[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38218-38220]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15303]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0348; Project Identifier 2018-SW-076-AD; Amendment
39-21645; AD 2021-14-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A.) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-18-52
for certain Agusta S.p.A. (now Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139 and AW139
helicopters. AD 2011-18-52 required revising the life limit for certain
part-numbered tail rotor (T/R) blades, updating the helicopter's
historical records, repetitively inspecting each T/R blade for a crack
or damage, and depending on the results, replacing the T/R blade. This
AD was prompted by the manufacturer developing improved T/R blades
using different materials and establishing life limits for each
improved blade. This AD retains certain requirements from AD 2011-18-
52, revises certain requirements from AD 2011-18-52, and expands the
applicability to include the newly-designed T/R blades. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 24, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 24,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of
Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0348.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0348; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety
Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-18-52, Amendment 39-17020 (77 FR
23109, April 18, 2012) (AD 2011-18-52). AD 2011-18-52 applied to Agusta
S.p.A. (now Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a
T/R blade part number (P/N) 3G6410A00131 or P/N 4G6410A00131 installed.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2021 (86 FR
24780). AD 2011-18-52 required, within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS),
establishing a life limit of 600 hours TIS or 1,500 takeoff and landing
cycles (cycles), whichever occurs first, on the affected T/R blades and
updating the helicopter's historical records. If a T/R blade's total
number of cycles was unknown, determining the T/R blade cycles by
multiplying the T/R blade's hours TIS by 4 was required. For a T/R
blade that, on the effective date of AD 2011-18-52, had already
exceeded 600 hours TIS or 1,500 cycles, the AD required replacing the
T/R blade with an airworthy T/R blade within 5 hours TIS.
    AD 2011-18-52 also required, within 25 hours TIS, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, inspecting the T/R blade for a
crack or damage that exceeds the limits of the applicable maintenance
manual. The inspection was required to be accomplished using a mirror,
magnifying glass (5X or greater), and light source; or borescope. If
there was a crack, or if there was damage that exceeded the limits of
the applicable maintenance manual, AD 2011-18-52 required, before
further flight, replacing the T/R blade with an airworthy T/R blade.
    AD 2011-18-52 was prompted by a fatal accident involving an Agusta
Model AW139 helicopter, which may have been caused by cracks in a T/R
blade. EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, issued EASA Emergency AD 2011-0156-E, dated August 25,
2011 (EASA AD 2011-0156-E) to require repetitive inspections and
reducing the life limit of the T/R blades. According to EASA, this
condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of a
T/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    After the FAA issued AD 2011-18-52, EASA issued a series of ADs as
follows:
     EASA AD 2012-0030, dated February 17, 2012 (EASA AD 2012-
0030), which superseded Emergency AD 2011-0156-E, advised that the
manufacturer developed improved, newly-designed T/R blades P/N
3G6410A00132 and P/N 4G6410A00132, established life limits for each
improved T/R blade, added repetitive inspections for the improved T/R
blades, and advised that each T/R blade P/N had its own individual life
limit.
     EASA AD 2012-0076, dated May 2, 2012 (EASA AD 2012-0076),
which superseded EASA AD 2012-0030 and was issued after the
manufacturer developed another version of improved T/R blades P/N
3G6410A00133 and P/N 4G6410A00133 with different materials. AD 2012-
0076 required interim life limits for the new improved version of the
T/R blades while also retaining the inspection requirements of EASA AD
2012-0030.
     EASA AD 2012-0076R1, dated July 13, 2012 (EASA AD 2012-
0076R1), which revised EASA AD 2012-0076 after a modification was
developed to allow installation of certain part-numbered T/R blades
under certain conditions.
     EASA AD 2012-0076R2, dated February 20, 2014 (EASA AD
2012-0076R2), which revised EASA AD 2012-0076R1, was issued after
another modification was developed. EASA AD 2012-0076R2 requires
removing the 25 hours TIS inspection of certain part-numbered T/R
blades, extending the life

