH scrubber
                                   0.25 x 3
                                    0.1 x 3
                              455 pounds per year
                                     835
                                 ($ per pound)
                                       2
    Additional testing and monitoring for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces
                                       0
                                   0.01 x 8
                                      N/A

                                       5
                         RS and FA Manufacturing Lines
                 Operation and Maintenance of thermal oxidizer
                                       0
                                     0.750
                               123 tons per year
                                     6750
                                  ($ per ton)
                                       6
            Additional testing and monitoring for FA and RS lines
                                       0
                                     0.080
                                      N/A

                                      10

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action" because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in Costs and Emission Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP - Area Source, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized in section V.B of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2432.01.
The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the control devices, and some notifications or reports beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The information collection activities in this ICR include the following: performance tests, operating parameter monitoring, preparation of a site-specific monitoring plan, monitoring and inspection, one-time and periodic reports, and the maintenance of records. Some information collection activities included in the NESHAP may occur within the first three years, and are presented in this burden estimate, but may not occur until four or five years following promulgation of the proposed standards for some affected sources. To be conservative in our estimate, the burden for these items is included in this ICR. An initial notification is required to notify the Designated Administrator of the applicability of this subpart, and to identify gas-fired glass-melting furnaces subject to this subpart. A notification of performance test must be submitted, and a site-specific test plan written for the performance test, along with a monitoring plan. Following the initial performance test, you must submit a notification of compliance status that documents the performance test and the values for the operating parameters. A periodic report submitted every six months documents the values for the operating parameters and deviations. Owners or operators of wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities are required to keep records of certain parameters and information for a period of five years. The annual testing, annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first three years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $32,808. This includes 77 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of $6,088 per year, and total non-labor capital costs of $26,720 per year. This estimate includes initial and annual performance tests, conducting and documenting semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications, and recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost were also included in the cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in section V of this preamble. The total burden for the Federal government (averaged over the first three years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 16 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $695 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (e.g., sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance or careless operation) and where the source took necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a written root cause analysis and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of the affirmative defense. The EPA considered whether there might be any burden associated with the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense. Any such burdens are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. Therefore, the EPA estimates that there would be no additional costs for sources that choose to take advantage of the affirmative defense for malfunctions since it is already required for compliance with the rule. However, there may be other malfunctions that are not currently regulated under the part 61 NESHAP that might prompt a source to take advantage of an affirmative defense.
To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to the ICR that show what the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required notification, reports, and records, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141, and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has caused a violation of an emission limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimate the number of malfunctions would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a subset of violations caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
Thus, we expect the number of instances in which source operators might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than one such occurrence will occur per year for all sources subject to subpart NN over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better information becomes available.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and the OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
      The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
      For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has the general NAICS code 327993 (i.e., Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees according to the SBA small business standards definitions.
      After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities in the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Five of the seven Mineral Wool Production parent companies affected in this proposed rule are considered to be small entities per the definition provided in this section. There are no small businesses in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We estimate that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on any of those companies.
      While there are some costs imposed on affected small businesses as a result of this rulemaking, the costs associated with today's action are less than the costs associated with the limits proposed on November 25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to small entities in the Mineral Wool Production source category due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are lower as compared to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011. None of the five small mineral wool parent companies are expected to have an annualized compliance cost of greater than one percent of its revenues. All other affected parent companies are not small businesses according to the SBA small business size standard for the affected NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have determined that the impacts for this proposed rule do not constitute a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
      Although these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to mitigate the impact that these rules would have on small entities. The actions we are proposing to take to mitigate impacts on small businesses include less frequent compliance testing for the entire mineral wool industry and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool Production Source Category in developing the proposed COS, HF and HCl emissions limits than originally required in the November 25, 2011, proposal. For more information, please refer to the economic impact and small business analysis that is in the docket.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The total annualized cost of these rules is estimated to be no more than $150,000 (2011$) in any one year. Thus, these rules are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA, because they contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. These rules only impact mineral wool and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities, and, thus, do not impact small governments uniquely or significantly.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified major and area sources, and not on State or local governments. There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area and major sources, and not tribal governments. There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is based solely on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA estimates that the requirements in this proposed action would cause most wool fiberglass manufacturers to modify existing air pollution control devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet scrubbers) or install and operate new control devices, resulting in a small increase in the megawatt-hours per year of additional electricity being used.
Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting from this proposed action, the EPA does not expect any significant price increase for any energy type. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by this proposed action at all since the action would not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be any adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, they would be minimal.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the agency conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
Under 40 CFR Part 63 subpart NN, searches were conducted for EPA Methods 5 and 29. The search did not identify any other VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
We proposed VCS under the NTTAA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (NNN) and for Mineral Wool Production (DDD) in November 2011. Commenters asked to have the option to use other EPA methods to measure their emissions for compliance purposes. These are not VCS and as such are not subject to this requirement.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population.
An analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage of minorities, percentages of the population below the poverty level, and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, in close proximity to the sources, are similar to the national averages, with percentage differences of 3, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-mile radius of concern. These differences in the absolute number of percentage points from the national average indicate a 9.4-percent, 14.4-percent, and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority populations, populations below the poverty level, and the percentages of the population 17 years old and younger, respectively.
In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities near affected sources, the EPA used census data at the block group level to identify demographics of the populations considered to be living near affected sources, such that they have notable exposures to current emissions from these sources. In this approach, the EPA reviewed the distributions of different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission reductions from this rule. The review identified those census block groups with centroids within a circular distance of a 0.5, three, and five miles of affected sources, and determined the demographic and socio-economic composition (e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The radius of three miles (or approximately five kilometers) has been used in other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential sources.,,, There was only one census block group with its centroids within 0.5 miles of any source affected by the proposed rule. The EPA's demographic analysis has shown that these areas, in aggregate, have similar proportions of American Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics, and "Other and Multi-racial" populations to the national average. The analysis also showed that these areas, in aggregate, had similar proportions of families with incomes below the poverty level as the national average, and similar populations of children 17 years of age and younger.
The EPA defines Environmental Justice to include meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote meaningful involvement, the EPA has developed a communication and outreach strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to this proposed rule, are aware of its content, and have an opportunity to comment during the comment period. During the comment period, the EPA will publicize the rulemaking via environmental justice newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice listservs, and the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy Rulemaking Gateway website (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities, as appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community) for environmental justice community groups, and conducting conference calls with interested communities. In addition, State and Federal permitting requirements will provide State and local governments, and members of affected communities the opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions associated with permitting the sources affected by the proposed rule.
 List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.

