UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 1, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-18932

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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).

Joint Application of   US Airways, Inc.  and British Midland Airways
Limited d/b/a bmi filed   8/19/04  for:

XX  Exemption for US Airways under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between any point or points in the United States, and regional airports
in the United Kingdom directly and via intermediate points, and beyond
the United Kingdom to any point or points in third countries, and to
integrate this authority with US Airways’ existing certificate and
exemption authority.  US Airways further requests any necessary
exemption authority (including the right to integrate such authority
with its existing certificates and exemptions) in order to engage in
code-sharing arrangements with bmi.

XX  Statement of authorization for US Airways under CFR Part 212 to:

Permit US Airways to display the “BD” code of bmi on flights
operated by US Airways between

(1) points in the United States and regional airports in the United
Kingdom, either nonstop or via third-country intermediate points; (2)
points in the United States; and (3) Philadelphia, PA; and Charlotte,
NC; on the one hand, and London (Gatwick) on the other.

XX  Statement of authorization for bmi under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Permit bmi to display the “US” code of US Airways on flights
operated by bmi between (1) points in the United States and regional
airports in the United Kingdom, either nonstop or via third-country
intermediate points; (2) points in the United Kingdom; and (3) points in
the United Kingdom and points in third countries beyond the United
Kingdom, either nonstop or via third-country intermediate points.

Continental Airlines filed an answer stating that it did not object to
the joint application to the extent the carriers seek authority to code
share between points in the United States and regional airports in the
United Kingdom, between points within the United States or within the
United Kingdom, or between points in the United Kingdom and points
beyond the United Kingdom.  Continental states that it does object to
the award of code-share authority to the carriers between points in the
United States and London (Gatwick), stating that such an award would be
extrabilateral and that the aviation relationship between the United
States and the United Kingdom does not  support the grant of this
portion of the applicants’ request.

The Joint Applicants filed a reply, stating that the authority they
request to serve London (Gatwick) is in fact fully consistent with the
provisions of the U.S.-U.K. Agreement.

Applicant reps: Howard Kass<PHONE_NUMBER> (US Airways), Marshall Sinick
(202) 626-6651 (bmi)

DOT Analysts:  Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>, Thuy Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

2

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX   Approved in part; deferred in part (see below)

The above action with respect to US Airways’ exemption authority was
effective when taken: October 1, 2004, through October 1, 2006

The statements of authorization granted were effective when taken:
October 1, 2004, and will remain in effect indefinitely, subject to the
conditions listed below.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority, to the extent granted, is consistent with the
aviation agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX US Airways’
certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  bmi’s exemption authority (Notice of Action Taken dated August 14,
2003 in

OST-2001-9978)

	   XX  Standard exemption conditions (Attachment B)

______________________

Remarks:  In granting this authority, we are deferring action on the
Joint Applicants’ request to the extent that it would permit them to
code-share on flights to or from London (Gatwick).  We are also
deferring action on the Joint Applicants’ request to code-share on
flights to or from Aberdeen, Leeds Bradford, or Toulouse.

Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon US Airways rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless US Airways notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carriers(s)
should be authorized to exercise such

rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the
limited-entry route rights that are included in US Airways’ authority
by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are
not then

being used by US Airways, the holding of such authority by route
integration will not be considered as providing any preference for US
Airways in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which
carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond points is limited
to countries with which the United States has signed open-skies
agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to
serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the Department, and for
which it holds route integration authority by virtue of either the
present action or other action of the Department.

The statements of authorization granted are subject to the following
conditions:

(a)	The statements of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) US Airways and bmi continue to hold the necessary underlying
authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and (ii) the
code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations remains in
effect.

(b)	US Airways and/or bmi must promptly notify the Department (Office of
International Aviation) if the code-share agreement providing for the
code-share operations is no longer effective or if the carriers decide
to cease operating all or a portion of the approved code-share services.
 Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-20043-18932.

(c)	US Airways and/or bmi must notify the Department no later than 30
days before they begin any new code-share service under the code-share
services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the market(s) to
be served, which carrier will be operating the aircraft in the
code-share market added, and the date on which the service will begin.
(Such notice should be filed in this Docket.)

(d)	The code-sharing conducted under this authority must comply with
Part 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the

carrier holding out such service in the computer reservation systems and
elsewhere; that the carrier selling

such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept
responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the

passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected.  Further,
the operating carrier shall not permit the

code of its U.S. air carrier code-sharing partner to be carried on any
flights that enter, depart, or transit the airspace of any area for
whose airspace the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a flight
prohibition.

