Five food safety risk factors related to employee behaviors and preparation prac-
tices have been identified by CDC as contributing to foodborne illness: improper
holding temperatures, inadequate cooking, contaminated equipment, food from an
unsafe source, and poor personal hygiene. “For each year from 1988 through
1992, the most commonly reported food preparation practice that contributed to
foodborne disease concerned improper holding temperature; the second concerned
poor personal hygiene of food handlers. Food obtained from an unsafe source was
the least commonly reported factor for all 5 years. In most outbreaks caused by
bacterial pathogens, the food was stored at improper holding temperatures.”
1

Page 10-16
Healthy People 2010: Objectives for Improving Health
To help control the risk factors, the Food Code provides key public health inter-
ventions: use of time-temperature control, prevention of hand contact with foods
as a vehicle of contamination, employee health, demonstration of knowledge by
the manager, and a consumer advisory to inform consumers of their risk when
eating raw or undercooked animal foods. Proper application and implementation
of these interventions are crucial to combat foodborne disease.
10-7.
(Developmental) Reduce human exposure to
organophosphate pesticides from food.
Potential data source: Total Diet Study, FDA, CFSAN.
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated that EPA reassess existing
standards for pesticides used on food crops. Organophosphates, a group of ap-
proximately 40 closely related pesticides, have been designated as first priority in
the standards reassessment. These pesticides are used on fruits and vegetables
important in the diet of children.
Related Objectives From Other Focus Areas
8. Environmental Health
8-
5.
Safe drinking water
8-
6.
Waterborne disease outbreaks
8-
8.
Surface water health risks
8-
10. Fish contamination
8-
24.  Exposure to pesticides
8-
25.  Exposure to heavy metals and other toxic chemicals
8-
29.  Global burden of disease
8-
30.  Water quality in the U.S.-Mexico border region
14.
Immunization and Infectious Diseases
14-
21. Antimicrobial use in intensive care units
2
0
.
Occupational Safety and Health
20-
8.
Occupational skin diseases or disorders
23.
Public Health Infrastructure
23-
2.
Public access to information and surveillance data
Terminology
(A listing of abbreviations and acronyms used in this publication appears in Appendix H.)
Anaphylaxis: A severe allergic reaction commonly caused by certain foods. It occurs
within minutes of exposure and may include hives, itching, skin swelling, blood vessel
collapse, shock, and often life-threatening respiratory distress.
26
Cephalosporins, third generation: Potent antimicrobial drugs capable of fighting a wide
variety of bacterial infections. Salmonella species infections in certain high-risk and se-
verely ill patients, particularly children, often are treated with such drugs.

Food Safety
Page 10-17
Emerging pathogen: An illness-causing microorganism previously unknown to be a hu-
man pathogen, a foodborne pathogen not expected to occur in particular foods, or a
pathogen that has caused a dramatic increase in new cases of illness.
Food Code: A book of recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service that FDA first
published in 1993 and revises every 2 years. It consists of model requirements for safe-
guarding public health and ensuring food is unadulterated and honestly presented to the
consumer. FDA offers the Food Code for adoption by local, State, Tribal, and Federal
government jurisdictions for administration by the units that have compliance responsibili-
ties for food service, retail food stores, or food vending operations.
Foodborne disease or foodborne illness: Infection or intoxication caused by microbial
or chemical contaminants in foods. Some foodborne illnesses, such as salmonellosis and
staphylococcal food poisoning, can be caused by a single helping or less of a food that
contains sufficient microorganisms or toxin to cause illness. Other foodborne illnesses
result from eating compounds, such as naturally occurring aflatoxin, in foods over long
periods of time.
Foodborne disease outbreak: When two or more cases of a similar illness result from
eating the same food.
1
Food industry: Food producers (farmers, fishers, ranchers), food processors, food stor-
ers, food warehousers and transporters, and retail food operators.
FoodNet: The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, a collaborative project
conducted by CDC, participating States, FSIS, and FDA that began in 1996. FoodNet
produces national estimates of the burden and sources of specific diseases in the United
States through active surveillance and other studies. California, Connecticut, Georgia,
Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee, representing a total population
of 28 million people (approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population), are the eight
FoodNet sites.
27
Good manufacturing practices (GMPs): Criteria, including regulations, that ensure that
food is fit for consumption and is manufactured under sanitary conditions. These criteria
address factors that affect production of safe food, including disease control, cleanliness
(personal hygiene and dress codes), education, and training.
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP): A science-based and system-
atic approach to prevent potential food safety problems by anticipating how and where
biological, chemical, or physical hazards are most likely to occur and by installing appro-
priate measures to prevent them from occurring. The seven principles of HACCP are
hazard analysis, determination of critical control points, specification of critical limits,
monitoring, corrective actions, verification, and documentation (recordkeeping).
Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), postdiarrheal: A serious, sometimes fatal compli-
cation often associated with illness caused by Escherichia coli O157:H7 and other shiga
toxin-producing E. coli.
28
HUS occurs mainly in children under the age of 10 years. Renal
failure, hemolytic anemia, and a severe decrease in the number of blood platelets charac-
terize HUS.
Mycotoxins: Naturally occurring toxins formed by fungi (molds) in food and in animal
feed (for example, aflatoxins, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, and patulin).
Outbreak: See foodborne disease outbreak above.
Pathogen: A microorganism that causes illness.
Retail food industry: As covered by the Food Code, a level within the food industry that
includes but is not limited to the following establishments: vending operations, grocery
stores, other retail food outlets, and food service in restaurants and institutions.