 ______________________
 Dated:

 _______________________
Bob Perciasepe
Acting Administrator

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63 -- [AMENDED]
      1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
	Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart DDD  -  [AMENDED]
      2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(10) to read as follows:
      (p) * * *
      (10) Method 8270D (SW-846-8270D)  -  Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), IBR approved for §63.1385.
      3. Section 63.1178 is amended by:
      a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); and
      b. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
§ 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?
* * * * *
      (a) * * *
(2) Limit emissions of carbonyl sulfide (COS) from each existing, new, or reconstructed closed-top cupola to the following:
(i) 3.4 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing closed-top cupolas.
(ii) 0.025 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or reconstructed closed-top cupolas.
(3) Limit emissions of COS from each existing, new, or reconstructed open-top cupola to the following:
(i) 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing open-top cupolas.
(ii) 4.3 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or reconstructed open-top cupolas.
      (4) Limit emissions of hydrogen fluoride (HF) from each existing, new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
      (i) 0.16 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas using slag as a raw material.
      (ii) 0.13 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas that do not use slag as a raw material.
      (5) Limit emissions of hydrogen Chloride (HCl) from each existing, new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
      (i) 0.21 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas using slag as a raw material.
      (ii) 0.43 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas that do not use slag as a raw material.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading and revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§63.1179 For combined collection/curing operations, what standards must I meet?
(a) You must control emissions from each existing and new combined collection/curing operations by limiting emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol to the following:
(1) For combined drum collection/curing operations:
(i) 0.18 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
(ii) 1.3 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
(iii) 0.48 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
(2) For combined horizontal collection/curing operations:
(i) 0.054 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
(ii) 0.15 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
(iii) 0.022 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
(3) For combined vertical collection/curing operations:
(i) 2.7 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less,
(ii) 0.74 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and
(iii) 1.0 lb of methanol per ton melt or less.
(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each combined collection/curing operations subcategory:
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1180 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§63.1180 When must I meet these standards?
* * * * *
(d) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(e) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards during malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in §63.1197, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the reporting requirements in §63.1191 of this subpart, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The violation:
(A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred; and
(iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
(iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; and
(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and
(vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense must submit a written report to the Administrator with all necessary supporting documentation that explains how it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph (1) of this section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1196 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical order, for "closed-top cupola," "combined collection/curing operations," and "open-top cupola" to read as follows:
§63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?
* * * * *
Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed (process) system and has a restricted air flow rate.
Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded products.
Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside air and operates with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and at low pressure.
* * * * *
      7. Section 63.1197 was added to read as follows:
§63.1197 Startups and shutdowns.
(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are utilized for compliance with this subpart.
(c) Startup begins when the coke interspersed with layers of rock and/or slag and other mineral products are ignited. Startup ends when molten mineral wool begins to flow from the cupola.
(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of the melting campaign and is empty. No mineral wool glass continues to flow from the cupola during shutdown.
(e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate compliance with the cupola emission limits in §63.1178 during periods of startups and shutdowns records establishing that your air pollution control devices were operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard may be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit.
 * * * * *
      8. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 includes technical corrections to the General Provisions and revisions based on these proposed rule amendments and is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63 -- Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD
                                   Citation