(e)	The authority to operate to third countries is subject to the
condition that any service provided under the statement of authorization
shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United
States and the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (i) nothing in
the award of this blanket statement of authorization should be construed
as conferring upon US Airways rights (including code-share, fifth
freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S.
carrier entry is limited unless US Airways notifies the Department of
its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department
has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine
which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (ii)
should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route
rights that are included in US Airways’ authority by virtue of the
blanket statement of authorization

granted here, but that are not then being used by US Airways, the
holding of such authority will not be

considered as providing any preference for US Airways in a competitive
carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be
entitled to use the authority at issue.

(f)	The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither US Airways nor bmi shall give any force or effect to any
contractual provisions between themselves that are contrary to these
conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found US Airways qualified to provide the
exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) 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 or deferred, 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

										Attachment A

Proposed Initial Routes

“US” code on flights operated by bmi

Manchester to

	Aberdeen

	Edinburgh

	Glasgow

	Toulouse

*Paris to

	Leeds Bradford

“BD” code on flights operated by US Airways

Philadelphia to

	Manchester

London (Gatwick)

Glasgow

Charlotte to

	London (Gatwick)

	Philadelphia

	Newark

Philadelphia and Charlotte to

	Boston

	Southwest Florida Regional

	Pittsburgh

	Raleigh/Durham

	Cleveland

	St. Louis

	Baltimore

	Kansas City

* With respect to the request for code-sharing on bmi’s flights
between Paris (CDG) and Leeds/Bradford, U.K., the US Airways’ traffic
to/from this U.K. destination via Paris will be carried on a
blind-sector basis.

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI 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; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

 US Airways also applied on behalf of its affiliated carriers, Piedmont
Airlines, Inc.; and PSA Airlines.

 See Attachment A for the Routes US Airways and bmi initially propose to
serve.

 We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.

 The notice in paragraph (c) above can be used for this notification.

 We note that the code-share arrangement as submitted did not include
provisions regarding exclusive dealings between the code-share parties.
Should the parties subsequently amend their code-share agreement or any
other agreement affecting the code-share services to include a provision
relating to an exclusive arrangement between the parties, that amended
language must first be submitted for consideration by the Department.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 129 (Monday, July 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40286-40287]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14459]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-02-2019-2033; FRL-10011-82-Region 2]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Old Roosevelt
Field Contaminated Groundwater Area Superfund Site, Town of Hempstead,
Nassau County, New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement
pursuant to CERCLA with Johnson & Hoffman, LLC, Ansaco Properties One,
LLC, and Ansaco, LLC (``Settling Parties'') for the Old Roosevelt Field
Contaminated Groundwater Area Superfund Site (``Site''), Town of
Hempstead, Nassau County, New York.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 5, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments can be sent via email to Elizabeth Leilani Davis at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should reference the Old Roosevelt
Field Contaminated Groundwater Area Superfund Site, Town of Hempstead,
New York, Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Response Costs, Index
No. CERCLA-02-2019-2033.
    The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at this
weblink:https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/02/598770.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Leilani Davis, Attorney,
Office of Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the settlement, EPA will receive from
the Settling Parties $207,000.00 in past response costs with respect to
the Site. The settlement provides, in exchange for the above payment, a
covenant not to sue by EPA or to take administrative action against the
Settling Parties pursuant to sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), with regard to the Site. For thirty (30) days
following the date of publication of this document, EPA will receive
written comments relating to the settlement. EPA will consider all
comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the
settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection online and/or at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866.

Pasquale Evangelista,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2020-14459 Filed 7-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75658-75661]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0921, FRL-9235-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting
Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commissioner of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to EPA on October 25,
2010, for parallel processing. The proposed SIP revision updates
Alaska's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to
reflect changes to the Federal PSD program relating to the permitting
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EPA is proposing in this action to
approve those revisions if the final SIP revision submitted by Alaska
to EPA is consistent with the draft SIP revision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2010-0921, by any of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Scott Hedges, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Scott Hedges, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2010-0921. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hedges at telephone number:
(206) 553-0296, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing today?
II. What is the background for the action that EPA is proposing
today?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Alaska's proposed SIP revision?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing today?

