MEMORANDUM
TO:		Toni Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FROM:  	Eastern Research Group, Inc.
DATE:  	November 18, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:  	CISWI Reconsideration  -  Data Review and Updates

1. Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), is required to regulate emissions of nine pollutants from Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units: hydrogen chloride (HCl), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), mercury (Hg), particulate matter (PM), dioxins/furans (PCDD/PCDF), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
On December 1, 2000, the EPA adopted new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines (EG) for CISWI units under Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act.  In 2001 the EPA granted a petition for reconsideration regarding the definitions of "commercial and industrial waste" and "commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit."  In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the EPA's voluntary remand, without vacatur, of the 2000 rule.  In 2005, the EPA proposed and finalized the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition rule which, among other things, revised the definitions of "commercial and industrial waste" and "commercial and industrial waste incineration unit."  In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the 2005 commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition rule.
On March 21, 2011, the EPA promulgated revised NSPS and EG as its response to the voluntary remand that was granted in 2001 and the vacatur and remand of the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration definition rule in 2007.  In addition, the standards re-development included the 5-year technology review of the new source performance standards and emission guidelines required under Section 129.  Following that action, the Administrator received petition[s] for reconsideration and identified some issues that warranted further opportunity for public comment.  In addition, data were received that enabled the EPA to revise the CISWI inventory of waste-burning kilns and energy recovery units to more accurately reflect the definition of non-hazardous secondary materials.
This memorandum summarizes the activities associated with data reviews and database updates to the CISWI data set as part of CISWI reconsideration.  In particular, these reviews and updates consist of the following activities:
   * The dioxin/furan emissions data in the CISWI database were reviewed to ensure that data have been correctly characterized as being "above detection level" or "non-detect."
   * The mercury emissions data for the CISWI units within each MACT floor, excluding waste-burning kilns, were reviewed to confirm that the facility used the summation of the fractions of mercury and the associated detection level instead of assigning the non-detect fractions of mercury as zero prior to the summation of the individual fractions.
   * The filterable particulate matter emissions data for the CISWI units within each floor were reviewed to confirm the treatment of negative filter weights.  If encountered, the negative filter weights were treated as zeros.
      *       Updates were made to the waste-burning kiln and energy recovery unit subcategories of the CISWI data set.
2. Dioxin/Furan Data Review
   2.1. Data Review Procedures
In order to verify the dioxin/furan emissions data and the associated detection designations, the original test reports submitted by each facility with dioxin/furan data were reviewed and the following data components were confirmed and corrected, if necessary.
   * The non-detect designation,
   * Source of TEQ dioxin/furan data, and
   * Emissions data.
The non-detect designation was reviewed by comparing the dioxin/furan emission records in the CISWI database to the emission test reports to confirm whether or not it was noted appropriately in the "Non Detect" and "ND Count" fields.  Also, it was noted if a more specific non-detect designation was reported in the test report: above detection limit (ADL), below detection limit (BDL) or detection limit limited (DLL).  For purposes of data use in emission limit calculations in CISWI, BDL and DLL are synonymous with non-detect (ND).
The TEQ dioxin/furan data was reviewed in order to determine whether or not the TEQ data was calculated and submitted by the facility or calculated by ERG from the mass basis data for the isomers.  This observation was noted in the CISWI database under a comment field.
While the emissions test database was originally reviewed to ensure that data were imported accurately, this task repeated this quality assurance check to confirm that dioxin/furan data were imported into the database correctly.
   2.2. Results
The accompanying spreadsheet in Appendix A identifies which units required dioxin/furan non-detect designation corrections.  The fields "Dioxin/Furans (Total Mass Basis): Correction Required? (Y/N)" and "Dioxin/Furans (TEQ): Correction Required? (Y/N)", identifies whether or not any of the dioxin/ furan records for the associated unit required corrections to the non-detect designations.