                                  Requirement
                            Applies to Subpart DDDN

                                  Explanation
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.1(a)(6)

                                      Yes

63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(12)

                                      Yes

63.1(b)(1)
Initial Applicability Determination
                                      Yes

63.1(b)(2)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)
Prohibited Activities
                                      Yes

63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)

                                      No
[Reserved].
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4)

                                      Yes

63.5(b)(5)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.6(e)(1)(i)
General Duty to minimize emissions
                                      No
See §63.1180(d) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)
Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as possible
                                      No
§63.1187(b) specifies additional requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(iii)

                                      Yes

63.6(e)(2)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.6(e)(3)
Startup, Shutdown Malfunction (SSM) Plan
                                      No
Startups and shutdowns addressed in §63.1197.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.6(f)(1)
SSM exemption
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.6(h)(1)
SSM exemption
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.7(e)(1)
Performance testing
                                      No
See §63.1180.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.7(g)(1)
Data Analysis
                                      Yes

63.7(g)(2)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.7(g)(3)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.8(c)(1)(i)
General duty to minimize emissions and CMS operation
                                      No
See §63.1180(e) for general duty requirement.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.8(c)(1)(iii)
Requirement to develop SSM Plan for CMS
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.8(d)(3)
Written procedures for CMS
Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required.

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.9(b)(1)-(b)(2)
Initial Notifications
                                      Yes

63.9(b)(3)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.10(b)(2)(i)
Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns
                                      No

63.10(b)(2)(ii)
Recordkeeping of malfunctions
                                      No
See §63.1193(c) for recordkeeping of (ii) occurrence and duration and (iii) actions taken during malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)
Maintenance records
                                      Yes

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)
Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM
                                      No

63.10(b)(2)(vi)
Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions
                                      Yes

63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)
Other CMS requirements
                                      Yes

 *     *     *    *     *     *     *
63.10(c)(7)-(8)
Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS  -  identifying exceedances and excess emissions
                                      Yes

 *     *     *    *     *     *     *
63.10(c)(10)-(11)

                                      No
See §63.1192 for recordkeeping of malfunctions.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.10(c)(15)
Use of SSM Plan
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.10(d)(5)
SSM reports
                                      No
See §63.1193(f) for reporting of malfunctions.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *

63.11(c)
Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks
                                      Yes

63.11(d)
Alternative Work Practice Standard
                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Subpart NNN  -  [AMENDED]
9. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
§63.1380 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b)* * *
(3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded product.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding definitions for "affirmative defense" and "gas-fired glass-melting furnace".
§63.1381 Definitions.
* * * * *
Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in this subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
* * * * *

