supply, Eastman Chemical will also need to convert the existing
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to fabric filters. TDEC established as
BART for SO2 from Boilers 25-29 as the less stringent of the
following limits: 0.20 lb SO2/MMBtu, or a reduction in
uncontrolled SO2 emissions by 92 percent. TDEC also
recognized in its SIP that the SO2 emission limits for BART
will require the installation of additional PM controls, which will
further reduce PM, but since the facility is already well controlled
for PM, the State did not adopt as BART any additional PM limits for
these boilers. Installing SDA-FF on Boilers 25-29 will reduce the
three-year average of the maximum 98th percentile impact on visibility,
as modeled, from 2.38 deciviews to 0.95 deciviews.
    (2) PM and NOX BART Review. In the early 1990s, an ESP was
installed on each unit to control PM emissions. As discussed in the
previous subsection V.C.6.C, 2.b.(1), SO2 BART review, additional PM
controls must be installed on Boilers 25-29 to meet the new BART
SO2 limits. During 2001-2003, the burners on these boilers
were retrofitted with a vaned close coupled overfire-air system to
control NOX emissions. At lower loads, the boiler's mode of
operation is equivalent to a NOX control strategy known as
Burner Out of Service, and results in significantly lower
NOX emissions.
    For NOX, TDEC concluded that while the available
technologies (running low- NOX burners year-round and
application of Separated Over-Fire Air (SOFA)) might be considered
cost-effective on a dollars per ton basis, there are other
environmental factors that, when weighed against the visibility
benefits, led the State to conclude that existing seasonal
NOX controls would be considered BART. The impact of
reducing the NOX would be to reduce the three-year average
of the maximum 98th percentile impact on visibility, as modeled for
this source, from 0.95 deciviews to 0.76 deciviews.
    The environmental factors include: (a) disposal of fly ash rather
than sales to the concrete industry would increase use of aggregate by
the cement manufacturing industry and increase waste being sent to
landfills, and (b) an increase in emissions associated with burning
coal (i.e., SO2 and PM) due to an increase in fuel use
caused by a loss

of boiler efficiency due to higher amounts of unburned carbon in the
fly ash. The efficiency loss is projected to be around 0.5 percent,
which is equivalent to about an extra 3,500 tons of coal that must be
burned each year to generate the same output.
c. Cracking Furnaces
    The two cracking furnaces are used to fire natural gas to provide
heat to drive a cracking reaction of acetic acid that occurs inside the
tube assemblies of the furnaces. The furnaces also burn a fuel gas
which is off-gassed from the manufacturing process. SO2 and
PM emissions from these units are negligible.
    The NOX emissions potential from these small furnaces is
low (10.5 tons per year each). Therefore, post-combustion technologies
such as selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) would not be cost-effective. Although several different
combustion control technologies were considered, only the replacement
of the 24 natural gas burners with new low NOX burners (LNB)
was considered to be cost-effective. However, because NOX
emissions are already low using the current technology, the impact on
visibility from the LNB would be very limited. Additionally, replacing
the existing burners with LNB would change the natural gas flame
profile, which would have unknown effects on the heat profile. Changing
the heat profile could adversely affect the ability of the cracking
furnaces to provide for the cracking reaction to take place and to
continue to provide for 98 percent reduction of the total organic
carbon in the fuel gas. The cracking furnaces also serve as control
devices for the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under 40 CFR 60
Subpart NNN. CALPUFF model runs show that the visibility impairment
caused by these emission units for the 98th percentile daily maximum
impact is 0.01 deciviews at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. For
these reasons, TDEC concluded that there are no NOX control
technologies that are both technically feasible and reasonably cost-
effective to reduce visibility in Class I Areas for these furnaces.
d. Batch Chemical Manufacturing
    The batch chemical manufacturing operation has an operating permit
to emit NOX, SO2, ammonia and PM. The operation
is a compilation of specialty organic chemical batch manufacturing
equipment located in five different buildings. Each of these pieces of
equipment is controlled by fabric filters, water scrubbers, or caustic
scrubbers.
    SO2 is controlled by caustic scrubbers, which are
estimated to achieve 98 percent control. PM is controlled to a minimum
efficiency of 95 percent. NOX has not been emitted by this
unit in several years. However, if products were to be manufactured
that emitted NOX, they would be controlled by caustic
scrubbers and the annual emissions would be limited to 14 tons. Ammonia
emissions are controlled by water scrubbers which achieve control
efficiencies from 20-60 percent and are limited to annual emissions of
22.4 tons. Given these high control efficiencies and the low total
annual emissions allowed, TDEC concluded further control of
SO2, NOX, ammonia, and PM would not be reasonable
for the batch chemical manufacturing operation.
e. Boiler 24
    Boiler 24 burns bituminous coal along with wastewater treatment
biosludge and liquid chemical wastes. This unit is used for co-
production of steam and electricity in support of manufacturing
operations at the Kingsport plant as well as the destruction of
biosludge from Eastman's wastewater treatment facility and waste
chemicals.
    Boiler 24 is equipped with an ESP for PM, and an overfire air
system is built into the stoker design for NOX emission
control. Additionally, because this boiler routinely burns a wastewater
treatment biosludge that is about 85 percent water, the injection of
this material cools the flame temperature and reduces NOX by
approximately 20 percent. No additional NOX control
technology was considered technically feasible. The most cost-effective
option for control of SO2 that is technically feasible has a
cost-effectiveness of about $3,000-$4,000 per ton.
    Eastman Chemical evaluated several SO2 scrubbing options
for boiler 24. Boiler 24 is in a different building than boilers 25-29.
Therefore, there is no economy of scale with the lime handling system
or caustic storage system. Also, there is little available space
adjacent to Boiler 24. The absorber would have to be either elevated
above the adjacent rail yard or located some distance away with
ductwork spanning railroad tracks or a roadway. Similarly, to
accommodate a new fabric filter, Eastman Chemical's options include
retrofitting the ESP to a fabric filter, or demolishing the existing
ESP and building a baghouse in its place. As a result, the most cost-
effective option for control of SO2 that is technically
feasible has a cost-effectiveness of about $3,000-$4,000 per ton, and
would reduce the three-year average of the maximum 98th percentile
impact on visibility by approximately 0.1 deciview. TDEC concluded that
no additional control of PM, NOX or SO2 for BART
should be required for Boiler 24.
f. EPA Assessment
    EPA reviewed the TDEC BART determinations summarized above and
agrees with Tennessee's analyses and conclusions for BART for Eastman
Chemical, because the analyses were conducted consistent with EPA's
BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, and
reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this source.
3. TVA Cumberland
a. Background
    The TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant has two pulverized-coal-fired steam
generators that are considered BART-eligible. Units 1 and 2 are
nominally rated at about 1,325 megawatts each.
b. BART Assessment
    EGU Units 1 and 2 are both equipped with FGD for SO2
control, SCR systems for controlling NOX, and ESPs to
control PM emissions. In addition, TVA Cumberland currently uses
hydrated lime injection on both units to mitigate stack opacity.
    (1) SO2 and NOX BART Review. The two emission units at TVA
Cumberland are also subject to the EPA CAIR. TVA Cumberland has already
installed scrubbers and NOX controls on the emission units
at this facility. As discussed in section V.C., Tennessee has opted to
rely on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for
its EGUs subject to CAIR, as allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, TVA
Cumberland submitted a BART exemption modeling demonstration for PM
emissions only.
    (2) PM BART Review. TDEC prepared an engineering analysis to
determine whether there is a technically and economically feasible
control scenario that represents BART for PM. The modeling analysis
demonstrated that approximately 96 percent of the visibility impacts at
the affected Class I areas can be attributed to condensable
PM10 emissions (i.e., sulfites (SO3)). Thus, the
engineering evaluation for TVA Cumberland focuses on control of
SO3/sulfuric acid (H2SO4) emissions.
The only option identified as technically feasible for controlling PM
was to reduce additional SO3 emissions at the Cumberland
facility with a wet ESP. While application of a wet ESP would reduce
visibility impacts, TDEC determined that not only would the