limit of certain part-numbered T/R blades, retaining the repetitive
inspections of certain part-numbered T/R blades and depending on the
inspection results, performing certain applicable corrections.
    Also, after AD 2011-18-52 was issued, the FAA issued an NPRM (78 FR
54596), which published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2013.
The NPRM proposed to require retaining the inspection requirements for
certain part-numbered blades and expand the applicability to include
the newly designed blades and establish life limits for those blades.
The NPRM also proposed to require replacing any cracked blade or any
blade that has reached its life limit. That NPRM was prompted by
improved modifications of the T/R blades. However, because the FAA
determined that the NPRM did not adequately address the identified
unsafe condition, the NPRM was withdrawn on February 25, 2021 (86 FR
11477).
    Additional review also revealed necessary changes to address the
unsafe condition. Therefore, in the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24780), the FAA proposed to clarify the
repetitive inspection for T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and P/N
4G6410A00131 from, ``visually inspect the T/R blade for a crack or
damage'' to ``visually inspect the T/R blade for a crack and damage.''
The NPRM further proposed to revise that repetitive inspection from
``damage that exceeds the limits of the applicable maintenance manual''
to ``damage that exceeds allowable limits'' to meet current publishing
requirements. The NPRM also clarified the inspection area for that
repetitive inspection by proposing to require using a figure in the
related service information instead of using a figure in the body of
the AD action. The NPRM also proposed to revise the requirements of AD
2011-18-52 by removing unnecessary information, including the special
flight permits paragraph.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed AgustaWestland Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No.
139-265, Revision B, dated February 18, 2014. This service information
specifies a precautionary inspection for a crack, a life limit for the
affected T/R blades, and a quarantine of T/R blades that have exceeded
their life limit. This service information also provides instructions
for mixed usage of the affected T/R blades and sending certain data to
the manufacturer.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD does not list the T/R blade life limits and instead
references the Airworthiness Limitations Section of AW139 AMPI Chapter
4, while this AD includes the life limits in the AD. The EASA AD
requires reporting information to Product Support Engineering, whereas
this AD does not. The EASA AD requires contacting AgustaWestland if a
crack or damage is found during the inspection, whereas this AD
requires removing the T/R blade from service.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 130 helicopters of U.S.
Registry and that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Inspecting one T/R blade for a crack will take about 1 work-hour
for an estimated cost of $85 per T/R blade per inspection cycle and up
to $44,200 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
    Replacing one T/R blade will take about 8 work-hours and parts will
cost about $40,560 for an estimated cost of $41,240 per replacement.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-18-52, Amendment 39-17020
(77 FR 23109, April 18, 2012); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2021-14-18 Leonardo S.p.a. (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Agusta S.p.A.): Amendment 39-21645; Docket No. FAA-2021-0348;
Project Identifier 2018-SW-076-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 24, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-18-52, Amendment 39-17020 (77 FR 23109,
April 18, 2012) (AD 2011-18-52).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. (type certificate previously
held by Agusta S.p.A.) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters,
certificated in any category, with tail rotor (T/R) blade, part
number (P/N) 3G6410A00131, 3G6410A00132, 3G6410A00133, 4G6410A00131,
4G6410A00132, or 4G6410A00133, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a T/R blade.
This condition could result in failure of a T/R blade and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and 4G6410A00131, within 5
hours time-in-service (TIS) after May 3, 2012 (the effective date of
AD 2011-18-52), establish a life limit of 600 hours TIS or 1,500
takeoff and landing cycles (cycles), whichever occurs first, on the
affected T/R blades and update the helicopter's historical records.
If a T/R blade's total number of cycles is unknown, determine the T/
R blade cycles by multiplying the T/R blade's hours TIS by 4.
    (2) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and 4G6410A00131, thereafter
following paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, remove any T/R blade from
service before accumulating 600 total hours TIS or 1,500 total
cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00132, 3G6410A00133, 4G6410A00132,
and 4G6410A00133, within 5 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, determine the total number of cycles. If a T/R blade's
total number of cycles is unknown, determine the T/R blade cycles by
multiplying the blade's hours TIS by 4. Before further flight,
remove any T/R blade from service that has accumulated or exceeded
its life limit as follows. Thereafter, remove any T/R blade from
service before accumulating its life limit as follows:
    (i) T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00132 and 4G6410A00132: 1,200 total
hours TIS or 3,200 total cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) T/R blade P/N 3G6410A00133: 40,000 total cycles.
    (iii) T/R blade P/N 4G6410A00133: 4,033 total hours TIS or
40,000 cycles, whichever occurs first.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(3): A combination of T/R blades having
different P/Ns can be installed on the same helicopter. The eligible
combinations of T/R blades P/N are listed in AgustaWestland
Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-265, Revision B, dated February
18, 2014 (BT No. 139-265).
    (4) For T/R blade P/Ns 3G6410A00131 and P/N 4G6410A00131, within
25 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS, visually inspect the T/R blade
for a crack and damage that exceeds allowable limits. Inspect in the
area depicted in Figure 1 of BT No. 139-265 using a mirror, a 5X or
higher power magnifying glass, and a flashlight, or borescope. If
there is a crack or damage that exceeds allowable limits, before
further flight, remove the T/R blade from service.
    (5) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install on any
helicopter any T/R blade P/N 3G6410A00131 or P/N 4G6410A00131,
unless the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (2), and (4) of
this AD have been accomplished.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Matt Fuller, AD
Program Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2012-0076R2, dated February 20, 2014. You may view the EASA AD at
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-0348.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) AgustaWestland Mandatory Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-265,
Revision B, dated February 18, 2014.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 2, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15303 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10174-10182]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0185; FRL-9122-3]
RIN 2009-AA00

Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating
Station; Navajo Nation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a
source-specific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to regulate emissions
from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a coal-fired power plant
located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. EPA
proposed the NGS FIP on September 12, 2006, to establish federally
enforceable limitations for TSP, SO2, and opacity, and
control measures for dust. The limits had previously been established
in the Arizona SIP. EPA promulgated the Tribal Authority Rule in 1998,
clarifying that state air quality regulations generally did not apply
to facilities on Indian reservations and that EPA should fill the
regulatory gap as necessary or appropriate. This action fills the
regulatory gap for the NGS facility.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. R09-OAR-2006-0185. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Federal eRulemaking portal index at http://www.regulations.gov and are
available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarvy Mahdavi, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3173<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background of the Final Rule
    A. Summary of Final FIP Provisions
II. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
    A. Concerns About the Scope of the FIP
    B. Comments on Emissions Limits
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
    Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Background of the Final Rule

    NGS is a 2,250 megawatt coal-fired power plant located on the
Navajo Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. Salt River Project
(``SRP'') is the operating agent for NGS, which is jointly owned by
SRP, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, the Arizona Public Service, the Nevada
Power Company, and the Tucson Electric Power Company. Since 1974, NGS
has been operating on real property held in trust by the federal
government for the Navajo Nation. The facility consists of three 750 MW
coal-fired electric utility steam generating units.
    In 1999, EPA initially proposed to promulgate a FIP to regulate
emissions from NGS. See 64 FR 48725 (September 8, 1999) (1999 proposed
FIP). At that time, NGS was meeting certain emissions limits in the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). However, because the Arizona
SIP is not approved to apply on the Navajo Indian Reservation, and
because the Navajo Nation did not have a federally applicable tribal
implementation plan (TIP), EPA proposed to promulgate a FIP to remedy
the existing regulatory gap. The 1999 proposed FIP, therefore, would
have, in essence, federalized the requirements contained in the Arizona
SIP which NGS had historically followed. In explaining the basis for
its proposed action, EPA stated that given the magnitude of emissions
from the