Page 10-18
Healthy People 2010: Objectives for Improving Health
References
1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surveillance for foodborne-disease
outbreaks—United States, 1988–92. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 45(SS-5):1-
55, 1996.
2
Mead, P.S.; Slutsker, L.; Dietz, V.; et al. Food-related illness and death in the United
States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5(5):607-625, 1999.
3
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Food Safety From Farm to Table: A National
Food Safety Initiative. Report to the President, May 1997. Washington, DC: FDA, USDA,
EPA, 1997.
4
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Healthy People 2000 Progress
Review, Food and Drug Safety. Washington, DC: HHS, Public Health Service (PHS),
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), 1995.
5
Lin, B.H.; Guthrie, J.; and Frazão, E. Away-from-home foods increasingly important to
quality of American diet. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 749, 22, 1999.
6
Altekruse, S.F.; Street, D.A.; Fein, S.B.; et al. Consumer knowledge of foodborne mi-
crobial hazards and food-handling practices. Journal of Food Protection 59:287-294,
1996.
7
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Healthy People 2000 Review, 1998–99.
Hyattsville, MD: NCHS, 1999, 126-127.
8
FDA. Pesticide Program Residue Monitoring, 1997. Washington, DC: FDA, 1998.
9
Agricultural Marketing Service. Pesticide Data Program—Annual Summary, Calendar
Year 1997. Washington, DC: USDA, 1997.
10
Kayosaari, M. Food allergy in Finnish children aged 1-6 years. Acta Paediatrica Scan-
dinavica 71(5):815-819, 1982.
11
Bock, S.A. Prospective appraisal of complaints of adverse reactions to foods in chil-
dren during the first three years of life. Pediatrics 79(5):683-688, 1987.
12
Sampson, H.A., and Metcalf, D.D. Food allergies. Journal of the American Medical
Association 268(20):2840-2844, 1992.
13
Schwartz, H.J. Latex: A potential hidden “food” allergen in fast food restaurants. Jour-
nal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 95(1, Part 1):139-40, 1995.
14
Tomazic, V.J.; Shampaine, E.L.; Lamanna, A.; et al. Cornstarch powder on latex prod-
ucts is an allergen carrier. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 93(4):751-758,
1994.
15
Yocum, M.W., and Khan, D.A. Assessment of patients who have experienced anaphy-
laxis: A 3-year survey. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 69(1):16-23, 1994.
16
Sampson, H.A. Fatal food-induced anaphylaxis. Allergy 53(Suppl. 46):125-130, 1998.
17
Kemp, S.F.; Lockey, R.F.; Wolf, B.L.; et al. Anaphylaxis. Archives of Internal Medicine
155(16):1749-1754, 1995.