costs associated with retrofitting the facility with a wet ESP be high,
but that the ESP would also require large volumes of water to operate
it. TDEC estimated that the total capital investment required to
install a wet ESP at this facility is approximately $176 million per
emission unit, with total annual costs of approximately $50.5 million
per year, and a corresponding cost-effectiveness of over $85,000 per
ton of PM removed.
    TDEC determined that for the TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant, no
additional controls for PM will be required. Since the facility is
currently well controlled for SO2 and PM, additional control
was removed from consideration during this implementation period based
on cost and environmental impacts. Consistent with this determination,
TDEC has adopted into the SIP and as a title V permit condition a limit
of 0.5 lbs SO2 per MMBtu of heat input which can be met with
existing controls.
c. EPA Assessment
    EPA agrees with Tennessee's analyses and conclusions for BART for
the TVA Cumberland facility for PM. EPA notes that while TVA Cumberland
presently operates a sorbent injection system on each unit to reduce
SO3/H2SO4 emissions to seven parts per
million by volume, recent advances in this technology can also allow
this technology to achieve emission rates comparable to those of a wet
ESP at much lower cost. EPA expects Tennessee will evaluate this
improved technology further in the next implementation period as part
of its reasonable progress assessment. EPA concludes that the analyses
conducted for the PM emissions are consistent with EPA's BART
Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, and the
conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this
source.
    Prior to the CAIR remand by the, EPA believed the State's
demonstration that CAIR satisfies BART for SO2 and
NOX for affected EGUs for the first implementation period to
be approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as
explained in section IV of this notice, the State's demonstration
regarding CAIR and BART for EGUs, and other provisions in this SIP
revision, are based on CAIR and thus, the Agency proposes today to
issue a limited approval and a limited disapproval of the State's
regional haze SIP revision.
4. DuPont-Old Hickory Plant
a. Background
    The DuPont-Old Hickory Plant operates two BART-eligible units,
boilers 20 and 24. Boiler 20 is a tangentially-fired coal unit with a
rated capacity of 445 MMBtu/hr. Boiler 24 is a tangentially fired coal
unit with a rated capacity of 315 MMBtu/hr. Boiler 24 is presently
operated only during periods of peak demand, which typically occur in
the winter, when boiler 20 has insufficient capacity to meet both the
process and space heating demands of the facility.
b. BART Assessment
    TDEC evaluated nine control strategies for reducing SO2
and seven strategies for reducing NOX emissions. Based on
boiler operating data supplied by DuPont Old Hickory, TDEC concluded
that none of the control strategies were appropriate because the
strategies did not address the different ways the boilers were operated
during the year, depending upon the season. The strategies all
overstated the actual impacts of the facility on regional haze.
Therefore, instead of requiring the installation of control technology
on the boilers, TDEC adopted seasonal operating limits in the DuPont
operating permit. These limits constrain the ability of both boilers to
operate at the same time, with more stringent limits in the summer when
visibility impacts are the greatest. With these new limits, the
facility's impacts on visibility near the Mammoth Cave Class I area are
less than 0.5 deciview.
    The emission limits adopted by TDEC, and incorporated into DuPont's
title V operating permit, reduce the combined allowable SO2
emissions from the boilers 20 and 24 by 20,834 lbs per day (lbs/d) in
the summer (May through September) to 32,256 lbs/d and by 14,522 lbs/d
in the winter (October through April) to 38,568 lbs/d. Therefore, the
facility is reducing allowable NOX emissions from these
units by 3,978 lbs/d in the summer to 6,120 lbs/d and by 3,330 lbs/d in
the winter to 6,768 lbs/d. CALPUFF modeling based on these operating
rates results in a reduction in visibility impact due to the facility's
contribution which falls below the 0.5 deciview threshold TDEC applied
for determining whether BART-eligible sources are subject to BART.
c. EPA Assessment
    EPA agrees with Tennessee's analyses and conclusions for BART for
the DuPont-Old Hickory Plant because the analyses were conducted in a
manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual. In addition, the conclusions reflect a
reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this source.
5. Enforceability of Limits
    The BART determinations for each of the facilities discussed above
and the resulting BART emission limits were adopted by Tennessee into
the State's regional haze SIP. TDEC incorporated the BART emission
limits into state operating permits, and submitted these permits as
part the State's regional haze SIP. The BART limits will also be added
to the facilities' title V permits according to the procedures
established in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. The BART limits
adopted in the SIP are as follows: (a) for Alcoa, a limitation of three
percent sulfur in the petroleum coke used in the facility's electrode
production operations; (b) for Eastman Chemical, a condition requiring
compliance with more stringent SO2 limitation on its boilers
(i.e., boilers 25-29 shall comply with the less stringent of the
following emission limits: 0.20 lb SO2/MMBtu of heat input
or reduce uncontrolled SO2 emissions by 92 percent); (c) for
TVA-Cumberland Fossil Plant, emission limits consistent with existing
controls (i.e., 0.5 lb SO2/MMBtu of heat input) are denoted
as BART with no additional control measures; and (d) for DuPont-Old
Hickory, a limit on the total combined daily emissions for boilers 20
and 24, based upon seasonal operating limits that reduce allowable
SO2 emissions from the affected units to 32,256 lbs/d in the
summer and to 38,568 lbs/d in the winter, and allowable NOX
emissions from these units to 6,120 lbs/d in the summer and to 6,768
lbs/d in the winter.
    Tennessee is requiring Eastman Chemical, DuPont-Old Hickory and
Alcoa to comply with these BART emission limits as follows: ``No later
than five (5) years after publication in the Federal Register of U.S.
EPA's approval of Tennessee's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
revision * * * '' to allow time for needed operational changes. The
emission limits for TVA-Cumberland are consistent with existing
controls and thus, are immediately effective. (For further details of
the specific BART requirements, see also EPA's TSD to this action,
section III.D.4, or section 7.5.2 of the Tennessee SIP Narrative.)
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs
for each Class I area within the state

(expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility. VISTAS modeled visibility improvements
under existing Federal and state regulations for the period 2004-2018,
and additional control measures which the VISTAS states planned to
implement in the first implementation period. At the time of VISTAS
modeling, some of the other states with sources potentially impacting
visibility at the Tennessee Class I areas had not yet made final
control determinations for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus,
these controls were not included in the modeling submitted by
Tennessee. Any controls resulting from those determinations will
provide additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility
improvement, which give further assurances that Tennessee will achieve
its RPGs. This modeling demonstrates that the 2018 base control
scenario provides for an improvement in visibility better than the
uniform rate of progress for both of the Tennessee Class I areas for
the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and
ensures no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over
the same period.
    As shown in Table 6 below, Tennessee's RPGs for the 20 percent
worst days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the
uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas (i.e., 25.79
deciviews in 2018). Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent best days provide
greater visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day
conditions. The modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is
consistent with EPA guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional
haze provisions specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from
other CAA requirements during the implementation period. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, like
Tennessee, took into account emission reductions anticipated from CAIR
in determining their 2018 RPGs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                          Table 6--Tennessee 2018 RPGs
                                                 [In deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Uniform
                                        Baseline      2018 RPG--20     rate of       Baseline      2018 RPG--20
                                     visibility--20   percent worst  progress at  visibility--20   percent best
            Class I area              percent worst       days         2018--20    percent best        days
                                          days        (improvement     percent         days        (improvement
                                                     from baseline)   worst days                  from baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountains National Park          30.28     23.50 (6.78)        25.79          13.58     12.11 (1.47)
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness            30.28     23.50 (6.78)        25.79          13.58     12.11 (1.47)
 Area..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in Tennessee are based on modeled
projections of future conditions that were developed using the best
available information at the time the analysis was done. These
projections can be expected to change as additional information
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change
their emission characteristics as they install control equipment to
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually adjust the RPG every time
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions,
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways.
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory goal. See 64
FR at 35733. At the same time, EPA established a requirement for a
midcourse review and, if necessary, correction of the states' regional
haze plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a
five year progress review after submittal of the initial regional haze
plan. The purpose of this progress review is to assess the
effectiveness of emission management strategies in meeting the RPG and
to provide an assessment of whether current implementation strategies
are sufficient for the state or affected states to meet their RPGs. If
a state concludes, based on its assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I
area will not be met, the RHR requires the state to take appropriate
action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate action will
depend on the basis for the state's conclusion that the current
strategies are insufficient to meet the RPGs. Tennessee specifically
committed to follow this process in the long-term strategy portion of
its submittal.
    EPA anticipates that the Transport Rule will result in similar or
better improvements in visibility than predicted from CAIR. Because the
Transport Rule is not final, however, EPA does not know at this time
how it will affect any individual Class I area and cannot accurately
model future conditions based on its implementation. By the time
Tennessee is required to undertake its five year progress review,
however, it is likely that the impact of the Transport Rule and other
measures can be meaningfully assessed. If, in particular Class I areas,
the Transport Rule does not provide similar or greater benefits than
CAIR and meeting the RPGs at one of its Class I Federal areas is in
jeopardy, the State will be required to address this circumstance in
its five year review. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve Tennessee's
RPGs for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Joyce Kilmer-
Slickrock Wilderness Area.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in sections III.F and III.G. of this action. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.''
Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral
vista associated with that

area. The FLMs did not identify any integral vistas in Tennessee. In
addition, neither Class I area in Tennessee is experiencing RAVI, nor
are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the April
4, 2008, Tennessee regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly
address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional
haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. However, Tennessee
previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify
visibility impairment from an individual source.\18\ EPA finds that
this regional haze submittal appropriately supplements and augments
Tennessee's RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze by
updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized below in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Tennessee submitted its visibility SIP revisions addressing
RAVI on February 9, 1993, and December 19, 1994, which EPA approved
on July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35681). Tennessee also submitted a SIP
revision addressing PSD/NSR visibility provisions on January 17,
1995, that EPA approved on July 18, 1996 (61 FR 37387).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the April 4, 2008, submittal, TDEC updated its visibility
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also
in this submittal, TDEC affirmed its commitment to complete items
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, TDEC made a
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, TDEC made a commitment to
submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory
Class I area located within Tennessee, and in each mandatory Class I
area located outside Tennessee which may be affected by emissions from
within Tennessee. The progress report is required to be in the form of
a SIP revision and is due every five years following the initial
submittal of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring
regulations for RAVI and regional haze, Tennessee will rely on the
IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI
monitoring that may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4). Also, the Tennessee NSR rules, previously approved in the
State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and
coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse
impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze)
in any Class I Federal area. The Tennessee SIP contains a plan
addressing the associated monitoring and reporting requirements. See 62
FR 35681 (July 2, 1997); 40 CFR 52.2239(c)(147). Although EPA's
approvals of these rules neglected to remove the Federally promulgated
provisions set forth in 40 CFR 52.2234, EPA corrected this omission in
a separate rulemaking on April 21, 2010 (75 FR 20783).