    On October 25, 2010, ADEC submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Alaska's SIP to update Alaska's PSD program to
reflect changes to the Federal PSD program that would authorize the
State of Alaska to regulate GHGs under its PSD program and establish
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new or modified
stationary sources become subject to Alaska's PSD permitting
requirements for GHG emissions. ADEC subsequently clarified in an e-
mail dated November 16, 2010, that its request is limited to updating
the incorporation by reference date of 40 CFR 52.21 in 18 AAC 50.040(h)
in order to incorporate the new definition of ``subject to regulation''
in 40 CFR 52.21(49) to clarify the meaning of the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' in the Alaska SIP so as to make the Alaska
SIP consistent with Federal PSD requirements for the regulation of
GHGs.
    Because this draft SIP revision is not yet State-effective, Alaska
requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision. Under this
procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the State while
developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the State submits a
copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions before final
promulgation by the State. EPA reviews this proposed State action and
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public comment
in approximately the same time frame during which the State is
completing its rulemaking action.
    In this case, the regulatory revisions submitted in Alaska's
October 25, 2010, proposed SIP revision have already gone through
public review and were adopted by the Commissioner of ADEC on September
27, 2010. On November 8, 2010, ADEC provided EPA with a revised draft
submittal following review by the Alaska Department of Law. On November
16, 2010, ADEC advised EPA that the revisions that were filed by the
Alaska Lieutenant Governor on November 9, 2010, will become effective
as a matter of State law on December 8, 2010, and will be submitted as
a final SIP revision before December 1, 2010. Therefore, EPA is
processing this proposed rulemaking prior to Alaska's submission of the
final SIP revision.
    EPA is proposing to approve the update to 18 AAC 50.040(h) with
respect to the definition of ``subject to regulation'' as a revision to
the Alaska SIP if the final SIP revision relating to the PSD permitting
of GHGs submitted by Alaska to EPA is consistent with the proposed SIP
revision. Final approval of Alaska's SIP revision will make Alaska's
SIP for GHG-emitting sources consistent with Federal PSD requirements
for GHG emissions, including the GHG emission thresholds for PSD
applicability. If changes are made to the SIP revision after this
proposal, such changes will be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking
action and, if such changes are significant, may require a reproposal
and an additional public comment period.

II. What is the background for the action that EPA is proposing today?

    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking tailoring the applicability criteria that determine which
stationary sources and modification projects become subject to
permitting requirements for GHG emissions under the PSD and title V
permitting programs. See ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule,'' (the Tailoring
Rule), 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).\1\ In particular, by amending the
definition of ``subject to regulation,'' EPA established thresholds for
GHGs with a phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the
first

two steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-emitters. As EPA
explained in the Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations are
necessary because without it, PSD would apply to all stationary sources
that emit or have the potential to emit more than 100 or 250 tons of
GHGs per year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date when EPA's
recently promulgated Light Duty Vehicle Rule takes effect,\2\ imposing
control requirements for the first time on GHGs. If this January 2,
2011, date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule being in effect, PSD
requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the 100/250 tons per year
applicability levels provided under a literal reading of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act) as of that date. From that point forward, a source
owner proposing to construct any new major source that emits at or
higher than the applicability levels (and which therefore may be
referred to as a ``major'' source) or modify any existing major source
in a way that would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a
permit under the PSD program that addresses these emissions before
construction or modification could begin. See 75 FR 31514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Alaska's title V program.
    \2\ See ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule,'' 75 FR
25324 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in the Tailoring Rule, many State, local and Tribal
area programs will likely be able to immediately implement the approach
in the Tailoring Rule without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ``subject to regulation'' that is part
of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this
implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then
EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take
appropriate follow-up action to narrow Federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2,
2011. Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for Federal purposes,
sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's
emission thresholds will not be obligated under Federal law to obtain
PSD permits during the gap between when GHG PSD requirements go into
effect on January 2, 2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP
revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach, or (2) if a State opts to
regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the State demonstrates to EPA
that it has adequate resources to handle permitting for such sources.
EPA expects to finalize the narrowing action prior to the January 2,
2011 deadline with respect to those States for which EPA will not have
approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs by that time.
    On August 2, 2010, Alaska provided a letter to EPA explaining that
its PSD rules only apply to pollutants ``subject to regulation'' at the
time of adoption in July 1, 2004, and that Alaska thus did not have
authority to issue PSD permits that address GHG emissions. By notice
dated September 2, 2010, EPA issued a proposed ``Action to Ensure
Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding
of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call, Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 53892
(September 2, 2010) (GHG SIP Call). In that action, along with a
companion proposal published at the same time, EPA took steps to ensure
that in States that do not appear to have authority to issue PSD
permits to GHG-emitting sources at present, either the State or EPA
will have the authority to issue such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA
explained in the GHG SIP Call that, although for most States, either
the State or EPA is already authorized to issue PSD permits for GHG-
emitting sources as of that date, our preliminary information showed
that 13 States, including Alaska, have EPA-approved PSD programs that
do not appear to include GHG-emitting sources and therefore do not
appear to authorize these States to issue PSD permits to such sources.
Therefore, EPA proposed to find that these 13 States' SIPs are
substantially inadequate to comply with CAA requirements and,
accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP Call to require a SIP revision
that applies their SIP PSD programs to GHG-emitting sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR 53892,
53896), EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial
inadequacy and the SIP call for the 13 listed States by December
1,2010. EPA requested that the States for which EPA is proposing a
SIP call identify the deadline--between 3 weeks and 12 months from
the date of signature of the final SIP Call--that they would accept
for submitting their corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a companion rulemaking issued on the same date, EPA proposed a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that would give EPA authority to
apply EPA's PSD program to GHG-emitting sources in any State that is
unable to submit a corrective SIP revision by its deadline. See
``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 53883
(September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP). Alaska was one of the States for which
EPA proposed a SIP Call and a FIP because, as discussed above, Alaska
advised EPA that it did not interpret its then current PSD regulations
as providing it with the authority to regulate GHGs.
    Alaska's proposed SIP revision that is the subject of this
rulemaking, however, addresses this authority. Therefore, if the State
submits its final SIP revision to EPA prior to the final rulemaking for
the GHG SIP Call, EPA will not take final action on the GHG SIP Call
for Alaska. Additionally, Alaska would not be subject to the FIP if EPA
finalizes today's proposed approval of the Alaska's SIP revision.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Alaska's proposed SIP revision?