plant, the Agency believed the proposed FIP provisions were necessary
and appropriate to ensure the protection of air quality on the
Reservation. See 64 FR at 48726.
    When EPA proposed the 1999 FIP, NGS was also subject to emissions
limits for sulfur dioxide (SO2) that EPA had promulgated in
1991 when we revised a visibility FIP for Arizona to include
requirements for NGS. See 56 FR 50172 (Oct. 3, 1991), codified at 40
CFR 52.145(d). The requirements of EPA's 1991 revised visibility FIP
are not being amended or changed by today's action, but 40 CFR
52.145(d) is being recodified to 40 CFR part 49.
    EPA did not finalize the 1999 proposed FIP. Instead, EPA proposed a
new FIP in September, 2006. See 71 FR 53639 (September 12, 2006) (2006
proposed FIP).
    In the 2006 proposed FIP, EPA again explained that to remedy the
regulatory gap that exists with regard to NGS because the Arizona SIP
does not apply to sources located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, the
Agency was proposing to issue a source-specific FIP establishing
federally enforceable emission limits for SO2, particulate
matter (PM), and opacity, and control measures for dust. The proposed
limits were similar to those in the Arizona SIP which NGS has
historically followed, but EPA proposed to include some additional
requirements for reducing opacity and fugitive dust emissions from coal
handling operations. Specifically, the 2006 proposed FIP lowered the
opacity limit from 40% to 20% and included requirements to control
emissions associated with coal and ash handling and storage.
    EPA's objective at this time in promulgating this final FIP for NGS
is to remedy the existing regulatory gap described in our 1999 and 2006
proposals. Today's action will make federally enforceable the emission
limitations which NGS has historically followed and will ensure that
NGS complies with the opacity limit of 20% and control measures for
dust from coal and ash handling and storage operations. This final
action will help to advance the goals of ensuring continued maintenance
of the national ambient air quality standards and protecting
visibility. Given the importance of these goals and the magnitude of
emissions from the plant, EPA believes that making these limits
federally enforceable is appropriate to protect air quality on the
Reservation and is accordingly exercising its discretionary authority
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'') and
40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a FIP containing provisions to achieve
these ends.
    As explained in our proposal in this action, the SO2
emissions limit in today's final rule is a short-term emissions limit,
which will be enforceable in addition to the rolling 365 day average
emission limit in the 1991 visibility FIP. For PM emissions, EPA is
finalizing its proposal to federalize the emissions limits which NGS
historically followed from the Arizona SIP. The Arizona SIP did not
contain any nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions limits for NGS,
and today's final rule does not impose any limits on NOX.
However, we note that NGS is subject to the Federal Acid Rain
requirements under title IV of the Clean Air Act. NGS elected to comply
early as a Phase I NOX facility which means NGS currently
has a NOX limit of 0.40 lbs/MMbtu, per unit, on an annual
basis. EPA will also address the emissions of NOx and PM separately
through EPA's Regional Haze rule (codified at 40 CFR 51.308) to require
best available retrofit technology for these pollutants, as discussed
in more detail in our response to comments.

A. Summary of Final FIP Provisions

    1. EPA is finalizing its proposal to limit particulate matter to
0.060 pounds per million british thermal units (lbs/MMbtu), and
specifying at least three 60 minute sampling runs for each stack.
Additionally, this final rule changes the averaging time for the
particulate matter limit from the proposed 6 hour average to a three
hour average based on three runs, each lasting approximately one hour.
The particulate standard will be measured on a plant-wide basis and is
also the way in which the State of Arizona has historically determined
compliance at NGS.
    2. EPA is finalizing its proposal that opacity from each unit is
limited to 20% averaged over any normal 6 minute period, excluding
condensed water vapour, and 40% opacity, averaged over 6 minutes,
during absorber upset transition periods. The final opacity standard
excludes uncombined water droplets. NGS has opacity monitors on each of
its stacks; water droplets, which will be present in all stacks because
of the SO2 scrubbers, cause inaccurate excess emission
readings on the opacity monitors. Therefore, in the final rule excess
opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the stack does not
constitute an exceedance, but it will be reported on the quarterly
excess emissions reports.
    3. EPA is finalizing its proposal that SO2 emissions are
limited to 1 lb/MMbtu averaged over a three-hour period, on a plant-
wide basis. The emissions limit for SO2 was previously
established in the Arizona SIP. The method of compliance determination
has been changed from the proposal which based compliance on the sulfur
content of coal. In the final rule, compliance is based on continuous
emission monitoring (CEM). This change is being made because the
Federal acid rain regulations require CEM monitoring, which is
generally recognized as being more accurate and precise than monitoring
the sulfur content of coal. NGS previously complied with the limit of 1
lb/MMbtu on a per-unit basis by using very low sulfur coal. Because NGS
has now installed scrubbers to comply with the 1991 visibility FIP,
however, NGS will be able to comply with its short-term limits by
removing sulfur from the exhaust stream. This will allow NGS to
purchase slightly higher sulfur coal; additionally, the plant-wide
average allows one scrubber to be down for periodic maintenance
(lasting usually 30 to 40 days) without requiring the purchase of
specific low sulfur coal for use during the maintenance. In the final
rule, as in the proposal, the actual SO2 emissions from NGS
will remain 90% lower on an annual basis than they were before the
scrubbers were installed to comply with the 1991 visibility FIP. To
ensure that NGS continues to meet this limit, this rule will finalize
the proposal to limit SO2 emissions to 1 lb/MMbtu on a 3
hour average limit. With the scrubbers in place, the plant-wide hourly
emissions (tons per hour) will always be less than under the prior
state limit, since at least one unit with its scrubber operating and
removing SO2 will be needed to meet the plant-wide
SO2 three hour limit.
    4. EPA is finalizing its proposal that opacity is limited to 20
percent averaged over a six minute period for both the boiler stacks
and for dust from emission associated with coal transfer and storage
and other dust-generating activities. NGS is required to submit a
description of the dust control measures.

II. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters

    EPA held a public informational workshop and hearing on the
proposed FIP for NGS at the same time as the workshop and hearing on a
proposed FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant. The joint public hearing
was held in Farmington, New Mexico, on October 5, 2006. Although EPA
received only one comment letter directed specifically at the proposed
FIP for NGS, we received 43 comments on the proposed FIP for the Four
Corners Power Plant (``FCPP

FIP''), many of which either explicitly or implicitly addressed both
actions. For example, several comments objected in general terms to
allowing operation of coal fired power plants. We responded to comments
on the FCPP FIP in a Federal Register Notice on May 7, 2007 (72 FR
25698). Some of our responses to comments in this action are identical
or very similar to the response to comments for the FCPP FIP because
the comments were identical or similar. Commenters raised concerns
which focused on general issues about air quality and health in the
area, and more specific concerns about the emission limits and control
requirements in the proposed FIP. The one comment letter received
relating exclusively to NGS was from SRP and raised specific technical
issues. Significant comments, including SRP's comments, are summarized
below.
    Our complete Response to Comments is contained in a separate
document in the docket for this rulemaking. A summary of the
significant comments and responses is provided below.

A. Concerns About the Scope of the FIP

    Comment: The majority of commenters objecting to both the FCPP and
NGS FIPs indicated that EPA should go beyond merely federalizing the
emission limits which NGS has historically followed. Other commenters
urged EPA to take regulatory action to regulate or to further reduce
emissions of SO2, NOX, PM, mercury, and ``toxic
emissions.'' Commenters raised a variety of general concerns regarding
impacts associated with coal fired power plants such as NGS, including
public health and/or environmental impacts of fugitive dust from coal
mining, mercury (Hg) and carbon dioxide (CO2, greenhouse
gases). Another commenter argued that in issuing a FIP for NGS, EPA
must comply not only with all of the requirements of section 301 of the
CAA but also ensure through the FIP process that NGS is in compliance
with all applicable federal and state ambient standards by complying
with the requirements of section 110 of the CAA addressing State
implementation plans.
    Response: As stated above, EPA's authority to promulgate this
source-specific FIP is based on CAA sections 301(a) and (d)(4) and the
regulations implementing these provisions at 40 CFR Part 49. Today's
action is not based on, nor is it subject to the requirements of, CAA
section 110. CAA section 301(d)(4) provides EPA with broad discretion
to promulgate regulations directly for sources located in Indian
country. The Tribal Air Rule provides EPA with ``discretion to
determine what rulemaking is necessary or appropriate to protect air
quality and requires the EPA to promulgate such rulemaking.'' Arizona
Public Service Company v. USEPA, 562 F.3d 1116, 1125 (10th Cir. 2009).
    EPA is exercising its discretion to promulgate emission limitations
for NGS to close the regulatory gap that exists with respect to NGS. As
explained above, at present there is no approved implementation plan
covering NGS because the Arizona SIP does not apply to sources located
on the Navajo Indian Reservation and the Navajo Nation has not
promulgated an applicable Tribal Implementation Plan. EPA's exercise of
authority in issuing this FIP is based on the Agency's conclusion that
it is appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation by
remedying the lack of federally enforceable limits applicable to NGS.
As such, our action is largely limited to making enforceable those
emissions limits which NGS has historically followed and re-codifying
the limitations applicable to NGS in the visibility FIP for Arizona. We
have also finalized our proposal to lower the opacity limit and to add
certain material handling measures to provide additional benefits to
air quality and visibility, and to conform to revisions that have been
approved into the Arizona SIP.
    Today's action is an important step in protecting air quality on
the Reservation. As noted in the proposal, this action will contribute
towards ensuring continued maintenance of the NAAQS and towards
protecting visibility. EPA acknowledges that additional regulatory
actions by EPA may be necessary or appropriate in the future to further
protect air quality on the Navajo Reservation, depending on, among
other things, conditions on the Reservation and the decisions of the
Navajo Nation to implement air quality programs. Our detailed response
to comments on mercury, CO2 and other emissions is discussed
further below and in our Response to Comments document.

B. Comments on Emissions Limits

    Comment: Several commenters urged EPA to take regulatory action in
addition to the proposed FIP to require reductions of NOX
and PM emissions from NGS. In particular, several commenters urged EPA
to undertake a determination of best available retrofit technology
(BART) for NGS's NOX emissions. See 40 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A).
One commenter noted that NGS is the 8th largest NOX emitter
in the U.S. and that the FIP was not addressing NOX or the
environmental impact from the NOX emissions. The commenter
also requested an explanation of when and at what levels BART limits
would be applied to PM, mercury, VOC and other pollutants.
    Response: EPA agrees that it may be necessary or appropriate in a
future rulemaking to require NGS to reduce its NOX or PM
emissions below those levels which were historically contained in the
Arizona SIP (and are now contained in this FIP) or which are necessary
to comply with the Acid Rain program. In the 1991 revision of the
visibility FIP that created SO2 emission limits for NGS, EPA
concluded that those limits achieved greater reasonable progress than
would BART, but did not address emissions of NOX or PM from
NGS. Today's rule does not address the requirements of EPA's nationally
applicable Regional Haze rule, codified at 40 CFR 51.308, which
contains specific implementation plan requirements regarding BART
determinations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Such implementation plans were not required from the States
until December 17, 2007. Tribes are not subject to any mandatory
deadlines to submit regional haze implementation plans. See 40 CFR
49.4; 64 FR at 35758 (``For example, unlike States, tribes are not
required by the TAR to adopt and implement CAA plans or programs,
thus tribes are not subject to mandatory deadlines for submittal of
implementation plans.''); see also Arizona Public Service Company v.
USEPA, 562 F.3d at 1119).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes, however, the importance of addressing emissions of
NOX and PM from NGS for purposes of addressing NGS's
contribution to visibility impairment. EPA has requested and SRP has
submitted an analysis of the NOX and PM control options to
address BART. This document and supplemental submittals are available
on the docket EPA has prepared for the BART rulemaking available at:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0454.
    EPA is reviewing the information provided, and consulting with the
Federal Land Manager(s), States with Class I areas impacted by NGS, and
tribes to determine the appropriate BART limits for NGS. On August 28,
2009, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR'')
concerning the anticipated visibility improvements and the cost
effectiveness for different levels of air pollution controls as BART
for NGS and for another coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo
Nation, Four Corners Power Plant (``FCPP''). EPA issued the ANPR for
the specific purpose of collecting additional information that EPA may
consider in modeling the degree of anticipated visibility