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Tennessee is
the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section V.B.2. of this notice,
there is currently one IMPROVE site in Tennessee, which serves as the
monitoring site for both the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, both of which lie partly in
Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the April 4, 2008,
regional haze submittal. In the submittal, Tennessee states its
intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the
regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and
future regional haze implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
Tennessee is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the
VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the
IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, there is long-term limited
monitoring by FLMs which provides additional insight into progress
toward regional haze goals. Such measurements include:
     Web cameras operated by the National Park Service at Look
Rock, Tennessee at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
     An integrating nephelometer for continuously measuring
light scattering, operated by the National Park Service at Look Rock,
Tennessee
     A Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance for
continuously measuring PM2.5 mass concentration, operated by
the National Park Service at Look Rock, Tennessee.
    In addition, Tennessee and the local air agencies in the State
operate a comprehensive PM2.5 network of filter-based
Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter
based speciated monitors and the continuous speciated monitors.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    TDEC has evaluated the impact of Tennessee sources on Class I areas
in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is
responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of
that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because many
of these states had not yet defined their criteria for identifying
sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, Tennessee applied its AOI
methodology to identify sources in the State that have emission units
with impacts large enough to potentially warrant further evaluation and
analysis. The State identified 13 emission units in Tennessee with a
contribution of one percent or more to the visibility impairment at the
following four Class I areas in three neighboring states: Cohutta
Wilderness area, Georgia; Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky; and
Linville Gorge and Shining Rock Wilderness areas, North Carolina. Based
on an evaluation of the four reasonable progress statutory factors,
Tennessee determined that there are no additional control measures for
these Tennessee emission units that would be reasonable to implement to
mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas in these neighboring
states. TDEC has consulted with these states regarding its reasonable
progress control evaluations showing no cost-effective controls
available for those emission units in Tennessee contributing at least
one percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas in the states.
Additionally, TDEC sent letters to the other states in the VISTAS
region documenting its

analysis using the State's AOI methodology that no SO2
emission units in Tennessee contribute at least one percent to the
visibility impairment at the Class I areas in those states. No adverse
comments were received from the other VISTAS states. The documentation
for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J of Tennessee's
SIP.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I
areas in Tennessee, TDEC sent letters to Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia and West Virginia pertaining to emission units within these
states that the State believes contributed one percent or higher to
visibility impairment in the Tennessee Class I areas. At that time,
these neighboring states were still in the process of evaluating BART
and reasonable progress for their sources. Any controls resulting from
those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions and
resulting visibility improvement, which gives further assurances that
Tennessee will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative,
Tennessee opted not to rely on any additional emission reductions from
sources located outside the State's boundaries beyond those already
identified in the State's regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed
in section V.C.1. (Federal and state controls in place by 2018) of this
action.
    Tennessee received letters from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO States of Maine, New Jersey, New
Hampshire, and Vermont in the spring of 2007, stating that based on
MANE-VU's analysis of 2002 emissions data, Tennessee contributed to
visibility impairment to Class I areas in those states. The MANE-VU
states identified five TVA EGU stacks \19\ in Tennessee that they would
like to see controlled to 90 percent efficiency. They also requested a
control strategy to provide a 28 percent reduction in SO2
emissions from sources other than EGUs that would be equivalent to
MANE-VU's proposed low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Working with
Tennessee, TVA has controlled or is expecting to control three of the
EGUs, (Kingston 1 & 2 and John Sevier), by the end of 2011. The
remaining two EGUs, (Gallatin and Johnsonville), have been discussed
with TVA. TVA has indicated that it will either repower or shut down
the Johnsonville facility by the next implementation period in 2018 and
will ultimately control Gallatin if needed to meet its CAIR obligations
or more stringent controls to meet increasingly stringent NAAQS. TDEC
evaluated both EGU and non-EGU sources to determine what controls are
reasonable in this first implementation period. TDEC believes that
these emissions reductions satisfy MANE-VU's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These five TVA EGUs have been addressed by the April 14,
2011, CAA settlement discussed in V.C.5.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds that Tennessee has adequately addressed the consultation
requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation
with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Tennessee and the nine other member states
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze
plan for Tennessee was out for public comment and FLM discussions in
the November to December 2007 period. Tennessee subsequently modified
the plan to address comments received on this initial version and
reissued it for a second round of public participation in the February
to March 2008 period. The FLMs submitted no significant adverse
comments regarding the State's regional haze SIP. The FLMs requested
that Tennessee add more details to support the State's conclusions.
Additionally, some of the FLM staff had difficulty in navigating
through the compact disc of electronic support materials. Improvements
were made to improve navigability. To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), TDEC made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing consultation
with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout implementation of its
plan, including annual discussions. TDEC also affirms in the SIP that
FLM consultation is required for those sources subject to the State's
NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As also summarized in section V.D. of this action, consistent with
40 CFR 51.308(g), TDEC affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress
report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following
this initial submittal of the Tennessee regional haze SIP. The report
will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for each mandatory
Class I area located within Tennessee and in each mandatory Class I
area located outside Tennessee which may be affected by emissions from
within Tennessee. Tennessee also offered recommendations for several
technical improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's
next LTS. These recommendations are discussed in detail in the
Tennessee submittal in Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Tennessee's
SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate
consultation Tennessee agrees, today's action may be revisited, or
additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-
year progress report SIP revision.

