1 Mercury Meeting Denver, CO March 11, 2004 These comments summarize the unique perspectives and views of tribal environmental professionals elicited during a public meeting held by representatives of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of addressing the proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule. These perspectives and views, however, do not represent the official policy or position of any tribal government concerning the proposed rule as must not be misconstrued otherwise.

Participants Chris Lee  Navajo Nation Flowers Espanola  Taos Pueblo Brandy Taft  Leech Lake Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Lyn Hall  Bad River Band of Chippewa Melinda Hoskins  Sac and Fox Nation Randy Ashley  Confederated Salish and Kootneai Tribes Louis McCloud  ? Gina Kneib  Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri Julie Simpson  Nez Perce Tribe Melissa Estes  Zuni Jed Peynetsa  Zuni Jay Littlewolf  Northern Cheyenne Lisa Brennan  ? Robert Shimek  ? Sandra Miller  Intertribal Council of Arizona Ryan Callison  Cherokee Nation Bob Gruenig  National Tribal Environmental Council Stephen Hartsfeild  National Tribal Air Association EPA Monica Morales  Region VIII Dan Webster  Region VIII Laura McKelvey  OAQPS Bill Maxwell  OAQPS Bob Gruenig provided some introductory comments regarding discussions that the National Tribal Environmental Council had with Administrator Leavitt concerning the proposed mercury rule and how the public meeting came about.

Presentation Highlights 2 The EPA is proposing one of three approaches:

° Section 112 ( CAA) command and control ° Section 111 ( CAA) cap and trade ° States could opt in and out ° Section 111( d) is used to legitimize a cap and trade approach ° Would be based on a declining cap ° This approach would be limited to new and existing sources ° Section 112 ( CAA) cap and trade ° Would be federally implemented ° Would be based on a declining cap Some comments that the EPA are seeking ° Is a cap and trade approach technically feasible under section 112 and does the EPA have legal authority to conduct trading under section 112? ° General comments about the cap and trade approach The comment period for the proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule has been extended to April 30, 2004. Because of the extension, a public hearing is scheduled to occur on March 31st in Denver, CO. A supplemental notice is also scheduled to be out by Tuesday, March 16, 2004. Based on a court settlement, the final rule must be signed on or before Wednesday, December 15, 2004 ( no such court ordered deadline exists for the Interstate Air Quality Rule).

Discussion, Questions and Comments 1) One participant asked how the rule was protective against hot spots.

The EPA used an Integrated Planning Model ( IPM) to discern if any hot spots would occur due to the proposed rule. No such hot spots have been found. Someone asked if tribal lands were sufficiently modeled for the proposed rule. No one present at the meeting knew this answer, but were encouraged to contact Mary Jo Krolewski at 202 343 9847 as she was involved with the modeling process. Another person commented that the model must look at geographic features, etc. and was uncertain if just one model is appropriate for tribal lands. In addition, he recommended that good spatial monitoring needs to take place for mercury, more data become available for tribal lands to discern if hot spots would occur, and that there needs to be better accountability built within the rule if hot spots are later found.

2) One participant asked if other groups emitting mercury and would be included in the rule.

The EPA is making other industries meet MACT standards and has developed rules to address mercury emissions such as from industrial boiler sources.

3) Another participant asked if EPA had enough tribal data to adequately model impacts in Indian 3 country. Particularly given that the monitoring data aren't adequate to verify the models.

Neither EPA participant was involved in the modeling and suggested folks contact Mary Jo Krolewski ( 202 343 9847).

4) Someone asked about nickel emissions which are addressed under the rule. EPA staff commented that nickel was included because it is emitted from oil burning electric generating units ( EGU). The rule only proposed emission limits for nickel because it is the major pollutant of concern from burning oil. Nickel is not included under a cap and trade approach. Nickel is also known to be a cancer causing toxin. Additional health effects of nickel emissions are outlined in the proposed rule.

5) One participant asked why EPA was proposing to use 111 ( as it's preferred approach) instead of what the statute requires in 112.