       11. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 63.1382 Emission standards.
(a) ***
(1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and after the date the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under §63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier:
(i) For each existing, new, or reconstructed glass-melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton glass pulled;
(ii) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of 6.0E-5 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per ton glass pulled (0.06 lb per thousand tons glass pulled).
(2) * * *
(i) For each existing rotary spin (RS) manufacturing line you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 0.19 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
(B) 0.26 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
(C) 0.83 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
(ii) For of each new or reconstructed RS manufacturing line you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 0.087 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled;
(B) 0.063 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and
(C) 0.61 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.
(3) * * *
(i) For each existing flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing line you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of:
* * * * *
 (ii) For each new or reconstructed FA manufacturing line you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of:
* * * * *
12. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
§63.1384 Performance test requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be conducted within 90 days of the promulgation date of this rule to demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit specified in §63.1382(a)(i), you must conduct an annual performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each glass-melting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous compliance test).
(1) You must conduct chromium compounds emissions performance tests according to §63.1385 on an annual basis, except as specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this section. Annual performance tests must be completed no more than 13 months after the previous performance test, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(2) You can conduct performance tests less often for chromium compounds if your performance tests for the pollutant for at least two consecutive years show that your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission limit and if there are no changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not have to conduct a performance test for chromium compounds for the next two years. You must conduct a performance test during the third year and no more than 37 months after the previous performance test.
(3) If your gas-fired glass-melting furnace continues to meet the emission limit for chromium compounds, you may choose to conduct performance tests for the pollutant every third year if your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission limit and if there are no changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could increase emissions, but each such performance test must be conducted no more than 37 months after the previous performance test.
(4) If a performance test shows chromium compounds emissions exceeded 75 percent of the emission limit, you must conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over a consecutive 2-year period meet the required level of 75 percent of the emission limit.
(e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits specified in §63.1382, you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits in §63.1382 of this subpart at least once every five years.
* * * * *
13. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), and adding paragraphs (a)(11) through (a)(14).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
§63.1385 Test methods and procedures.
(a) * * *
(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of total PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of two hours and a minimum sample volume of two dry standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 120+-14ºC (248+-25ºF);
(6) Method 318 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra;
* * *
(11) Method 316 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the concentration of formaldehyde. Each test run must consist of a minimum of two hours and two dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of sample volume;
(12) Method SW-846 0010 and Method SW-846 8760D (http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/) for the concentration of phenol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of three hours;
(13) Method 8270D for the concentration of phenol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of three hours;
(14) Method 308 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the concentration of methanol. Each test run must consist of a minimum of two hours;
(15) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist of a minimum of three hours and three dscm of sample volume;
* * * * *
14. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) (1) through (4). The revisions read as follows:
§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
 	(c) Records and reports for a failure to meet a standard.
      (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet a standard, record the number of failures since the prior notification of compliance status. For each failure record the date, time and duration of each failure.
      (2) For each failure to meet a standard record and retain a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
      (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with 63.1382, including corrective actions to restore process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation.
      (4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report such events in the notification of compliance status required by section 63.1386(a)(7). Report the number of failures to meet a standard since the prior notification. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the affected units or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
15. Section 63.1388 is being added to read as follows:
§63.1388 Startups and shutdowns.
(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed to such items of equipment.
 (c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace has any raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of its typical operating temperature. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow from the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace.
(d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the glass-melting furnace.
(e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate compliance with the glass-melting furnace emission limits in §63.1382 during periods of startups and shutdowns, records establishing that your air pollution control devices were operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard may be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit.
      16. Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 includes technical corrections to the General Provisions and revisions based on these proposed rule amendments and is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 -- Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NNN
                                   Citation

                                  Requirement
                            Applies to Subpart NNN

                                  Explanation
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.1(a)(6)

                                      Yes

63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(12)

                                      Yes

63.1(b)(1)
Initial Applicability Determination
                                      Yes

63.1(b)(2)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.1(b)(3)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.1(c)(5)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)
Prohibited Activities
                                      Yes

63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)

                                      No
[Reserved].
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4)

                                      Yes

63.5(b)(5)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.5(b)(6)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.6(e)(1)(i)
General Duty to minimize emissions
                                      No
See §63.1382(b) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)
Requirement to correct malfunctions as soon as possible
                                      No
§63.1382(b) specifies additional requirements.
63.6(e)(1)(iii)

                                      Yes

63.6(e)(2)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.6(e)(3)
Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan
                                      No
Startups and shutdowns addressed in §63.1388.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.6(f)(1)
SSM exemption
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.6(h)(1)
SSM exemption
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.7(e)(1)
Performance testing
                                      No
See §63.1382(b).
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.7(g)(1)
Data Analysis
                                      Yes

63.7(g)(2)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.7(g)(3)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.8(c)(1)(i)
General duty to minimize emissions and CMS operation
                                      No
See §63.1382(c) for general duty requirement.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.8(c)(1)(iii)
Requirement to develop SSM Plan for CMS
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.8(d)(3)
Written procedures for CMS
Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required.