    The State of Alaska is currently a SIP-approved State for the PSD
program, and has incorporated EPA's 2002 New Source Review (NSR) reform
revisions for PSD into its SIP. See 72 FR 45378 (August 14, 2007).
However, Alaska does not interpret its PSD rules that are currently in
the SIP, which generally incorporate the Federal rules by reference, to
be automatically updating to include newly designated regulated air
pollutants such as GHGs. As discussed above, in a letter provided to
EPA on August 2, 2010, Alaska notified EPA that the State did not then
have the authority to regulate GHGs under the PSD program and thus was
in the process of revising its regulations (the subject of this
proposed action) to provide this authority.
    The proposed rules submitted by ADEC to EPA with the proposed SIP
revision updates its incorporation by reference of the Federal PSD
requirements at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21-40 CFR 52.22 (Prevention
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) to include all revisions
to these Federal requirements as of August 2, 2010, the effective date
of the Tailoring Rule. See 18 AAC 50.040(h). ADEC has requested that
EPA approve this update only with respect to the definition of
``subject to regulation'' in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49) promulgated in the
Tailoring Rule (effective August 2, 2010), which in turn clarifies the
meaning of the State definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' \4\ As
discussed below, ADEC intends to request that EPA approve

these rule revisions with respect to all other changes in a subsequent
and separate SIP revision request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 AAC 50.040(h)(4)(C)(i) states that the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) is not adopted
and that that term shall have the meaning assigned to it in 18 AAC
50.990. The SIP-approved version of 18 AAC 50.990(92) states that
``regulated NSR pollutant'' has the meaning given in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49), which is the same definition as in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, unless EPA either approves the Alaska SIP
revision authorizing the PSD permitting of GHG emissions by January 2,
2010, or unless EPA promulgates a FIP to do so, such sources will be
unable to receive preconstruction permits and therefore may not be able
to construct or modify in the State of Alaska after that date. Alaska's
incorporation by reference of the new definition of ``subject to
regulation'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49) is consistent with EPA's regulation
of GHG emissions under the Federal PSD program. Therefore, if the final
SIP submitted by ADEC to EPA is consistent with the proposed SIP
revision, EPA is proposing to approve this revision because Alaska's
regulation is consistent with the CAA PSD requirements and its
implementing regulations regarding GHGs.

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the
State of Alaska's draft SIP revision that reflects changes to the
Federal PSD program as of August 2, 2010, relating to the permitting of
GHGs if the final SIP revision submitted by Alaska to EPA is consistent
with the proposed SIP revision. This proposed SIP revision provides
Alaska with the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD program and
establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD
applicability to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance
with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with
the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs.
    Note that ADEC has made other changes to its rules for PSD
permitting and other air regulations that it has not submitted as part
of this draft SIP revision (subject to this action) and does not intend
to submit as part of its final SIP submission. However, ADEC does
intend to submit these other rules and regulations as a subsequent SIP
revision in the near future. Because of the need to approve as a SIP
revision the changes relating to the PSD permitting of GHGs by January
2, 2011 or as soon thereafter as possible to ensure the State has
adequate authority to issue PSD permits to subject sources emitting
GHGs, once the requirements go into effect as a matter of Federal law,
EPA believes it is appropriate to approve Alaska's revisions that
update the Alaska PSD program to address GHG emissions as a SIP
strengthening measure.

V. 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. 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 the State's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the State's 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 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
Alaska, 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

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: November 19, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010-30479 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P