improvements in the Class I areas surrounding the two power plants and
for determining whether BART controls are cost effective at this time.
EPA also requested any additional information that commenters believe
the agency should consider in promulgating a FIP establishing BART for
the two power plants.
    After considering the information received in response to the ANPR
and other relevant information, EPA intends to publish separate FIPs
proposing EPA's BART determinations for FCPP and NGS under the Regional
Haze rules. After evaluating all comments on the proposed BART
determination for NGS, EPA will take final action regarding the BART
requirements at NGS.
    Although it is unlikely that VOC emitted from NGS will be regulated
for visibility protection under the Regional Haze rules, comments
concerning the contribution of VOCs to visibility impairment are more
appropriately considered during the regional haze rulemaking discussed
above. Historically, VOC emissions from coal-fired electric generating
units (EGUs) have not been considered a significant contributor to
visibility impairment, and EPA knows of no states in the West that are
considering setting limits on coal-fired EGU VOC emissions for regional
haze. In the West, the quantity of emissions of VOC from EGUs is
relatively insignificant compared to the quantity of VOC emissions from
biogenic sources, fires, or mobile sources.
    EPA is not considering setting a BART limit for mercury as there is
no evidence that mercury contributes to visibility impairment. On
October 28, 2009, pursuant to CAA section 113(g), EPA published in the
Federal Register for comment a proposed Consent Decree that would
require the Agency to propose CAA section 112(d) standards to control
hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from coal- and oil-fired
electric utility steam generating units by March 16, 2011, and issue
final section 112(d) standards by November 16, 2011. EPA will request
public comment on that rulemaking and will consider any significant
comments on this issue that are raised during our section 112(d)
rulemaking.
    Comment: SRP requested that the particulate matter limit in the
proposed rule be revised for better clarity. The requested changes
included that compliance would be determined from at least three test
runs over a 60 minute duration at each stack.
    Response: EPA agrees with SRP's proposed changes to the particulate
matter limit and has made the appropriate revisions in the final rule
which include specifying at least three 60 minute sampling runs for
each stack. This also changes the averaging time for the particulate
matter limit from the proposed 6 hour average to a three hour average
based on three runs lasting approximately one hour each.
    Comment: SRP requested the end of the startup limit for NGS be
increased from 300 to 400 MW to maintain consistency with the end of
the startup limit for FCPP.
    Response: Other than noting that EPA allowed a startup termination
limit of 400 MW for FCPP, SRP has not provided an explanation as to why
a startup termination limit of 400 MW is more appropriate for NGS than
300 MW. The critical factor in the startup is that the hot side ESP
reaches 400[deg] so that it may be expected to operate properly. This
temperature can be reached when the NGS units reach 300 MW. To allow
the startup to extend beyond this operating level simply because EPA
agreed to it for FCPP, which has completely different control
technology with different operational limitations, is not reasonable.
Given that the control technology at NGS is different from the control
technology at FCPP, and that NGS provided no technical justification
for making the change from 300 MW to 400 MW, EPA maintains the 300 MW
startup termination limit for NGS along with the proposed 400[deg]
precipitator temperature.
    Comment: SRP requested a change to the shutdown definition, because
they claimed that the first sentence, which referred to cessation of
coal burning, was incorrect.
    Response: EPA agrees and dropped the first sentence of the
definition referring to cessation of coal burning, since coal may still
be combusted when a unit load reaches 300 MW or less and the intention
is to remove the unit from service.
    Comment: SRP requested that NGS be exempt from opacity monitoring
requirements, consistent with 40 CFR 75.14(b) which exempts units
equipped with a wet flue pollution control system for SO2 or
particulates from the monitoring requirements of part 75, if the source
``can demonstrate that condensed water is present in the exhaust flue
gas stream and would impede the accuracy of opacity measurements.''
    Response: EPA agrees with SRP's comments that when the stack is
saturated and has uncombined water droplets, the Continuous Opacity
Monitoring Systems (COMs) cannot correctly read the opacity due to
particulate matter and has updated the final rule to reflect this
change; however, NGS will continue to have a requirement to operate
COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate properly during start-up
and at other times when the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for
maintenance purposes. SRP has operated the monitors for a number of
years and EPA does not find that an exemption allowed in part 75 is
appropriate in this rule.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of ``Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. This action will
finalize a source-specific FIP for the Navajo Generating Station on the
Navajo Nation.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of information'' is
defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *.'' 44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP applies to a single facility, NGS,
the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final action on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FIP for
NGS being finalized today does not impose any new requirements on small
entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327
(D.C. Cir. 1985)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This action will make emissions
limits from a single source federally enforceable.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an
action that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed action. In addition, under section 6(c) of
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed action.
    EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications
because it makes emissions limits from a specific source federally
enforceable. However, it will not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on State or local governments, nor will it preempt State law.
Thus, the requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of the Executive Order
do not apply to this action.
    Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless consulted with
representatives of State and local governments \2\ early in the process
of developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Representatives of State and local governments'' include
non-elected officials of State and local governments and any
representative national organizations not listed in footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop ``an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' Under Executive Order 13175, to the
extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA
consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement. In
addition, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has tribal implications and pre-empts tribal
law unless EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation and prepares a tribal summary impact
statement.
    EPA has concluded that this final rule may have tribal implications
because it will impose federally enforceable emissions limitations on a
major stationary source located and operating on the Navajo
reservation. However, this final rule will neither impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal governments nor pre-empt Tribal law
because the final FIP imposes obligations only on the owner or operator
of NGS.
    EPA has also consulted extensively with officials of the Navajo
Nation in the process of developing this regulation. EPA had
discussions with Tribal representatives during proposal of the FIP in
1999. We also consulted prior to the 2006 FIP proposal and Tribal
officials attended the public information workshop and public hearing
on the proposed FIP in 2006. Therefore, EPA has allowed the Navajo
Nation to provide meaningful and timely input into the development of
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it only
makes previously applicable emissions standards federally enforceable.
Because this action federalizes existing requirements, it is not
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
does not have a disproportionate effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs 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 the VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the Agency conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable VCS. For the measurements listed below,
there are a number of VCS that appear to have possible use in lieu of
the EPA test methods and performance specifications (40 CFR part 60,
appendices A and B) noted next to the measurement requirements. It
would not be practical to specify these standards in the current
rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient data on equivalency and
validation and because some are still under development. However, EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is in the process of
reviewing all available VCS for incorporation by reference into the
test methods and performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60,
appendices A and B. Any VCS so incorporated in a specified test method
or performance specification would then be available for use in
determining the emissions from this facility. This will be an ongoing
process designed to incorporate suitable VCS as they become available.