VI. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of a
revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by the State of Tennessee on
April 4, 2008, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in
40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in this action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new

requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation 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 regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
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 regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 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.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

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

    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 does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (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 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-14292 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 12 3456 789 10 11 12 A B C D E F VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS FOR ' SIC key. xls' VARIABLE DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET COLUMN CBI FORMULA SIC Standard Industrial Classification code All_ SIC A N Sector MP& M sector All_ SIC B N Name MP& M sector name All_ SIC C N Industry SIC industry name All_ SIC D N Census Census classification ( M = manufacturing, R = retail, S = service, W = wholesale, T = transporation) All_ SIC E N Phase MP& M phase # Sectors A N TechSect Tech sector Sectors B N Sector MP& M sector # Sectors C N Abbr MP& M sector abbreviation Sectors D N Name MP& M sector name Sectors E N February 14, 2003 Page 1 of 6 SIC key. xls  Var Desc Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 1 2 3456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 A B C D E MP& M Industries SIC Sector Name Industry Census 2514 11 Household Equipment Metal Household Furniture M 2522 11 Household Equipment Office Furniture, Except Wood M 2531 11 Household Equipment Public Buildng & Relatd Furniture M 2542 11 Household Equipment Partitions & Fixtures, Exc Wood M 2591 11 Household Equipment Drapery Hrdwr and Window Blinds/ Shades M 2599 11 Household Equipment Furniture and Fixtures, N. E. C. M 2796 1 Hardware Platemaking and Related Services M 3315 19 Iron and Steel Steel Wiredrawing and Steel Nails and Spikes M 3316 19 Iron and Steel Cold Rolled Steel Sheet, Strip, and Bars M 3317 19 Iron and Steel Steel Pipe and Tubes M 3398 1 Hardware Metal Heat Treating M 3412 1 Hardware Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums, Kegs, Pails M 3421 1 Hardware Cutlery M 3423 1 Hardware Hand & Edge Tools, Except Mach. Tools, Saws M 3425 1 Hardware Hand Saws and Saw Blades M 3429 1 Hardware Hardware NEC M 3431 11 Household Equipment Metal Sanitary Ware M 3432 11 Household Equipment Plumbing Fittings and Brass Goods M 3433 1 Hardware Heatg. Equip. Except Elec. & Warm Air Frnc. M 3441 1 Hardware Fabricated Structural Metal M 3442 11 Household Equipment Metal Doors, Sash, and Trim M 3443 1 Hardware Fabricated Plate Work ( Boiler Shops) M 3444 1 Hardware Sheet Metal Work M 3446 1 Hardware Architectural and Ornamental Metal Work M 3448 1 Hardware Prefabricated Metal Buildings & Components M 3449 1 Hardware Miscellaneous Metal Work M 3451 1 Hardware Screw Machine Products M 3452 1 Hardware Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets, and Washers M 3462 1 Hardware Iron and Steel Forgings M 3465 13 Motor Vehicle Automotive Stampings M 3466 1 Hardware Crowns and Closures M 3469 1 Hardware Metal Stamping NEC M 3471 17 Job Shop Plating and Polishing M 3479 17 Job Shop Metal Coating & Allied Services M 3482 5 Ordnance Small Arms Ammunition M 3483 5 Ordnance Ammunition, Except for Small Arms M 3484 5 Ordnance Small Arms M 3489 5 Ordnance Ordnance and Accessories NEC M 3492 1 Hardware Fluid Power Valves and Hose Fittings M 3493 1 Hardware Steel Springs M 3494 1 Hardware Valves & Pipe Fittings, Except Brass M 3495 1 Hardware Wire Springs M 3496 1 Hardware Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire Products M 3497 18 Other Metal Products Metal Foil and Leaf M 3498 1 Hardware Fabricated Pipe and Fabricated Pipe Fitting M 3499 1 Hardware Fabricated Metal Products NEC M 3511 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Steam, Gas, Hydraul. Turbines, Gen. Units M 3519 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Internal Combustion Engines NEC M 3523 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Farm Machinery and Equipment M 3524 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Garden Tractors & Lawn & Garden Equipment M 3531 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Constr Mach and Eq M 3532 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Mining Mach. & Equip., Except Oil Field M 3533 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Oil Field Machinery and Equipment M 3534 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Elevators and Moving Stairways M 3535 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Conveyors and Conveying Equipment M 3536 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Hoists, Industrial Cranes & Monorails M 3537 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Industrial Trucks, Tractors, Trailers M February 14, 2003 Page 2 of 6 SIC key. xls  All_ SIC Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 2 3 A B C D E SIC Sector Name Industry Census 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 3541 1 Hardware Machine Tools, Metal Cutting Types M 3542 1 Hardware Machine Tools, Metal Forming Types M 3543 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Industrial Patterns M 3544 1 Hardware Special Dies & Tools, Die Sets, Jigs, Etc. M 3545 1 Hardware Machine Tool Access & Measuring Devices M 3546 1 Hardware Power Driven Hand Tools M 3547 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Rolling Mill Machinery and Equipment M 3548 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Elec and Gas Welding and Soldering M 3549 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Metal Working Machinery NEC M 3552 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Textile Machinery M 3553 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Woodworking Machinery M 3554 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Paper Industries Machinery M 3555 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Printing Trades Machinery and Equipment M 3556 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Food Products Mach M 3559 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Special Industry Machinery NEC M 3561 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Pumps and Pumping Equipment M 3562 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Ball and Roller Bearings M 3563 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Air and Gas Compressors M 3564 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Blowers and Exhaust and Ventilation Fans M 3565 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Industrial Patterns M 3566 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Speed Changers, High Speed Drivers & Gears M 3567 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Industrial Process Furnaces and Ovens M 3568 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Mechanical Power Transmission Equip. NEC M 3569 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment General Industrial Machinery NEC M 3571 15 Office Machine Electronic Computers M 3572 15 Office Machine Typewriters M 3575 15 Office Machine Computer Terminals M 3577 15 Office Machine Computer Peripheral Eq NEC M 3578 15 Office Machine Calculating, Accting Mach except Computers M 3579 15 Office Machine Office Machines, N. E. C. M 3581 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Automatic Merchandising Machines M 3582 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Commercial Laundry Equipment M 3585 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Refrigeration & Air and Heating Equip. M 3586 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Measuring and Dispensing Pumps M 3589 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Service Industry Machines, NEC M 3592 13 Motor Vehicle Carburetors, Piston Rings, Valves M 3593 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Fluid Power Cylinders and Actuators M 3594 