EPA staff point out that 2 of the proposed alternatives use 112, one alternative is a more traditional command and control approach, the other is a trading program that will be similar to the proposal under 111. However, EPA believes that 111 provides more flexibility and will get faster reductions particularly from bituminous coal burning EGUs.

6) In a follow up question one participant asked for whom was there increased flexibility and lower cost.

EPA responded that the flexibility and lower cost was directed toward industry and the States.

7) A participant asked what was the precedent that would be set for moving the program from 112?

EPA responded that we don't believe it would be much of a precedent because all of the 10 year bin of MACT standards are completed and we are moving into the area source standards and residual risk arena now. So there aren't many opportunities for additional MACT standards.

8) A number of participants expressed concern about hot spots with the following issues:

Modeling doesn't adequately model impacts on the tribes traditional lifestyles,

Modeling doesn't get data from Indian country.

Modeling from potential to emit verses actual emissions results in the modeling not legitimately addressing the Mercury concerns of tribes. It also doesn't take into account local factors like humidity, geography, and cumulative concentrations from multiple sources. This suggests we need a good spatial definition from an expanded mercury monitoring network. In addition, if EPA uses a cap and trade program then monitoring will be needed to establish an environmental baseline to measure the performance of the program and to protect against hot spots. 4 9) One participant asked how tribes can be involved in the trading program.

Will there be a set aside for tribes and how will it work? Someone asked if the cap and trade approach inhibited any opportunities for tribes to obtain set aside, particularly because States are the only one allegedly receiving allocations under the rule. Furthermore, because tribes fall under the tribal authority rule, they can enter a proposed cap and trade program at any time, which brings up the question on when budgets should be awarded tribes. If tribes can opt in at anytime, under the section 111 approach, there may no be allocations available for tribes when they enter the program. Also, if tribes opt in later, the biggest polluters will be attracted for tribal lands due to the lack of the rule's coverage over tribes. Comments concerning tribal set asides are encouraged.

Will there be an auction that the tribes can buy allowances as a commodity. EPA staff members didn't know if this had been discussed.

10) One participant commented on the approach for establishing the allowance budget. He raised that if the EPA uses the 111 approach and allocated the budget through the States, the States generally don't have jurisdiction in Indian country. There isn't a way for the tribes to participate but it also means that new sources can locate in Indian country without allowances and thus erode the environmental benefit.

11) In a follow up comment, one participant stated that without a tribal new source review rule, nothing can be required of new sources on tribal lands. Tribes should therefore push the EPA to finalize a rule for Indian Country.

12) One participant expressed concern that because the rule is national in scope that local considerations aren't adequately addressed. They discussed the example of mercury levels in the water column and fish tissues in Florida. That study showed as the mercury emissions from nearby Municipal Waste Incinerators declined so did the mercury levels in the water and fish tissues.

EPA responded to state that we recognize the concern and have asked for comment on how to best address these local/ hot spot issues.

13) One participant discussed that not all hot spots are caused by emissions profiles but by lifestyles. For example, for some Great Lakes tribes peak fishing seasons are in the spring and falls and in these times there is an increase in fish consumption. With major power plants 90 150 miles away, this is a major concern for the tribes.

14) In a follow up comment, one of the Minnesota tribes reminded that for many tribes in their area there is a large amount of fish consumed by the tribe and there are also high concentrations of mercury. So the rule raises major concern for them. 5 15) One participant commented that there is a lot of information about mercury in EPA's water program and suggested that the air and water people share information with each other.

16) A participant stated that the rule should not only look at the cost to industry but also the benefits of tighter controls including the benefits of tighter rules on the tribal culture, fish populations etc.

EPA reminded the group that MACT standards are set without regard to cost of control but that we have to look at the top 12 percent of the best controls available. However, we are doing a cost and benefits analysis that will look at benefits as best we can given that many of these issues are difficult to quantify.

17) One person asked EPA to comment on the rule of industry in drafting the rule.