3. Mercury Data Review
   3.1. Data Review Procedures
In order to verify the Hg emissions data and to confirm that the facility used the summation of the fractions of Hg and the associated detection level as opposed to assigning the non-detect fractions of Hg as zero prior to the summation of the fractions, the original test reports submitted by each facility were reviewed and confirmed and/or corrected for CISWI units within each floor excluding waste-burning kilns.
   * Fractions of Hg,
   * The non-detect designation, and
   * Emissions data.
The fractions of Hg were reviewed by identifying within the emission test reports submitted by each facility the fractions of Hg to see if the facility had used a summation of total Hg and the associated non-detect designation, as opposed to assigning the non-detect fractions of Hg as zero prior to the summation.
Similarly to the dioxin/furan data review, the detection designation was examined to confirm that each designation was noted appropriately in the "Non Detect" and "ND Count" fields.
While the emissions test database was originally reviewed to ensure that data were imported accurately, this task repeated this quality assurance check to confirm that Hg data were imported into the database correctly.
   3.2. Results
For mercury records associated with facilities within the MACT floor pool, 2 units out of 10 required corrections.  The AKCoeur incinerator (subcategory = small remote) emissions were recalculated to ensure the emissions were correct.  The average emission detection designation for the AKCoeur unit was updated from detect to the non-detect designation, due to the detection designations of the runs that were averaged.  The emission detection designation for Run 1 for the ALIPRiverdale No. 2 Bark Boiler was updated from non-detect to detect because it was reported as above detection levels in the emissions test report.  The emission detection designation for the average emissions for the ALIPRiverdale No. 2 Bark Boiler were updated from detect to non-detect because run 3 was below the detection level.
No corrections were needed for the fractions of Hg.  Each facility in this review followed the proper protocol of using the summation of the fractions to determine the detection limit, or did not submit the fractions of Hg in the first place.
4. Filterable Particulate Matter Data Review
   4.1. Data Review Procedures
In order to verify the filterable particulate matter (PM) emissions data and to confirm that the facility appropriately assigned zeros to negative filter weights, the original test reports submitted by each facility with PM data in the MACT floor were reviewed and confirmed and or corrected if needed for the following data elements:
   * PM catch amounts,
   * Treatment of negative filter weights,
   * The non-detect designation, and
   * Emissions data.
The PM catch amounts and treatment of negative filter weights within the emission test reports submitted by each facility were reviewed to see if the values were less than 1 mg and or negative, respectively.  If the catch amounts were less than 1 mg per sample, they were assigned the MDL value of one.  If the filter weights were negative, they were treated as zero.
Similarly to the dioxin/furan data review, the detection designation was examined to confirm that each designation was noted appropriately in the "Non Detect" and "ND Count" fields.
While the emissions test database was originally reviewed to ensure that data were imported accurately, this task repeated this quality assurance check to confirm that PM data were imported into the database correctly.
   4.2. Results
No corrections were needed for the PM emissions data in this review.  The PM catch amounts were all above 1 mg, and the filter weights were all positive.  No corrections were needed for the emissions data and the detection designations, ensuring the quality of the dataset for those facilities within the MACT floor.
5. CISWI Inventory Updates
   5.1.   Waste-burning kilns
Updates to the dataset include the addition of 4 facilities (11 kilns) to the waste-burning kiln subcategory of CISWI units.  The additional kilns were identified as being solid waste-combusting kilns during review of the Portland cement kiln population for the development of the emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (PC NESHAP).  See Appendix B for more details on this review.  Appendix C contains the PC NESHAP data that were used to populate the CISWI database for kiln design type and the newly added kilns (highlighted in yellow).  The following kiln facilities were added to the CISWI database:
      * California Portland Cement Company (Colton, CA),
      * Lehigh Cement (Union Bridge, MD),
      * Lafarge Midwest Inc. (Alpena, MI), and
      * Ash Grove Texas, L.P. (Midlothian, TX).

   5.1.   Energy recovery units
Updates to the energy recovery unit subcategory of the CISWI data set include the addition of data for one facility that was identified by industry as a possible waste combustor, Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company (Anderson, CA) and removal of data for five facilities that were identified as units that no longer burn waste materials.  The non-waste energy recovery units data were transferred to the industrial and commercial boiler inventory for use in developing standards for that source category.  For the Wheelabrator unit, the previously-submitted data were re-incorporated into the CISWI data set.  In addition, new data were submitted to the EPA early in 2011.  These data are provided in Appendix D.  Note that these data include data from several boiler units that the submitters believed could be potential CISWI units.  The EPA reviewed this information, and concluded that the Wheelabrator units are most likely CISWI, while the others units in the data submittal have more uncertain applicability status. Therefore, only the Wheelabrator facility was added to the CISWI population and the others were incorporated into the boiler population.
The following units were CISWI energy recovery units as of promulgation of the final rule, but have now been transferred to the industrial and commercial boilers population after being identified as non-waste burning units:
      * Black River Generation, LLC (Fort Drum, NY),
      * Kimberly-Clark of PA, LLC (Chester, PA),
      * Herman Miller, Inc. (Zeeland, MI),
      * Boralex  -  Livermore Falls (Livermore Falls, ME), and
      * Port Townsend Paper Corp. (Port Townsend, WA).


From: Fairchild, Susan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 7:42 AM
To: Reeves, David; Okoye, Winifred; Barnett, Keith
Subject: FW: NAIMA Letter on Applicability
Importance: High

Susan Fairchild
Senior Environmental Scientist
(919) 541-5167

USPS Address:
OAQPS/SPPD/MMG
Mail Code D 243-04
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

From: Angus Crane<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Fairchild, Susan; Barnett, Keith
Subject: NAIMA Letter on Applicability
Importance: High

Dear Ms. Fairchild:

Please find attached a letter from NAIMA expressing concern about EPA language which seems to confuse the applicability of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT Standard.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane
Executive Vice President, General Counsel
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
Ph:<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 123
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Visit NAIMA online at:
www.NAIMA.org
www.PipeInsulation.org