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.9(b)(1)-(b)(2)
Initial Notifications
                                      Yes

63.9(b)(3)

                                      No
[Reserved].
63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5)

                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.10(b)(2)(i)
Recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of startups and shutdowns
                                      No

63.10(b)(2)(ii)
Recordkeeping of malfunctions
                                      No
See 63.1386(c)(1) through (3) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration and actions taken during a failure to meet a standard.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)
Maintenance records
                                      Yes

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)
Actions taken to minimize emissions during SSM
                                      No

63.10(b)(2)(vi)
Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions
                                      Yes

63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)
Other CMS requirements
                                      Yes

 *     *     *    *     *     *     *
63.10(c)(7)-(8)
Additional recordkeeping requirements for CMS  -  identifying exceedances and excess emissions
                                      Yes

 *     *     *    *     *     *     *
63.10(c)(10)-(11)

                                      No
See §63.1386 for recordkeeping of malfunctions.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.10(c)(15)
Use of SSM Plan
                                      No

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *
63.10(d)(5)
SSM reports
                                      No
See §63.1386(c)(iii) for reporting of malfunctions.
 *     *     *     *     *     *     *

63.11(c)
Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks
                                      Yes

63.11(d)
Alternative Work Practice Standard
                                      Yes

 *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Subpart NN -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources
§63.880 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source or is located at a facility that is an area source.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of particulate matter (PM) and chromium compounds, as measured according to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted from each new and existing gas-fired glass-melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source.
(c) The provisions of this part 63, subpart A that apply and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject to NNN are subject to this subpart
(e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart
§63.881 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in §63.2, or in this section as follows:
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM) emissions.
Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in Part 63, subpart NNN are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time period.
Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set and a cooling section where the mat is cooled.
Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the manufacturing line is located.
Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility manufacturing wool fiberglass.
§63.882 Emission standards
(a) Emission limits
(1) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. On and after the date the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under §63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
(i) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton of glass pulled; and
(B) 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per ton of glass pulled (60 lb per million tons glass pulled).
(b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the performance test required to be conducted by §§63.7 and 63.1384 is completed, you must operate all affected control equipment and processes according to the following requirements.
(1)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour of an alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag leak detection system alarm is sounded for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic precipitator (ESP) parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
 (3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 3-hour block average value for the monitored parameter(s) for a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls, is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR Part 64 subpart D when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(4)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors, or daily glass pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not so equipped, exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in §63.884, by greater than 20 percent and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(5)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop (for a venturi scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established during the performance tests as specified in §63.884 for each wet scrubbing control device and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
§63.883 Monitoring requirements.
You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.
§63.884 Performance test requirements.
(a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits in §63.882. Compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in §63.882. You must conduct the performance test according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section.
(b) You must meet all applicable performance test requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.
§63.885 Test methods and procedures.
(a) You must use the following methods to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits:
(1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the selection of the sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
(2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for volumetric flow rate;
(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for O2 and CO2 for diluent measurements needed to correct the concentration measurements to a standard basis;
(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for moisture content of the stack gas;
(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of two hours and a minimum sample volume of two dry standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 120 +-14 °C (248 +-25 °F);
(6) Method 29 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration of chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a minimum run time of two hours and a minimum sample volume of two dscm.
(7) An alternative method, subject to approval by the Administrator.
(b) Each performance test shall consist of three runs. You must use the average of the three runs in the applicable equation for determining compliance.
§63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) You must meet all applicable notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.
(b) Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit During Malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed if you fail to meet the burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, you must timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The violation:
(A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.
(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred and; and
(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
(iv) If the violation resulted from a bypass of control equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health; and
(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices; and
(vii) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis must also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense you must submit a written report to the Administrator, with all necessary supporting documentation, that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (1) of this section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
§63.887 Compliance dates.
(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart by no later than:
(1) Except as noted in paragraph (3) of this section, the compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source subject to the provisions in this subpart would be one year after promulgation.
(2) Except as noted in paragraph (3) of this section, the compliance date for new and reconstructed plants or sources is upon startup of a new gas-fired glass-melting furnace or at promulgation of the final rule.
(3) The compliance date for the provisions related to malfunctions and affirmative defense provisions of §63.886 and the electronic reporting provisions of §63.886 is at promulgation of the final rule.
(b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one additional year if such additional period is necessary for the installation of controls. You must submit a request for an extension according to the procedures in §63.6(i)(3) of this part.
§63.888 Startups and shutdowns.
(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during times when emissions are being routed to such items of equipment, if the shutdown would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items of equipment. This paragraph does not apply if the you must shut down the equipment to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous startup or shutdown, of the affected source or a portion thereof.
(c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnace has any raw materials added. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow from the glass-melting furnace.
(d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the glass-melting furnace.
(e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate compliance with the gas-fired glass-melting furnace emission limits in §63.882 during periods of startups and shutdowns, demonstrate compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(b) During periods of startup and shutdown, records establishing that your air pollution control devices were operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard may be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits.
§§63.889-63.899  [Reserved]
Table 1. Subpart NN of Part 63 -- Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN
                          General provisions citation
                                  Requirement
                             Applies to
subpart NN
                                  Explanation
                                     63.1
                                 Applicability
                                     Yes.