EPA stated there was a Working Group under the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee that included many stakeholder including industry, environmental groups, and State and local agencies. This Working Group drafted white papers on the options considered in the rule. However, the work group didn't reach consensus. After the Agency determined the appropriate approach, they did go back the white papers to help provide some of the discussion. However, this language is in the preamble not the rule.

18) One Tribe asked why wait until 2018 for the 15 ton cap? Given that mercury is persistent in the environment, shouldn't we reach the cap sooner? In particular, the individual is concerned if the date and cap are economic driven numbers in an attempt to protect industry.

EPA responded that we expect to see earlier results in the trading programs because it provides the market incentive to provide cost effective reductions.

19) Someone asked what consultation was conducted regarding the tribes.

EPA responded that they tried to get some tribal folks to participate on the Working Group but understood that tribes have limited personnel that cover many areas of responsibility and so didn't push when the tribes declined to participate. EPA staff members acknowledged that tribes weren't really consulted on the proposed mercury rule, at least not like the consultation that occurred for the Interstate Air Quality Rule.

20) One tribe asked about the relationship between the IAQR and mercury rules. He asked why the mercury rule covers all States but the IAQR only addressees the eastern States. He asked if limiting the IAQR to the east might inadvertently create an increase in power generation and, thus, mercury emissions in the west.

EPA reminded the tribes that the IAQR is designed to address the nonattainment problems associated with transport across State lines. Therefore the States that were include where the 6 ones that modeling indicated significantly contributed to the nonattainment problems up wind. However, EPA is taking comment of the significance level used. EPA also reminded participants that the Western Regional Air Partnership ( WRAP) annex from the Regional Haze rule also address emissions from power plants so that might mitigate the concern.

21) On a follow up comment, a participant reminded folks that WRAP will be discussing this issue at their next meeting.

22) A person not present in the meeting sent an e mail stating Arizona was quickly becoming the power supplier for the State of California and there was a huge potential for hot spots.

EPA reminded folks that allocations are given in the baseline year so new sources will have to find these emissions from the State or the cap. New sources will also have to meet new source limits.

23) In a follow up comment, a tribe asked how modified sources would be affected.

EPA stated they would have to comply with the appropriate requirements for modifies sources either under NSR or other programs.

24) Someone asked if the proposed rule considered the differences of mercury emissions between different parts of the country. Without considering such differences, there would likely be inequity in the trading program.

EPA representatives where unclear about this issue and will refer it to the appropriate EPA staff. However, EPA staff members acknowledged that there might be some inequity early on, but this would work itself out later in the program as all facilities will be forced to install controls for mercury emissions.

25) The question was asked, will it be hard to track emissions and to separate the emissions from U. S. facilities from background?

26) In a follow up statement, some of the Northwestern tribes are impacted by emissions from Asia and elsewhere. This rule doesn't address the international emissions of mercury.

EPA stated that we are working with some of the international organizations ( particularly Canada) on mercury issues. However, we generally don't have much authority to affect them. That being said, we believe that we will have more leverage to pressure other countries in addressing emissions of mercury if we are doing our part in addressing our own emissions. In addition, staff members in the Agency are involved with an international commission currently addressing this issue.

27) One participate suggested tribes have a follow up call with the EPA staff responsible for the trading program. 7 28) One participant expressed concern that the trading program might contribute to power monopolies since the bigger companies have more money for allowances.

29) One participant stated that the budgets for the tribes need to be set up front so they have access to them.

30) One participant asked if EPA regulates mercury under 111 instead of 112, would this make it a criteria pollutant and would it change the emissions factors used in developing emissions inventories?

EPA responded moving mercury to 111 doesn't make it a criteria pollutant because we haven't written a criteria document or set a NAAQS. What it does is change the way we can approach providing flexibility for setting the technology standard. This shouldn't change the emissions factors calculations but will follow up with appropriate technical staff.

32) Someone asked if the EPA had plans to mitigate the effects of mercury currently in the environment. The rule doesn't have such a provision but folks were encouraged to comment. One participant commented EPA needs to provide resources for tribes to addressing existing mercury from past deposition.