Food Safety
Page 10-19
18
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, As Amended July 1993. Section 403 (i). Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 1993.
19
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 101, Section 100 (a)(3). Washington, DC:
GPO, 1998.
20
FDA. Notice to Manufacturers: Label Declaration of Allergenic Substances in Foods,
1996. Letter from FDA, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, June 10, 1996.
21
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Foodborne Pathogens: Risks and
Consequences. Task Force Report No. 122, 1994.
22
Olowokure, B.; Hawker, J.; Weinberg, J.; et al. Deprivation and hospital admission for
infectious intestinal diseases. Lancet 353(9155):807-808, 1999.
23
NCHS. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III, 1988–94. Washington,
DC: CDC, National Center for Infectious Diseases, unpublished data.
24
CDC. National Workshop on Toxoplasmosis: Preventing Congenital Toxoplasmosis.
Atlanta, GA, September 9-10, 1998.
25
Kapperud, G.; Jenum, P.A.; Stray-Pederson, B.; et al. Risk factors for Toxoplasma
gondii infection in pregnancy. Results of a prospective case-control study in Norway.
American Journal of Epidemiology 144(4):405-412, 1996.
26
Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. 28th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Co.,
1994, 68-69.
27
CDC. FoodNet 1998 Surveillance Results: Preliminary Report, March 1999. Washing-
ton, DC: CDC, 1999.
28
Lindsay, J.A. Chronic sequelae of foodborne disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases
3(4):443-452, 1997.


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

08/28/2008 02:30 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Al McGartland, Alexander Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Heninger, Lydia Wegman, rosalina rodriguez, kathy kaufman, darryl weatherhead, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

additional NAAQS standard level to be reviewed in the Pb NAAQS RIA

Heidi, in our conversation of Monday afternoon, you requested we consider adding a standard level of 0.4 micrograms/m3 in addition to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 levels already planned for assessment in the Pb NAAQS RIA analysis.   Based on your request, I have instructed my RIA staff to include a 0.4 standard level alternative in the upcoming RIA.   It will take a little extra time to modify our models and tools to include this endpoint but we will start on that immediately.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34306-34315]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14096]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285; FRL-9684-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Annual and
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve
in part, the State Implementation Plans (SIPs), submitted by the State
of Tennessee, through the Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) as demonstrating that
the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
fine particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. Tennessee certified that the
Tennessee SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and
maintained in Tennessee (hereafter referred to as ``infrastructure
submission''). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a portion of
sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, and
October 19, 2009, submissions because the current Tennessee SIP does
not currently include provisions to comply with all the requirements of
this sub-element, however, the State has committed to adding such
provisions to the SIP within one year of EPA's final action on the
infrastructure submission. With the exception of a portion of sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to determine that
Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 14,
2007, addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that its October 19, 2009, submission
addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0285, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0285. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The 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 email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs to
EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March

10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which
required EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice
announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to
whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
by October 5, 2008. In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made
completeness findings for each state based upon what the Agency
received from each state for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of
October 3, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (See
73 FR 62902). For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs.
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k).
Tennessee's infrastructure submissions were received by EPA on December
14, 2007, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 19,
2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions were
determined to be complete on June 14, 2008, and April 19, 2010,
respectively. Tennessee was among other states that did not receive
findings of failure to submit for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure requirements because it had provided a complete
submission to EPA to address the infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008.
    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
submittal related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Tennessee 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittal addressing the
applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except
for section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment area requirements and
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements, by September
30, 2012.
    Today's action is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally
approve in part, Tennessee's infrastructure submission for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for sections
110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C)
nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate
transport requirements. This action is not approving any specific rule,
but rather proposing that Tennessee's already approved SIP, with the
exception of the portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for which EPA is
today proposing conditional approval, meets certain CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of such NAAQS,
or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)
imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for
a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may need to adopt language specific
to the PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have adequate SIP
provisions to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and September
25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) but does provide detail on how Tennessee's SIP
addresses 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were
formerly addressed by Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this
remand, EPA took final action to approve Tennessee SIP revision,
which was submitted to comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388 (August 20,
2007). In so doing, Tennessee CAIR SIP revision addressed the
interstate transport provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to the remand of
CAIR, EPA has recently finalized a new rule to address the
interstate transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides in the
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be
addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' and
the September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' but as mentioned above is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.