                                     63.2
                                  Definitions
                                      Yes
                      Additional definitions in §63.881.
                                     63.3
                            Units and Abbreviations
                                     Yes.

                                     63.4
                             Prohibited Activities
                                     Yes.

                                     63.5
                   Construction/Reconstruction Applicability
                                     Yes.

                               63.5(a), (b), (c)
               Existing, New, Reconstructed Sources Requirements
                                     Yes.

                                    63.5(d)
           Application for Approval of Construction/ Reconstruction
                                      No
                                  [Reserved].
                                 63.6(e)(1)(i)

                                      No
                  See §63.882 for general duty requirements.
                                63.6(e)(1)(ii)

                                      No.

                                63.6(e)(1)(iii)

                                     Yes.

                                  63.6(e)(2)

                                      No

                                  63.6(e)(3)
                    Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan
                                      No

                                  63.6(f)(1)
                      Compliance with Emission Standards
                                      No

                                    63.6(g)
                             Alternative Standard
                                     Yes.

                                    63.6(h)
                     Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards
                                      No
                 Subpart DDD-no COMS, VE or opacity standards.
                                    63.6(i)
                            Extension of Compliance
                                     Yes.

                                    63.6(j)
                           Exemption from Compliance
                                     Yes.

                               §63.7(a)  -  (d)
                  Performance Test Requirements Applicability
                                 Notification
                          Quality Assurance/Test Plan
                              Testing Facilities
                                     Yes.
                      §63.884 has specific requirements.
                                  63.7(e)(1)
                               Conduct of Tests
                                      No.

                              §63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)

                                     Yes.

                               63.7(f), (g), (h)
                            Alternative Test Method
                                 Data Analysis
                                Waiver of Tests
                                     Yes.

                                63.8(a)  -  (b)
                     Monitoring Requirements Applicability
                             Conduct of Monitoring
                                     Yes.

                                 63.8(c)(1)(i)
                           CMS Operation/Maintenance
                                      No
                 See §63.882(b) for general duty requirement.
                                63.8(c)(1)(ii)

                                     Yes.

                                63.8(c)(1)(iii)

                                      No

                              63.8(c)(2) - (d)(2)

                                     Yes.

                                  63.8(d)(3)
                                Quality Control
                      Yes, except for the last sentence.

                                63.8(e)  -  (g)
                          CMS Performance Evaluation
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(a)
                    Notification Requirements Applicability
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(b)
                             Initial Notifications
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(c)
                       Request for Compliance Extension
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(d)
          New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(e)
                       Notification of Performance Test
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(f)
                        Notification of VE/Opacity Test
                                      No
                        Opacity/VE tests not required.
                                    63.9(g)

                         Additional CMS Notifications

                                     Yes.

                                63.9(h)(1)-(3)
                       Notification of Compliance Status

                                  63.9(h)(4)

                                      No
                                  [Reserved].
                                    63.9(i)
                            Adjustment of Deadlines
                                     Yes.

                                    63.9(j)
                        Change in Previous Information
                                     Yes.

                                   63.10(a)
                     Recordkeeping/Reporting-Applicability
                                     Yes.

                                  63.10(b)(1)
                      General Recordkeeping Requirements
                                     Yes.

                                63.10(b)(2)(i)

                                      No

                                63.10(b)(2)(ii)

                                      No
See 63.886 for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction.
                               63.10(b)(2)(iii)

                                     Yes.

                           63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)

                                      No

                          63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)

                                     Yes.

                                  63.10(b)(3)

                                     Yes.

                              63.10(c)(1)  -  (9)
                         Additional CMS Recordkeeping
                                     Yes.