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Fluid Power Pumps and Motors M 3596 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Scales and Balances, except Laboratory M 3599 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Machinery, Except Electrical NEC M 3612 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Transformers M 3613 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus M 3621 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Motors and Generators M 3629 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Electric Industrial Apparatus NEC M 3631 11 Household Equipment Household Cooking Equipment M 3632 11 Household Equipment Household Refrig. & Home & Farm & Freezers M 3633 11 Household Equipment Household Laundry Equipment M 3634 11 Household Equipment Electric Housewares and Fans M 3635 11 Household Equipment Household Vacuum Cleaners M 3639 11 Household Equipment Household Appliances NEC M 3641 11 Household Equipment Electric Lamps M 3643 11 Household Equipment Current Carrying Wiring Devices M 3644 11 Household Equipment Noncurrent Carrying Wiring Devices M 3645 11 Household Equipment Residential Electrical Lighting Fixtures M 3646 11 Household Equipment Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional M 3647 13 Motor Vehicle Vehicular Lighting Equipment M 3648 11 Household Equipment Lighting Equipment NEC M 3651 11 Household Equipment Radio/ Television Sets Except Commun. Types M February 14, 2003 Page 3 of 6 SIC key. xls  All_ SIC Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 2 3 A B C D E SIC Sector Name Industry Census 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 3661 3 Electronic Equipment Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus M 3663 3 Electronic Equipment Radio and Television Broadcast and Comm Eq M 3669 3 Electronic Equipment Communications Eq, NEC M 3671 3 Electronic Equipment Electron Tubes M 3672 16 Printed Circuit Boards Printed Circuit Boards M 3675 3 Electronic Equipment Electronic Capacitors M 3677 3 Electronic Equipment Electronic Coils and Transformers M 3678 3 Electronic Equipment Connectors for Electronic Applications M 3679 3 Electronic Equipment Electronic Components NEC M 3694 13 Motor Vehicle Electrical Equipment for Motor Vehicles M 3699 3 Electronic Equipment Electronic Mach., Equipment, & Suppl. NEC M 3711 13 Motor Vehicle Motor Vehicle and Automobile Bodies M 3713 14 Bus & Truck Truck and Bus Bodies M 3714 13 Motor Vehicle Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories M 3715 14 Bus & Truck Truck Trailers M 3716 13 Motor Vehicle Mobile Homes M 3721 2 Aircraft Aircraft M 3724 2 Aircraft Aircraft Engines and Engine Parts M 3728 2 Aircraft Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment M 3731 10 Ships and Boats Ship Building and Repairing M 3732 10 Ships and Boats Boat Building and Repairing M 3743 12 Railroad Railcars, Railway Systems M 3751 13 Motor Vehicle Motorcycles M 3761 6 Aerospace Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles M 3764 6 Aerospace Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion M 3769 6 Aerospace Other Space Vehicle and Missile Parts M 3792 13 Motor Vehicle Travel Trailers and Campers M 3795 7 Mobile Industrial Equipment Tanks and Tank Components M 3799 13 Motor Vehicle Miscellaneous Transportation Equipment M 3812 8 Instruments Search, Det, Nav, Ggnc, Aero, Naut Sys/ Inst M 3821 8 Instruments Laboratory Apparatus and Furniture M 3822 8 Instruments Automatic Environmental Controls M 3823 8 Instruments Process Control Instruments M 3824 8 Instruments Fluid Meters and Counting Devices M 3825 8 Instruments Instruments to Measure Electricity M 3826 8 Instruments Laboratory Analytical Instruments M 3827 8 Instruments Optical Instruments and Lenses M 3829 8 Instruments Measuring and Controlling Devices NEC M 3841 8 Instruments Surgical & Medical Instruments & Apparatus M 3842 8 Instruments Orthopedic, Prosthetic & Surgical Suppl. M 3843 8 Instruments Dental Equipment and Supplies M 3844 8 Instruments X Ray Apparatus and Tubes M 3845 8 Instruments Electromedical Equipment M 3851 8 Instruments Ophthalmic Goods M 3861 18 Other Metal Products Photographic Equipment & Supplies M 3873 9 Precious Metals and Jewelry Watches, Clocks, and Watchcases M 3911 9 Precious Metals and Jewelry Jewelry, Precious Metal M 3914 9 Precious Metals and Jewelry Silverware, Plated Ware & Stainless M 3915 9 Precious Metals and Jewelry Jewelers' Materials & Lapidary Work M 3931 18 Other Metal Products Musical Instruments M 3944 18 Other Metal Products Games, Toys, Children's Vehicles M 3949 18 Other Metal Products Sporting and Athletic Goods, NEC M 3951 18 Other Metal Products Pens and Mechanical Pencils M 3953 18 Other Metal Products Marking Devices M 3961 9 Precious Metals and Jewelry Costume Jewelry M 3965 1 Hardware Fasteners, Buttons, Needles, Pins M 3993 18 Other Metal Products Signs and Advertising Displays M 3995 18 Other Metal Products Burial Caskets M February 14, 2003 Page 4 of 6 SIC key. xls  All_ SIC Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 2 3 A B C D E SIC Sector Name Industry Census 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 3999 18 Other Metal Products Manufacturing Industries, N. E. C. M 4011 12 Railroad Railroad transportation* T 4013 12 Railroad Railroad transportation* T 4111 14 Bus & Truck Local & suburban transit T 4119 14 Bus & Truck Local passenger trans nec T 4121 13 Motor Vehicle Taxicabs T 4131 14 Bus & Truck Intercity & rural bus trans T 4141 14 Bus & Truck Local bus charter service T 4142 14 Bus & Truck Bus charter serv exc local T 4173 14 Bus & Truck Bus terminal & svce facil T 4212 14 Bus & Truck Local trucking w/ o storage T 4213 14 Bus & Truck Trucking, except local T 4214 14 Bus & Truck Local trucking w/ storage T 4215 14 Bus & Truck Courier svces, exc by air T 4231 14 Bus & Truck Trucking terminal facilities T 4412 10 Ships and Boats Deep sea foreign trans T 4424 10 Ships and Boats Deep sea domestic trans T 4432 10 Ships and Boats Freight trans Great Lakes T 4449 10 Ships and Boats Wtr trans of freight, nec T 4481 10 Ships and Boats Deep sea passenger trans T 4482 10 Ships and Boats Ferries T 4489 10 Ships and Boats Water passenger trans, nec T 4491 10 Ships and Boats Marine cargo handling T 4492 10 Ships and Boats Towing & tugboat service T 4493 10 Ships and Boats Marinas T 4499 10 Ships and Boats Water trans svces, nec T 4581 2 Aircraft Airports, Flying Fields, Arpt Terminal Svcs T 5013 13 Motor Vehicle Motor vehicle supplies& new parts W 5511 13 Motor Vehicle Motor vehicle dealers ( new and used) R 5521 13 Motor Vehicle Motor vehicle dealers ( used only) R 5561 13 Motor Vehicle Recreational vehicle dealers R 5571 13 Motor Vehicle Motorcycle dealers R 5599 13 Motor Vehicle Automotive dealers, nec R 7353 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Heavy Construction Equip Rental, Leasing S 7359 4 Stationary Industrial Equipment Equip Rental, Leasing, NEC S 7378 15 Office Machine Comp maintenance/ rep S 7379 15 Office Machine Computer rel ser, nec S 7514 13 Motor Vehicle Passenger car rental S 7515 13 Motor Vehicle Passenger car lease S 7519 13 Motor Vehicle Utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental S 7532 13 Motor Vehicle Top, body, uphol, paint S 7533 13 Motor Vehicle Auto exhaust systems S 7537 13 Motor Vehicle Auto transmission rp S 7538 13 Motor Vehicle Gen automotive repair S 7539 13 Motor Vehicle Auto repair shop, nec S 7549 13 Motor Vehicle Auto serv, ex rep/ wash S 7623 11 Household Equipment Refrig, air condition S 7629 8 Instruments Electric repair shop S 7631 9 Precious Metals and Jewelry Watch, clock, jewelry rp S 7692 18 Other Metal Products Welding repair S 7699 18 Other Metal Products Repair shop, rel serv S February 14, 2003 Page 5 of 6 SIC key. xls  All_ SIC Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 12 3 456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A B C D E Phase TechSect Sector Abbr Name 1 5 1 HW Hardware 1 2 2 AI Aircraft 1 4 3 EE Electronic Equipment 1 16 4 SI Stationary Industrial Equipment 1 11 5 OR Ordnance 1 1 6 AS Aerospace 1 8 7 MI Mobile Industrial Equipment 2 7 8 IN Instruments 2 12 9 PM Precious Metals and Jewelry 2 15 10 SB Ships and Boats 2 6 11 HE Household Equipment 2 14 12 RR Railroad 2 9 13 MV Motor Vehicle 2 3 14 BT Bus & Truck 2 10 15 OF Office Machine 2 13 16 PC Printed Circuit Boards 2 18 17 JS Job Shop 2 17 18 OM Other Metal Products 19 IS Iron and Steel February 14, 2003 Page 6 of 6 SIC key. xls  Sectors