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

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP
submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction at sources (SSM), that may be contrary to the
CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; and (ii)
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues
for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address
the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new
source review (NSR) programs that may be inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such
programs (``minor source NSR''); and (ii) existing provisions for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). In light of the comments, EPA
believes that its statements in various proposed actions on
infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual issues should
be explained in greater depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is
taking the same position with respect to these four substantive issues
in this action on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS from Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these
four issues merely to be informational and to provide general notice of
the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some
states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want
states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the
misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on
the infrastructure SIP for Tennessee.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed
separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory

provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\6\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See ``Rule To
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\8\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\9\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's
implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of
section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the
same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant
infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the
monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be
necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to
an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \12\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \13\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general
assumption (i.e., how states

should proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific
recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for
certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA assumed that each state would work with its corresponding EPA
regional office to refine the scope of a state's submittal based on an
assessment of how the requirements of section 110(a)(2) should
reasonably apply to the basic structure of the state's implementation
plans for the NAAQS in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \12\ Id., at page 2.
    \13\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \14\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM,
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds
true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\16\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a
later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require
a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion
provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004)
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \18\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540
(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    Tennessee's infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Tennessee's infrastructure submissions provide an overview of the
provisions of the Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Requirements
relevant to air quality control regulations. The regulations described
below have been federally approved in the Tennessee SIP and include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures:
    Chapter 1200-3-4, Open Burning.
    Chapter 1200-3-5, Visible Emission Regulations.

    Chapter 1200-3-6, Non-process Emission Standards.
    Chapter 1200-3-7, Process Emissions Standards.
    Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits.
    Chapter 1200-3-21, General Alternate Emission Standard.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions
contained in these chapters and Tennessee's practices are adequate to
protect the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having deficient SSM provisions to
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:
Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Requirements, Chapter 1200-3-12-.02,
Procedures for Ambient Sampling and Analysis, along with the Tennessee
Network Description and Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan provides
for an ambient air quality monitoring system in the State. Annually,
EPA approves the ambient air monitoring network plan for the state
agencies. On July 1, 2011, Tennessee submitted its plan to EPA. On
October 24, 2011, EPA approved Tennessee's monitoring network plan.
Tennessee's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices
are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data systems
related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources: Chapter 1200-3-9,
Construction and Operating Permits, of Tennessee's SIP pertain to the
construction or modification of any major stationary source in areas
designated as attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable. On July 29,
2011, TDEC submitted revisions to its PSD/NSR regulations for EPA
approval. Tennessee's SIP revision makes changes to Chapter 1200-03-
09-.01, Construction Permits, to adopt PSD and Nonattainment New Source
Review requirements related to the implementation of the NSR
PM2.5 Rule. The rule amendment adopts required Federal PSD
and NNSR permitting provisions governing the implementation of the NSR
program for PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5
Rule that address the infrastructure requirements (C) and (J). See 73
FR 28321 (May 16, 2008). EPA will propose approval of Tennessee's July
29, 2011, submission in a rulemaking separate from today's action.
However, the July 29, 2011, proposed SIP revision addresses requisite
requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), therefore, today's
action to propose approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C)
is contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve the July 29,
2011, revision into the Tennessee SIP. Final action regarding today's
proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) will not
occur prior to final approval of the July 29, 2011, SIP revision.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program.
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that, following final
approval of the Tennessee July 29, 2011, submitted revision discussed
above, Tennessee's SIP and the State's practices are adequate for
program enforcement of control measures including review of proposed
new sources related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: Chapter 1200-9-.01(5), Growth Policy, outlines how the
State will notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or
modified sources. Tennessee does not have any pending obligation under
sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the
State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state
law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply
with the requirements respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128
of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provisions. As with the remainder of the infrastructure elements
addressed by this notice, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's SIP
as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii).
With respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding state boards),
EPA is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part,
this sub-element. EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each
sub-element is described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), TDEC, through the Tennessee Air Pollution
Control Board, is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations

for the NAAQS, emissions standards general policies, a system of
permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning
needs. As evidence of the adequacy of TDEC's resources with respect to
sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Tennessee on
March 11, 2011, outlining 105 grant commitments and current status of
these commitments for fiscal year 2010. The letter EPA submitted to
Tennessee can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285. Annually, states update these grant commitments
based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in
relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2010, therefore, Tennessee's grants
were finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee has adequate resources for implementation
of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    With respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to
approve in part, and to conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP as to this requirement. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
provides that infrastructure SIPs must require compliance with section
128 of CAA requirements respecting State boards. Section 128, in turn,
provides at subsection (a)(1) that each SIP shall require that any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be
subject to the described public interest and income restrictions
therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that any board or body, or the
head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or
enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of
interest disclosure requirements. In this action, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the applicable section 128(a)(1)
requirements, and to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect the applicable section 128(a)(2)
requirements.
    EPA's proposed conditional approval of sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
respecting the 128(a)(1) requirements is based upon a TDEC letter to
EPA, dated March 28, 2012, which outlined TDEC's commitment to adopt
specific enforceable measures into its SIP within one year to address
the applicable portions of section 128(a)(1). The March 28, 2012,
letter from TDEC to EPA can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using
docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285.
    In Tennessee's March 28, 2012, commitment letter, TDEC committed to
bring its SIP into conformity with section 128(a)(1) of the CAA by
submitting SIP revisions that designate at least a majority of the
positions on the State's Air Pollution Control Board \19\ as being
subject to the ``public interest'' requirement. In addition, TDEC has
committed to submitting SIP revisions establishing requirements to
ensure that at least a majority of the members on the State's Air
Pollution Control Board do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders. In the
March 28, 2012, commitment letter, TDEC describes that its planned
restrictions related to the ``significant portion of income''
requirements of section 128 will include an exclusion for the official
salaries of mayors of counties and municipalities, and for faculty
members at institutions of higher learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The composition of Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Board
is statutorily prescribed at Tennessee Code Annotated 68-201-104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the commitment
from Tennessee must provide that the State will adopt the specified
enforceable provisions and submit a revision to EPA for approval within
one year from EPA's final conditional approval action. In its March 28,
2012, letter, TDEC committed to adopt the above-specified enforceable
provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into the SIP by no
later than one year from the effective date of EPA's final conditional
approval action for that requirement. Failure by the State to adopt
these provisions and submit them to EPA for incorporation into the SIP
within one year from the effective date of EPA's final conditional
approval action would result in this proposed conditional approval
being treated as a disapproval. Should that occur, EPA would provide
the public with notice of such a disapproval in the Federal
Register.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA notes that pursuant to section 110(k)(4), a conditional
approval is treated as a disapproval in the event that a State fails
to comply with its commitment. Notification of this disapproval
action in the Federal Register is not subject to public notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of Tennessee's formal commitment to correct
deficiencies contained in the Tennessee SIP pertaining to section 128,
EPA intends to move forward with finalizing the conditional approval of
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the section 128(a)(1) requirements
consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Act. With respect to the
remaining sub-elements of 110(a)(2)(E), EPA is proposing to approve
these portions of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP. As such, EPA has made
the preliminary determination that Tennessee has adequate resources for
implementation of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Tennessee's
infrastructure submission describes how to establish requirements for
compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for
emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the
State. TDEC uses these data to track progress towards maintaining the
NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and
general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission
regulations and additional EPA requirements. These requirements are
provided in Chapter 1200-3-10, Required Sampling, Recording and
Reporting, of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Requirements.
    Additionally, Tennessee is required to submit emissions data to EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every 3 years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and
the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile
organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. Tennessee made its latest update to the NEI
on December 31, 2011. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are
adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency
Episode