                              63.10(c)(10) - (11)

                                      No.
                 See 63.886 for recordkeeping of malfunctions.
                             63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)

                                     Yes.

                                 63.10(c)(15)

                                      No

                              63.10(d)(1)  -  (4)
                        General Reporting Requirements
                           Performance Test Results
                          Opacity or VE Observations
                                     Yes.

                                  63.10(d)(5)
         Progress Reports/ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports
                                      No.
                See 63.886(c)(2) for reporting of malfunctions.
                               63.10(e)  -  (f)
                            Additional CMS Reports
                    Excess Emission/CMS Performance Reports
                               COMS Data Reports
                        Recordkeeping/ Reporting Waiver
                                     Yes.

                                     63.11
                   Control Device Requirements Applicability
                                    Flares
                                      No
         Flares will not be used to comply with the emissions limits.
                                     63.12
                        State Authority and Delegations

                                     Yes.

                                     63.13
                                   Addresses

                                     Yes.

                                     63.14
                          Incorporation by Reference

                                     Yes.

                                     63.15
                   Information Availability/Confidentiality
                                     Yes.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 37051]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1983-000]

MFT Energy US Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
MFT Energy US Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 20, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 31, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12035 Filed 6-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66317-66318]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26406]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0601; Notice No. 25-13-13-SC]

Special Conditions: Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10; Airplane
Fuselage Post-Crash Fire Survivability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Learjet Inc.
Model LJ-200-1A10 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature associated with advanced composite materials in the
construction of its fuselage and wings. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These proposed 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: Send your comments on or before December 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-0601
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Sinclair, Airframe/Cabin Safety
Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-
227-2195; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the
comments we receive.

Background

    On February 9, 2009, Learjet Inc. applied for a type certificate
for their new Model LJ-200-1A10.
    The Model LJ-200-1A10 is a business-class airplane with two high-
bypass turbine engines and interior seating configuration for up to 10
passengers.
    The Model LJ-200-1A10 is the first airplane manufactured by Learjet
Inc. to utilize advanced composite materials in the construction of its
fuselage and wings.
    This proposed special condition is necessary to ensure a level of
safety equivalent to that provided by 14 CFR part 25. Regulations
applicable to burn requirements, including Sec. Sec.  25.853 and
25.856(a), remain valid for this airplane but do not reflect the threat
generated from toxic levels of gases produced from carbon-fiber/resin
system materials following a post-crash fire scenario.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Learjet Inc. must show that the Model LJ-200-1A10 meets the
applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through
25-127.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model LJ-200-1A10 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, the Model LJ-200-1A10 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, and 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).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model LJ-200-1A10 will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features:

    The Model LJ-200-1A10 is the first airplane manufactured by Learjet
Inc. to utilize advanced composite materials in the construction of its
fuselage and wings. In accordance with Sec.  21.16, fuselage structure
fabricated from monolithic carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)
prepreg material (reinforcement fiber pre-impregnated with a
thermoplastic or thermoset resin matrix) constitutes a novel and
unusual design feature for a large transport-category airplane
certificated under 14 CFR part 25.

Discussion

    Existing regulations do not adequately ensure that composite
structure offers passengers the same protection from an on-ground,
post-crash fire condition as would a conventional aluminum structure.
Learjet is introducing a new material that may have different toxicity
characteristics than those of traditional materials. Service experience
has shown that, in post-crash fires, traditional aluminum structural
materials emit acceptable toxicity levels. Therefore, it is necessary
to ensure that the material being utilized does not reduce the
survivability of the passengers during a post-crash fire or provide
levels of toxic fumes that would be lethal or incapacitating,
preventing evacuation of the aircraft following a crash scenario. This
proposed special condition is necessary to ensure a level of safety
equivalent to that provided by 14 CFR part 25. Regulations applicable
to burn requirements, including Sec. Sec.  25.853 and 25.856(a), remain
valid for this airplane but are not sufficient to address the potential
hazard from toxic levels of gases that might be produced from carbon
fiber/resin system materials during a post-crash fire.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model LJ-200-1A10. Should Learjet Inc. apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another airplane model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Learjet Inc. Model LJ-200-1A10 airplanes.
    The Learjet Model LJ-200-1A10 must show that toxic levels of gases
produced from the composite-material system are in no way an additional
threat to the passengers and their ability to evacuate when compared to
an aluminum-constructed aircraft.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 18, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-26406 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P