[Federal Register: August 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 47040-47041]
[DOCID:fr04au10-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62587; File No. SR-EDGX-2010-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGX Rule 11.12

July 29, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 22, 2010, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or the
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.12 to modify potential
liability caps applicable under the rule. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://
www.directedge.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, on the
Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Currently, the Exchange provides a limited exception to its general
limitation of liability rules that allows for the payment of claims to
Users \3\ for order processing failures on the Exchange. The Exchange
proposes to modify its process for allocating such payments and extend
the time period for Users to submit such claims. Under the proposal,
the Exchange will eliminate the $100,000 and $250,000 daily caps on
liability and consider all such claims on a monthly basis subject to
the already existing $500,000 monthly liability cap. If the total
amount of all claims from all Users in calendar month exceeds the
$500,000 monthly liability cap, the $500,000 maximum monthly dollar
amount will be proportionally allocated among all such claims as set
forth in the current rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Exchange Rule 1.5(cc) defines ``User'' as ``any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to extend, until 12 noon ET on the
next business day following the day on which the use of the Exchange
gives rise to the claim, the time period during which claims seeking
compensation must be submitted.
    The proposal, in effect, would allow the Exchange an increased
capability to compensate a market participant(s) up to the monthly cap
of $500,000 even though the losses occurred on a single day or were
across multiple days for a single participant. The expansion of time to
make such compensation claims likewise increases the ability of market
participants to submit claims in a timely manner. Finally, the Exchange
notes that other market centers have rules in place to provide limited
compensation for system malfunctions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60794 (October 6,
2009), 74 FR 52522 (October 13, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-084) (relating
to amendments to NASDAQ Rule 4626); NYSE Arca Equities Rule 13.2;
and International Securities Exchange Rule 705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposal, in effect,
would allow the Exchange an increased capability to compensate a market
participant(s) up to the monthly cap of $500,000 even though the losses
occurred on a single day or were across multiple days for a single
participant. The expansion of time to make such compensation claims
likewise increases the ability of market participants to submit claims
in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)

of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within the 60-day period beginning on the date of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2010-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2010-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2010-08 and should be
submitted on or before August 25, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19215 Filed 8-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 43371]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2022-33]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Pemco World
Air Services, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-0786
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deana Stedman, AIR-612, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 15, 2022.
Daniel J. Commins,
Manager, Technical Writing Section.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-0786.
    Petitioner: Pemco World Air Services, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.807(g)(4).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner is seeking relief from 14
CFR 25.807(g)(4), which requires that there be at least 2 exits, 1 of
which must be a Type II or larger exit, in each side of the fuselage
when the airplane has a passenger seating configuration of 20 to 40
seats. Specifically, the petitioner is proposing to modify Boeing Model
737-700 airplanes into a flexible cargo-passenger configuration, known
as a ``combi,'' of which the 24-passenger configuration would have 1
oversized Type I exit on each side of the fuselage instead of 2 exits
on each side of the fuselage (1 of which must be Type II or larger) as
required by Sec.  25.807(g)(4).
[FR Doc. 2022-15515 Filed 7-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 20358-20359]
[DOCID:fr01my09-94]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice for Syracuse Hancock International
Airport, Syracuse, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of
Syracuse, for Syracuse Hancock International Airport, under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act) and 14 CFR Part 150 are in compliance with applicable
requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure maps is April 21, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Suki Gill, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, New York
Airports District Office, 600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City,
NY 11530, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FM finds that
the noise exposure maps submitted for Syracuse Hancock International
Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part
150''), effective April 21, 2009. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as ``the

Act''), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps
which meet applicable regulations and which depict noncompatible land
uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of
projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations
will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in
consultation with interested and affected parties in the local
community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An
airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found
by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Part 150,
promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility
program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has
taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and
prevent the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by the City of Syracuse. The
documentation that constitutes the ``Noise Exposure Maps'' as defined
in Sec.  150.7 of Part 150 includes: Figures ``2007 Noise Exposure
Map'' and Figure 6 ``2012 Noise Exposure Map''. The FAA has determined
that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in
compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on April 10, 2009.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such determination
does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or
plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to
fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning
the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure
contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503
of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way
in determining the relative locations of specific properties with
regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise
exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which
properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the
Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control
and planning responsibilities of local government. These local
responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through
FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for
the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map
depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport
operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and
planning agencies with which consultation is required under section
47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the
airport operator, under section 150.21 of Part 150, that the
statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
    Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the
following locations:
    Federal Aviation Administration, New York Airports District Office,
600 Old Country Road, Suite 446, Garden City, NY 11530, Monday-Friday--
9 a.m.-4 p.m.;
    City of Syracuse, Department of Aviation, Syracuse Hancock
International Airport, 1000 Colonel Eileen Collins Boulevard, Syracuse,
NY 13212,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Available upon request.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Garden City, New York, April 21, 2009.
Steven Urlass,
Manager, New York Airports District Office, AEA-630, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. E9-9953 Filed 4-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M