33) Cost Benefit Analysis Someone asked what type of cost benefit analysis, if any, was conducted for the proposed rule. The individual feels that this is important when considering that many tribes exercise traditional subsistence lifestyles.

EPA staff members commented that costs aren't consider under section 112. With respect to economics in general, EPA staff noted that it has individuals working on incorporating economics into issues concerning mercury and food consumption.

34) Interstate Air Quality Rule Someone asked why the EPA limited the Interstate Air Quality Rule to the east.

Two answers were provided. First, the rule was limited to the east based on a significance level determined by the EPA based on the impact of transport on non attainment areas ( see also CAA section 110( a)( 2)( d)). Second, the WRAP has a rule already in place. Comments, however, are encouraged regarding both reasons. Particularly, EPA asked if the significance level need to be lowered and should the rule be expanded to the west?

35) Someone asked how the EPA was fulfilling its trust responsibility to tribes.

EPA staff members commented that this responsibility is being met by decreasing mercury emissions. 8 36) Someone expressed a concern that mercury trading could eventually trigger natural resource damage claims.

37) One participant commented that he is concerned about tribal sovereignty. The issue differs from the comments made on tribal consultation during the rule making process and it differs from Trial set asides in one fundamental way. He is concerned that tribes be at the table when the discussion enters allocation distribution. Tribes should be given a voice in the event affect them and they do not want allocations going to a nearby source.

Mercury Monitoring Ryan Callison ( Cherokee Nation) provided a brief overview concerning the mercury monitoring that he is currently involved with.

Ryan has been conducting wet deposition mercury monitoring for about a year. The motivation for starting this monitoring was based on increased power plant construction in Oklahoma and nearby Arkansas and Missouri. A lot of power plant facilities are sited along navigable waterways and directly impact resources used by the tribes or could be potentially used by tribes. To get started, Ryan contacted individuals from Illinois and OAQPS to discern the best siting for mercury monitors. He found that co locating mercury monitors with CastNet was a good set up. Ryan also encouraged folks to find the Mercury Deposition Network ( MDN) on the Internet which contains information that can be used to justify building a mercury monitoring program ( which coal is burned, elemental mercury, wet deposition across the country). Through the MDN, folks can acquire an updated map regarding where current mercury monitors located throughout the country.

The tribe's mercury monitoring program is fairly inexpensive and requires little personnel time. The greatest cost was during the first year when he had to obtain equipment, organize laboratory analysis for the mercury monitoring samples, etc. Tribes may be able to acquire funding support from a nearby State or section 106 grant. The only personnel time required for monitoring consists of 30 40 minutes where the individual collects the monitor sample and loads up a new one ( for the Cherokee, samples are taken every Tuesday). Because he is conducting wet deposition mercury monitoring, the aerochem ( sp?) collector is always open during rain events. Mercury sample analyses are done through Frontier Geosciences based in Seattle, WA. So far, the tribe has found that mercury emissions in their area are at average to above average of the national level.

Individuals on the call asked how find out about power plant locations. Such information may be downloaded from the E GRID program which is part of the larger EPA website. Folks just need to go to the EPA website and type in " E GRID" in the search box. The E GRID program will provide a list of every power plant in the country.

Brandy Toft interjected that if you want to hook up a monitor but are turned down by the MDN network or EPA is not entirely supportive, don't give up. To have a total analysis of mercury for 9 Leech Lake with different media ( fish tissue, water, vegetation, etc.). Leech Lake needed to add deposition from air. She went ahead and found a " retired" mercury monitor from the University of Minnesota and only needs maintain the monitor. EPA supports the cost for mercury analysis. Leech Lake is not a part of any mercury network.

To obtain presentations, please go to: www. epa. gov/ mercury www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ hlthef/ mercury. html For further information, please contact the following individuals:

Bill Maxwell 919 541 5430 or maxwell. bill@ epa. gov Laura McKelvey 919 541   5497 or mckelvey. laura@ epa. gov


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0534; FRL-         ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania;

VOC and NOx RACT Determinations for Merck and Co., Inc.