Requirements, of the Tennessee SIP identifies air pollution emergency
episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. These criteria have
previously been approved by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for
emergency powers related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, TDEC
is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Tennessee has the ability and
authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions during the course of its NAAQS implementation.
Specific to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
Tennessee has provided the following submissions, including:
     April 4, 2008, Knoxville PM2.5 Attainment
Demonstration;
     October 15, 2009, TN Portion of Chattanooga 1997
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration; and,
     July 29, 2011, PM2.5 NSR/PSD.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP
revisions related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits, as well
as the Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. More specifically, Tennessee
adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of
transportation conformity, which includes the consideration of the
development of mobile inventories for SIP development. Required
partners covered by Tennessee's consultation procedures include
Federal, state, and local transportation and air quality agency
officials. EPA approved Tennessee's consultation procedures on May 16,
2003 (68 FR 26492). EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with
government officials related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification:
TDEC has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of PM
and other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring
Web site with detailed maps of the PM forecast areas and specific
information about each monitor, http://tn.gov/environment/apc/ As
discussed above, Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency Episode Requirements,
requires that TDEC notify the public of any air pollution episode or
NAAQS violation. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to provide public notification related to the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and visibility protection: Tennessee
demonstrates its authority to regulate new and modified sources of PM
to assist in the protection of air quality in Chapter 1200-3-9,
Construction and Operating Permits. As with infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) also requires
compliance with applicable provisions of the PSD program described in
part C of the Act. Accordingly, the pending EPA action on the July 29,
2011, SIP revision, is a prerequisite to today's proposed action to
approve the State's infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See the
discussion for element 110(a)(2)(C) above for a description of the
pending revision to the Tennessee SIP. The July 29, 2011, SIP revision,
addresses requisite requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J)
(PSD and visibility protection), therefore, today's action to propose
approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility
protection) is contingent upon EPA first taking final action to approve
the July 29, 2011, SIP revision, into the Tennessee SIP. Final action
regarding today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element
110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility protection) will not occur prior to
final approval of the July 29, 2011, SIP revision.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. Tennessee has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and the regional haze and best
available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. The
majority of Tennessee's regional haze program was approved on April 24,
2012 (77 FR 24392); the remaining portions are currently undergoing
review. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP
and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to implement
PSD programs and to provide for visibility protection related to the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Chapter 1200-3-
9-.01(4)(k), Air Quality Models, specify that required air modeling be
conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W ``Guideline on
Air Quality Models,'' as incorporated into the Tennessee SIP.
Tennessee's air quality regulations demonstrate that TDEC has the
authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the
effect on ambient air quality of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of
the associated data, related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: As discussed above, Tennessee's
SIP provides for the review of construction permits. Permitting fees in
Tennessee are collected through the State's federally-approved title V
fees program, which has been federally approved and according to State
regulation Chapter 1200-03-26-.02, Permit-Related Fees. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices
adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Chapter 1200-3-9-.01(4)(k), Public Participation, of the
Tennessee SIP requires that TDEC notify the public of an application,
preliminary determination, the activity or activities involved in the
permit action, any emissions change associated with any permit
modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final
permitting decision. TDEC has worked closely with local political
subdivisions during the

development of its Transportation Conformity SIP and Regional Haze
Implementation Plan. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with,
and participation by, affected local entities related to the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, with the exception of sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128(a)(1) requirements, EPA is
proposing to determine that Tennessee's infrastructure submissions,
provided to EPA on December 14, 2007 and October 19, 2009, addressed
the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve in part and
conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's SIP submission consistent
with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA.
    As described above, with the exception of sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128(a)(1) requirements, and
contingent upon final action by EPA to approve TDEC's July 29, 2011,
SIP submission regarding the State's PSD/NSR regulations, TDEC will
have addressed the requisite elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP
requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007 and September 25, 2009,
guidance to ensure that the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Tennessee. With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (referencing section 128 of
the CAA), EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP.
    Based on a March 28, 2012, commitment that TDEC will adopt specific
enforceable measures into its SIP and submit these revisions to EPA
within one year of EPA's final rulemaking to address the applicable
portions of section 128, EPA is today proposing to conditionally
approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
respecting the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1). EPA is also
proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure submissions for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because its
December 14, 2007, and October 19, 2009, submissions are consistent
with section 110 of the CAA. This proposed approval with respect to
element 110(a)(2)(C) is contingent upon EPA first taking final action
to approve TDEC's July 29, 2011, SIP submission regarding the State's
PSD/NSR regulations,