[Federal Register: December 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 247)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68558]
[DOCID:fr28de09-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664; FRL-9095-6]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: New Substitute in the Motor
Vehicle Air Conditioning Sector Under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of October
19, 2009, proposing to find HFO-1234yf acceptable, subject to use
conditions as a substitute for CFC-12 in motor vehicle air
conditioning. The proposed substitute is a non-ozone-depleting
substance and consequently does not contribute to stratospheric ozone
depletion. In response to requests from several stakeholders and to
allow comments on new supporting materials, this action reopens the
public comment period through February 1, 2010.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published October 19,
2009 (74 FR 53445), is reopened. Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664, must be received on or
before February 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664 by one
of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, Room 3334, EPA West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0664. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs; Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number,
(202)343-2338; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Notices and
rulemakings under the SNAP program are available on EPA's Stratospheric
Ozone Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regulations.html. For
copies of the full list of SNAP decisions in all industrial sectors,
contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The statutory and regulatory background is described in detail in
the Federal Register proposed rule of October 19, 2009 (74 FR 53445).
In that document, EPA proposed to find HFO-1234yf acceptable as an
alternative refrigerant for motor vehicle air conditioning, subject to
use conditions. The refrigerant discussed in the proposed action, for
which the comment period is reopened, is a non-ozone-depleting
substance.

This Action

    EPA has received a request for an extension to the December 18,
2009, comment deadline specified in the October 19, 2009, proposed
rule.
    This action reopens the comment period. The Agency will consider
additional comments we receive through February 1, 2010 in response to
this action. Note that additional information is available in the
public docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664, since publication of the October
19, 2009 proposed rule. EPA will also consider comments received by
February 1, 2010 in response to the previous Federal Register
publication [EPA-OAR-2008-0664] before issuing a final regulatory
determination for HFO-1234yf. We intend to issue a regulatory
determination as expeditiously as possible following consideration of
the comments and information we receive.

    Dated: December 18, 2009.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E9-30629 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21859-21860]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM08-3-000]

Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination; Notice of Extension of Time

April 16, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On March 20, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking proposing to approve the Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination Reliability Standard developed by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The date for filing comments
on the proposed rule is being extended at the request of the Edison
Electric Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

DATES: Comments are due May 13, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket
No. RM08-3-000, by any of the following methods:
     eFiling: Comments may be filed electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.
Documents created electronically using word processing software should
be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and not in a
scanned format. This will enhance document retrieval for both the
Commission and the public. The Commission accepts most standard word
processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with
supporting information in certain other file formats. Attachments that
exist only in paper form may be scanned. Commenters filing
electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking
comments is not required.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters that are not able to file
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard M. Wartchow (Legal
Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8744. Christy Walsh (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Robert Snow (Technical
Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Division of Reliability
Standards, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 15, 2008, the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) filed a joint
motion for an extension of the date for filing comments on the
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued March 20, 2008, in
the above-referenced proceeding. Mandatory Reliability Standard for
Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination, 122 FERC ] 61,254 (March 20,
2008) (NOPR). In support of this request, the motion states that EEI
and NEI members, who will be required to comply with the Reliability
Standard proposed in the Commission's NOPR, represent a broad spectrum
of the nation's shareholder-owned electric companies, international
affiliates and all levels of the commercial nuclear energy industry.
EEI and NEI state that because of the complex nature of the issues
addressed in the NOPR and the importance of submitting a well-developed
response, additional time is needed to file comments on the
Commission's proposed rulemaking.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of
time for filing comments on the Commission's NOPR