Particulate Matter Emissions--EPA Methods 1 though 5.
Opacity--EPA Method 9 and Performance Specification Test 1 for Opacity
Monitoring.
SO2--EPA Method 6C and Performance Specification 2 for
Continuous SO2 Monitoring.

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.
    EPA has determined that this final 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. This final rule requires emissions reductions and
makes emissions limitations federally enforceable for a major
stationary source.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective April 5, 2010.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 4, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b) (2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 49--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 49.24 is added to subpart A to read as follows:

Sec.  49.24  Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo
Generating Station, Navajo Nation.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator of the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating
equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and 3, equipment associated with
coal and ash handling, and the two auxiliary steam boilers at the
Navajo Generating Station (NGS) on the Navajo Nation located in the
Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (see 40 CFR
81.270).
    (b) Compliance Dates. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required upon the effective date of this section.
    (c) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
    (1) Absorber upset transition period means the 24-hour period
following an upset of an SO2 absorber module which resulted
in the absorber being taken out of service.
    (2) 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. This rule provides an affirmative defense to
actions for penalties brought for excess emissions that arise during
certain malfunction episodes.
    (3) Malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air
pollution control equipment or process equipment or of a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely
or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation, or any other
preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions. An affirmative defense is not available
if during the period of excess emissions, there was an exceedance of
the relevant ambient air quality standard that could be attributed to
the emitting source.

    (4) Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls or supervises the NGS, any of the fossil fuel-fired, steam-
generating equipment at the NGS, or the auxiliary steam boilers at the
NGS.
    (5) Plant-wide means a weighted average of particulate matter and
SO2 emissions for Units 1, 2, and 3 based on the heat input
to each unit as determined by 40 CFR part 75.
    (6) Point source means any crusher, any conveyor belt transfer
point, any pneumatic material transferring, any baghouse or other
control devices used to capture dust emissions from loading and
unloading, and any other stationary point of dust that may be observed
in conformance with Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR Part 60
(excluding stockpiles).
    (7) Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 or his/her authorized
representative.
    (8) Startup shall mean the period from start of fires in the boiler
with fuel oil, to the time when the electrostatic precipitator is
sufficiently heated such that the temperature of the air preheater
inlet reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit and when a unit reaches 300 MW net
load. Proper startup procedures shall include energizing the
electrostatic precipitator prior to the combustion of coal in the
boiler. This rule provides an affirmative defense to actions for
penalties brought for excess emissions that arise during startup
episodes. An affirmative defense is not available if during the period
of excess emissions, there was an exceedance of the relevant ambient
air quality standard that could be attributed to the emitting source.
    (9) Shutdown shall begin when the unit drops below 300 MW net load
with the intent to remove the unit from service. The precipitator shall
be maintained in service until boiler fans are disengaged. This rule
provides an affirmative defense to actions for penalties brought for
excess emissions that arise during shutdown episodes. An affirmative
defense is not available if during the period of excess emissions,
there was an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standard
that could be attributed to the emitting source.
    (10) Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) means the sum of nitrogen
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the flue gas,
expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
    (d) Emissions Limitations and Control Measures--(1) Sulfur Oxides.
No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of sulfur
oxides into the atmosphere from Units 1, 2, or 3 in excess of 1.0 pound
per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) averaged over any three
(3) hour period, on a plant-wide basis.
    (2) Particulate Matter. No owner or operator shall discharge or
cause the discharge of particulate matter into the atmosphere in excess
of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, on a plant-wide basis, as averaged from at least
three sampling runs per stack, each at a minimum of 60 minutes in
duration, each collecting a minimum sample of 30 dry standard cubic
feet.
    (3) Dust. Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
existing dust suppression methods for controlling dust from the coal
handling and storage facilities. Within ninety (90) days after
promulgation of these regulations the owner or operator shall submit to
the Regional Administrator a description of the dust suppression
methods for controlling dust from the coal handling and storage
facilities, fly ash handling and storage, and road sweeping activities.
Each owner or operator shall not emit dust with an opacity greater than
20% from any crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, belt
conveyor, truck loading or unloading operation, or railcar unloading
station, as determined using 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4 Method 9.
    (4) Opacity. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the
discharge of emissions from the stacks of Units 1, 2, or 3 into the
atmosphere exhibiting greater than 20% opacity, excluding condensed
uncombined water droplets, averaged over any six (6) minute period and
40% opacity, averaged over six (6) minutes, during absorber upset
transition periods.
    (e) Testing and Monitoring. (1) On and after the effective date of
this regulation, the owner or operator shall maintain and operate
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOx and
SO2 and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS) on
Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and
(h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply with
the quality assurance procedures for CEMS and COMS found in 40 CFR part
75.
    (2) The owner or operator shall conduct annual mass emissions tests
for particulate matter on Units 1, 2, and 3, operating at rated
capacity, using coal that is representative of that normally used. The
tests shall be conducted using the appropriate test methods in 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A.
    (3) During any calendar year in which an auxiliary boiler is
operated for 720 hours or more, and at other times as requested by the
Administrator, the owner or operator shall conduct mass emissions tests
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter on the
auxiliary steam boilers, operating at rated capacity, using oil that is
representative of that normally used. The tests shall be conducted
using the appropriate test methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. For
particulate matter, testing shall consist of three test runs. Each test
run shall be at least sixty (60) minutes in duration and shall collect
a minimum volume of thirty (30) dry standard cubic feet.
    (4) The owner or operator shall maintain two sets of opacity
filters for each type of COMS, one set to be used as calibration
standards and one set to be used as audit standards. At least one set
of filters shall be on site at all times.
    (5) All emissions testing and monitor evaluation required pursuant
to this section shall be conducted in accordance with the appropriate
method found in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendices A and B.
    (6) The owner or operator shall install, maintain and operate
ambient monitors at Glen Canyon Dam for particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and ozone. Operation, calibration and maintenance of the
monitors shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58,
manufacturer's specification, and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurements Systems'', Volume II, U.S. EPA as applicable to
single station monitors. Data obtained from the monitors shall be
reported annually to the Regional Administrator. All particulate matter
samplers shall operate at least once every six days, coinciding with
the national particulate sampling schedule.
    (7) Nothing herein shall limit EPA's ability to ask for a test at
any time under section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413, and
enforce against any violation of the Clean Air Act or this section.
    (8) A certified EPA Reference Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR
Part 60 observer shall conduct a weekly visible emission observation
for the equipment and activities described under Section 49.24(d)(3).
If visible emissions are present at any of the equipment and/or
activities, a 6-minute EPA Reference Method 9 observation shall be
conducted. The name of the observer, date, and time of observation,
results of the observations, and any corrective actions taken shall be
noted in a log.
    (f) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. Unless otherwise
stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications and other
communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section
shall be submitted to the

Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window
Rock, Arizona 86515, (928) 871 -7692,<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), and
to the Director, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,<PHONE_NUMBER>
(facsimile). For each unit subject to the emissions limitations in this
section the owner or operator shall:
    (1) Comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements for
testing found in 40 CFR 60.7. All data/reports of testing results shall
be submitted to the Regional Administrator and postmarked within 60
days of testing.
    (2) For excess emissions, notify the Navajo Environmental
Protection Agency Director and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Administrator by telephone or in writing within one business
day. This notification should be sent to the Director, Navajo
Environmental Protection Agency, by mail to: P.O. Box 339, Window Rock,
Arizona 86515, or by facsimile to:<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), and to
the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
9, by mail to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, by facsimile to: (415) 947-
3579 (facsimile), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A complete written
report of the incident shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within ten (10) working days after the event. This notification shall
include the following information:
    (i) The identity of the stack and/or other emissions points where
excess emissions occurred;
    (ii) The magnitude of the excess emissions expressed in the units
of the applicable emissions limitation and the operating data and
calculations used in determining the magnitude of the excess emissions;
    (iii) The time and duration or expected duration of the excess
emissions;
    (iv) The identity of the equipment causing the excess emissions;
    (v) The nature and cause of such excess emissions;
    (vi) If the excess emissions were the result of a malfunction, the
steps taken to remedy the malfunction and the steps taken or planned to
prevent the recurrence of such malfunction; and
    (vii) The steps that were taken or are being taken to limit excess
emissions.
    (3) Notify the Regional Administrator verbally within one business
day of determination that an exceedance of the NAAQS has been measured
by a monitor operated in accordance with this regulation. The
notification to the Regional Administrator shall include the time,
date, and location of the exceedance, and the pollutant and
concentration of the exceedance. Compliance with this paragraph
(f)(3)(v) shall not excuse or otherwise constitute a defense to any
violations of this section or of any law or regulation which such
excess emissions or malfunction may cause. The verbal notification
shall be followed within fifteen (15) days by a letter containing the
following information:
    (i) The time, date, and location of the exceedance;
    (ii) The pollutant and concentration of the exceedance;
    (iii) The meteorological conditions existing 24 hours prior to and
during the exceedance;
    (iv) For a particulate matter exceedance, the 6-minute average
opacity monitoring data greater than 20% for the 24 hours prior to and
during the exceedance; and
    (v) Proposed plant changes such as operation or maintenance, if
any, to prevent future exceedances.
    (4) Submit quarterly excess emissions reports for sulfur dioxide
and opacity as recorded by CEMS and COMS together with a CEMS data
assessment report to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days
after each calendar quarter. The owner or operator shall complete the
excess emissions reports according to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7(c)
and (d) and include the Cylinder Gas Audit. Excess opacity due to
condensed water vapor in the stack does not constitute a reportable
exceedance; however, the length of time during which water vapor
interfered with COMs readings should be summarized in the 40 CFR 60.7
(c) report.
    (g) Compliance Certifications. Notwithstanding any other provision
in this implementation plan, the owner or operator may use any credible
evidence or information relevant to whether a source would have been in
compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance
or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting
compliance certifications.
    (h) Equipment Operations. The owner or operator shall operate all
equipment or systems needed to comply with this section in accordance
with 40 CFR 60.11(d) and consistent with good engineering practices to
keep emissions at or below the emissions limitations in this section,
and following outages of any control equipment or systems the control
equipment or system will be returned to full operation as expeditiously
as practicable.
    (i) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant to
whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not a person has
violated or is in violation of any standard in the plan.
    (2) During periods of start-up and shutdown the otherwise
applicable emission limits or requirements for opacity and particulate
matter shall not apply provided that: (i) At all times the facility is
operated in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing
emissions, and the owner or operator uses best efforts regarding
planning, design, and operating procedures to meet the otherwise
applicable emission limit;
    (ii) The frequency and duration of operation in start-up or
shutdown mode are minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
    (iii) The owner or operator's actions during start-up and shutdown
periods are documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence.
    (3) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit. However, it shall be an
affirmative defense in an enforcement action seeking penalties if the
owner or operator has met with all of the following conditions:
    (i) The malfunction was the result of a sudden and unavoidable
failure of process or air pollution control equipment and did not
result from inadequate design or construction of the process or air
pollution control equipment;
    (ii) The malfunction did not result from operator error or neglect,
or from improper operation or maintenance procedures;
    (iii) The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
    (iv) Steps were immediately taken to correct conditions leading to
the malfunction, and the amount and duration of the excess emissions
caused by the malfunction were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable;
    (v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality;