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-14096 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 8, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-15450

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Atlasjet Uluslararasi Havacilik A.S.				Date Filed:  June
18, 2003

Relief requested: Exemption authority from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage
in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between any point or points in Turkey and any point or points in the
United States; and to conduct other charters in accordance with Part 212
of the Department’s rules.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  John L. Richardson<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  Atlas Air Inc., a U.S. certificated air carrier,
and the applicant exchanged various responsive pleadings concerning name
similarity.  Atlas states that while it does not oppose granting the
applicant the authority it seeks, it urges us to address a
name-confusion problem (as well as the applicant’s aircraft livery and
color scheme which Atlas believes is similar to its own) by conditioning
the award of authority on the applicant’s agreement not to use the
“Atlas” root in its name or logo for any all-cargo service the
applicant might offer.  Atlas Air believes that here, where the public
will undoubtedly be confused by the applicant’s name and aircraft
appearance, the Department could act prospectively under § 41712 of
Title 49 (Unfair & Deceptive Practices) to prevent harm to U.S.
consumers.  The applicant opposes Atlas’ request asserting that the
potential for public confusion in this case is negligible, noting that
each offers a different service.  The applicant states that its
operations are principally “bulk transportation of passengers on
charter flights” while Atlas is an all-cargo carrier not authorized
under its current certificate to “solicit or transport passengers.”

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved 								Action date:  September 8, 2003

As to Atlas’ concerns and its request that we impose a holding out
condition on the applicant’s authority, we note that we do not make
public interest determinations under our regulations concerning name
similarity (14 CFR Part 215). As we have noted in the past, the
responsibility for resolution of name disputes rests with affected
carriers through recourse to trade name statutes and the civil courts.
Against this background, we are not persuaded that the question
concerning the applicant’s name-similarity, or the livery on its
aircraft, warranted delay of favorable action on the applicant’s
request.  Moreover, there does not appear to be a sufficient potential
for consumer harm to be concerned that a violation of § 41712 might
occur.

Effective dates of authority granted:  September 8, 2003-September 8,
2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  U.S.-Turkey
bilateral aviation agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Standard exemption conditions (Attached)

2

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Based on the
record in this case, we found that Atlasjet is financially and
operationally qualified to perform the services authorized above.  In
addition, we found that Atlasjet is substantially owned and effectively
controlled by Turkish citizens.  In addition, all of Atlasjet’s key
management personnel are citizens of Turkey.  The carrier is properly
licensed by the Government of Turkey to perform the proposed services.
By memorandum dated July 9, 2003, the FAA advised us that it knew of no
reason why we should act unfavorably on Atlasjet’s application.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		     Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

  We grant all motions to file otherwise unauthorized documents.

  In the conduct of charter operations authorized above, the holder may,
without prior Department approval, carry charter traffic between the
United States and a third country point, provided that, except with
respect to cargo charters, such charter traffic is carried on a flight
that serves Turkey for purposes of carrying traffic between the United
States and Turkey.

  See Notices of Action Taken in Docket 48622 (Leisure International
Airways Ltd.), dated April 15, 1993 and Docket OST-2001-11057 (Challenge
Air Luftverkehrs GmbH), dated March 29, 2002.

  Atlasjet is 96% owned by Oger Holding A.S., a Turkish-owned tour
operator.  Oger Holding is owned by Vural Oger, a citizen of Turkey.
Mr. Oger also holds German citizenship.  Each of Atlasjet’s four
remaining owners is a citizen of Turkey.

08/2003


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71776-71777]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25086]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79087; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-86]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Delete or Amend Rule Language Relating to Specialists and
Registered Options Traders

October 12, 2016.
    On August 12, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to delete or amend rule language relating to
specialists and Registered Options Traders (``ROTs''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on August
31, 2016.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78680 (August 25,
2016), 80 FR 60110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents,

the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission finds
that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to
take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates November 29, 2016 as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File
Number SR-Phlx-2016-86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25086 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P