is granted to and including May 13, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8615 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51965-51966]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2984; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-21-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -1B67, and -1B70
turbofan engine models. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of two
in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs) caused by high-pressure turbine (HPT) rotor
stage 1 blade failure. This proposed AD would require inspection and
conditional removal of affected HPT rotor stage 1 blades. We are
proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades,
which could lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust
control, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 26,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2984; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McGuire, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2984;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-21-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for all GE GEnx-1B54, -1B58, -1B64, -
1B67, and -1B70 turbofan engine models. This proposed AD was prompted
by reports of two IFSDs caused by HPT rotor stage 1 blade failure. This
proposed AD would require inspection and conditional removal of
affected HPT rotor stage 1 blades. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades, which could
lead to failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and
damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin (SB) No. 72-0267 R00, dated
April 10, 2015. The SB describes procedures for borescope inspection
(BSI) of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This NPRM would require initial and repetitive BSI and conditional
removal of affected HPT rotor stage 1 blades.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 4 engines installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
2 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total
cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $680.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) 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 Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-2984; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NE-21-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 26, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B54,
-1B58, -1B64, -1B67, and -1B70 turbofan engines with high-pressure
turbine (HPT) rotor stage 1 blade, part number 2305M26P06,
installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-flight shutdowns
caused by HPT rotor stage 1 blade failure. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades, which could lead to
failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and damage
to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) After the effective date of this AD, perform an initial
borescope inspection (BSI) of the convex surface of the HPT rotor
stage 1 blades for axial cracks from the platform to 30% span,
within 1,000 blade cycles since new or 25 cycles in service,
whichever comes later, and disposition as follows:
    (i) If any axial crack with a length greater than or equal to
0.3 inch is found, or if any axial crack of any length turning in a
radial direction is found, or if more than one axial crack of any
length is found, remove the cracked blade before further flight.
    (ii) If an axial crack is found with a length greater than or
equal to 0.2 inch and less than 0.3 inch, remove the cracked blade
within 10 blade cycles in service.
    (iii) If an axial crack is found with a length greater than or
equal to 0.1 inch and less than 0.2 inch, inspect the cracked blade
within 50 blade cycles since last inspection (CSLI).
    (iv) If an axial crack is found with a length less than 0.1
inch, inspect the cracked blade within 100 blade CSLI.
    (v) If no cracks were found, perform a BSI of the blades within
125 blade CSLI.
    (2) Thereafter, perform a repetitive BSI of the convex surface
of the HPT rotor stage 1 blades for axial cracks from the platform
to 30% span within 125 blade CSLI and disposition as specified in
(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v), or remove the blades from service.

(f) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a ``blade cycle'' is defined as the
number of engine cycles that a set of rotor blades has accrued,
regardless of the engine(s) in which they have operated.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher
McGuire, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin No. 72-0267 R00, dated April 10,
2015 can be obtained from GE using the contact information in
paragraph (h)(3) of this proposed AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann
Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 21, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21120 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 61 (Thursday, April 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17164-17165]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0262]

Food and Drug Administration Science Forum 2021; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing the following virtual public workshop entitled ``FDA Science
Forum 2021.'' The purpose of the public workshop is to inform the
public about the groundbreaking science conducted at the Agency and to
show how scientific research is used in FDA's regulatory decisions to
protect and promote public health.

DATES: The public workshop will be held virtually on May 26, 2021 (Day
1), from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time, and May 27, 2021 (Day 2),
from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Time. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and
information.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,
all participants will be joining this public workshop via an online
teleconferencing platform.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rokhsareh Shahidzadeh, Office of
Scientific Professional Development, Office of the Chief Scientist,
Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 2383, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
8740<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The FDA Science Forum is held biennially to inform the public about
the groundbreaking science conducted at the Agency and to show how
scientific research is used in FDA's regulatory decisions to protect
and promote public health. Open to the public, industry, academia,
patient advocates, government agencies, and current and potential
collaborators, the 2-day event offers an opportunity to hear FDA
scientific experts and nationally renowned scientists speak on a range
of topics associated with regulatory science.

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    The theme for the 2021 FDA Science Forum, ``Science as the
Foundation for Protecting and Promoting Public Health'', will highlight
areas of FDA research, including: (1) Improving clinical and postmarket
evaluation; (2) substance use, misuse, and addiction; (3) product
development and manufacturing; and (4) medical countermeasures,
infectious disease, and pathogen-reduction technologies.

III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration: To register for the public workshop, please visit the
following website: https://www.fda.gov/scienceforum. Registration is
free. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must
register by May 21, 2021, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Registrants will
receive confirmation when they have been accepted.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Rokhsareh Shahidzadeh (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no
later than May 21, 2021, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
be streamed via a webcast only. To register for the webcast, please
visit the following website: https://www.fda.gov/scienceforum.
Participants interested in viewing via webcast must register by May 21,
2021, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
    If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, test your
connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a quick overview of the Connect Pro program,
visit https://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview. FDA has verified
the website addresses in this document, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change
over time.

    Dated: March 24, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-06705 Filed 3-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51024-51025]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 14219-000]

 Gay & Robinson, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On July 1, 2011, Gay & Robinson, Inc., filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Olokele River
Hydroelectric Project (Olokele River Project or project) to be located
on the Olokele River, near Waimea, Kauai County, Hawaii. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 100-
foot-long, 20-foot-wide forebay; (2) a new intake; (3) a new 4,175-
foot-long, 42-inch-diameter ductile iron penstock; (4) a new 40-foot-
long, 40-foot-wide, 25-foot-

high pre-fabricated steel powerhouse housing a 6.0-megawatt (MW) Pelton
turbine/generator unit; (5) a new 5-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission
line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation
of the Olokele River Project would be 20.5 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Charles Okamoto, President, Gay & Robinson,
Inc., P.O. Box 156, Kaumakani, Hawaii 96747; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14219-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20975 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P