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania or the
Commonwealth).  This revision establishes and requires reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for a major source of volatile
organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) pursuant to the
Pennsylvania’s  SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.  The VOC and
NOx major source is Merck and Co., Inc. (Merck) located in
Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.  EPA is approving this revision in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0534.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.   Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On January 4, 2008 (73 FR 836), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth.  The NPR proposed approval of the
VOC and NOx RACT determinations for Merck.  The formal SIP revision was
submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) on June 13, 2007.

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

Merck is a chemical process facility and is a major source of VOC and
NOx emissions located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.  The
Commonwealth’s submittal consists of an operating permit (OP-49-0007B)
that imposes VOC and NOx RACT requirements for Merck.  PADEP established
and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set
forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to Merck.
In accordance with its SIP-approved generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth
has also imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on
Merck sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT
determinations.  Other requirements to the VOC and NOx RACT
determinations and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained
in the NPR and will not be restated here.  No public comments were
received on the NPR.

III.  Final Action

EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by
PADEP on June 13, 2007. The SIP revisions establish and require VOC and
NOx RACT pursuant to the Commonwealth’s SIP-approved generic RACT
regulations for Merck and Co., Inc. (OP-49-0007B) located in
Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.

IV.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule approves pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).  This rule also does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  This action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This
action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.  This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.  In this context, in
the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove
a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be inconsistent
with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use
VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions
of the CAA.  Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply.  This rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.  5 U.S.C. 804(3).  EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today(s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability establishing
source-specific requirements for Merck.

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of publication of
this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, approving the VOC and NOx RACT determinations for Merck and
Co., Inc. located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.  (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

___February 21, 2008
_______/s/___________________

Dated:                            				Donald S. Welsh,
              								Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN(Pennsylvania

2.  In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by adding an
entry for   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Merck and Co., Inc. at the end of the
table to read as follows:

§ 52.2020  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(d)  *   *   *

(1)  *   *   *

Name of source	County	Permit Number	State effective date	EPA approval
date	Additional explanation/

§ 52.2063 citation

     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Merck and Co., Inc.	Northumberland	OP-49-0007B
05/16/01	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	52.2020(d)(1)(v)

 PAGE  6

 PAGE  7


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45279-45280]
[DOCID:fr01se09-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eightieth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning
System (GPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 159 meeting: Global
Positioning System (GPS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 159: Global Positioning System (GPS).

DATES: The meeting will be held September 29-October 2, 2009, from 9

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (unless stated otherwise).

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 159 meeting. The agenda will
include:

Specific Working Group Sessions

September 29

     All Day, Working Group 2C, GPS/Inertial, Colson Board
Room.

September 30

     All Day, Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS, Colson Board Room.
Afternoon (1 p.m.-5 p.m.), Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance
(GPS/LAAS), MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton--ATA Room.

October 1

     All Day, Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance (GPS/
LAAS), MacIntosh--NBAA Room & Hilton--ATA Room.

Agenda--Plenary Session--Agenda

October 2--Starting at 9 a.m.

MacIntosh--NBAA & Hilton--ATA Rooms
     Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
     Approval of Summary of the Seventy-Ninth Meeting held June
24, 2009, RTCA Paper No. 184-09/SC159-980.
     Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for
Resolution.
     GPS/3rd Civil Frequency (WG-1).
     GPS/WAAS (WG-2).
     GPS/GLONASS (WG-2A).
     GPS/Inertial (WG-2C).
     GPS/Precision Landing Guidance and (WG-4).
     GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG-5).
     GPS/Interference (WG-6).
     GPS/Antennas (WG-7).
     GPS/GRAS (WG-8).
     Review of EUROCAE Activities.
     Assignment/Review of Future Work.
     Other Business.
     Closing Plenary Session (Date and Place of Next Meeting).

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E9-21065 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P