    (vi) All emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if at
all possible; and
    (vii) The owner or operator's actions in response to the excess
emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence.

[FR Doc. 2010-4542 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53438-53439]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21833]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0553; FRL-10000-83-OA]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Updated CEQ-EPA Presidential Innovation
Award for Environmental Educators and the President's Environmental
Youth Awards Application (Revision)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Updated CEQ-EPA Presidential
Innovation Award for Environmental Educators and the President's
Environmental Youth Awards Application (Revision)'' (EPA ICR No.
2524.03, OMB Control No. 2090-0031) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed revision of the ICR, which is
currently approved through April 30, 2022. An Agency may not conduct,
or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OA-2015-0553, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method),
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Araujo, Office of the
Administrator, Office of Environmental Education, MC-1704A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to
OMB.
    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection request is to
collect information from applicants to select recipients for the
Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators (PIAEE)
program and the President's Environmental Youth Awards (PEYA) program.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), in
conjunction with the White House Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), established the PIAEE program to meet the requirements of
Section 8(e) of the National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C.
5507(e)). The Agency established the PEYA program to meet the
requirements of Section 8(d) of the National Environmental Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 5507(d)).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: K-12 teachers who teach on a full-
time basis in a public school that is operated by a local education
agency, including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For
this program, a local education agency is one as defined by section 198
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (now codified at
20 U.S.C. 7801(26)).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain information
from the applicants for PIAEE and PEYA program and assess certain
aspects of programs as established under Section 8(e) of the National
Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5507(e)) and Section 8(d) of the
National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5507(d)) respectively.
    Estimated number of respondents: 75 (total) for the PIAEE program
and 200 (total) for the PEYAEE program.
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,870 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: For the PIAEE program, $32,960 (per year) for
75 applicants. For the PEYA program, $49,220 (per year) for 200
applicants. There are no capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There has been a change in the number of
respondents due to the addition of activities related to PEYA
application. The individual cost per respondent has risen, due to
increases in labor rate estimates.

    Dated: August 28, 2019.
Elizabeth (Tate) Bennett,
Associate Administrator, Office of Public Engagement and Environmental
Education.
[FR Doc. 2019-21833 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30370-30371]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to
Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

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

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Nature of the
 Application No.     Applicant      Regulation(s)      special permits
                                       affected            thereof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Special Permits Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11947-M.........  Patts            173.241,         To modify the
                   Fabrication,     173.242,         special permit to
                   Inc.             173.243,         authorize
                                    177.834(h).      additional hazmat
                                                     to be transported.
                                                     (mode 1).

12240-M.........  Spence Air       172.101(j),      To modify the
                   Service.         172.200,         special permit to
                                    172.204(c)(3),   waive certain
                                    172.301,         marking and
                                    173.27(b)(1),    shipping paper
                                    175.33,          requirements. (mode
                                    175.75(b).       5).
13173-M.........  Luxfer Canada    172.101(j),      To modify the
                   Limited.         173.302a(a)(1)   special permit to
                                    , 180.205(g).    authorize use the
                                                     manufacture,
                                                     marking, sale, and
                                                     use of non-DOT
                                                     specification fully
                                                     wrapped carbon-
                                                     fiber reinforced
                                                     aluminum lined
                                                     cylinders which are
                                                     manifolded and
                                                     permanently mounted
                                                     in a protective
                                                     frame for the
                                                     transportation in
                                                     commerce of the
                                                     materials
                                                     authorized by this
                                                     special permit and
                                                     authorize the use
                                                     of a pneumatic
                                                     proof pressure test
                                                     for periodic
                                                     requalification.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
13220-M.........  Entegris, Inc..  173.302,         To modify the
                                    173.302c.        special permit by
                                                     authorizing
                                                     additional carbon
                                                     steels specified
                                                     for the cylindrical
                                                     shell of the
                                                     pressure vessel.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3).
14518-M.........  Federal          172.301(c),      To modify the
                   Cartridge        173.56(b),       special permit to
                   Company.         173.62.          authorize primers
                                                     to be shipped
                                                     without an EX
                                                     approval. (mode 1).
16231-M.........  Thales Alenia    172.101(j),      To modify the
                   Space.           173.301(f),      special permit to
                                    173.302a(a)(1)   authorize
                                    ,                additional 2.3
                                    173.304a(a)(2).  hazmat. (modes 1,
                                                     3, 4).
20279-M.........  City Carbonic    180.207(d)(1)..  To modify the
                   LLC.                              special permit to
                                                     remove specific
                                                     manufacturer
                                                     applicability to
                                                     the manufacture of
                                                     authorized
                                                     cylinders. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
21069-M.........  Catalina         173.302a,        To modify the
                   Composites,      178.71(l)(1).    special permit to
                   Inc.                              authorize ISO 9712
                                                     as alternative to
                                                     ISO 11515:2013
                                                     Section 9.1.1
                                                     certification.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-11876 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P