[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81868-81874]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691-201069, FRL-9244-6]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's
Energy and Environment Cabinet, through the Kentucky Division for Air
Quality (KDAQ), to EPA on August 5, 2010, for parallel processing. KDAQ
submitted the final version of this SIP revision on December 13, 2010.
The SIP revision, which incorporates updates to KDAQ's air quality
regulations, includes two significant changes impacting the regulation
of greenhouse gas (GHG) under Kentucky's New Source Review (NSR)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the
revision provides the Commonwealth with authority to issue PSD permits
governing GHGs. Second, the SIP revision establishes appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Kentucky's PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions. The first change is necessary
because the Commonwealth of Kentucky is required to apply its PSD
program to GHG-emitting sources, and unless it does so (or unless EPA
promulgates a Federal implementation plan (FIP) to do so), such sources
will be unable to receive preconstruction permits and therefore may not
be able to construct or modify. The second change is necessary because
without it, on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements would apply at the 100
or 250 tons per year (tpy) levels otherwise provided under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act), which would overwhelm Kentucky's permitting
resources. EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Kentucky's December 13,
2010, SIP revision because the Agency has made the determination that
this SIP revision is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations,
including regulations pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs.
Additionally, EPA is responding to adverse comments received on EPA's
November 5, 2010, proposed approval of Kentucky's August 5, 2010, SIP
revision.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective January 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0691. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for further information. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Kentucky
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits
Section, at the same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone number is
(404) 562-9185; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for today's final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of today's final action?
IV. When is today's action effective?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for today's final action?

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for today's final action for
the Kentucky SIP. The first four of these actions include, as they are
commonly called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\1\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \2\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \3\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \4\ Taken together, these actions established
regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they
take effect on January 2, 2011, will subject GHGs emitted from
stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. In a separate
action, EPA called on the Commonwealth of Kentucky and 12 other States
with SIPs that do not provide authority to issue PSD permits governing
GHGs to revise their SIPs to provide such authority (the ``GHG PSD SIP
Call'').\5\ EPA established a deadline of March 31, 2011, for Kentucky
(including the entire State, except for the Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District) to submit its GHG PSD SIP. Finally, in the
most recent action, EPA proposed to implement a FIP authorizing PSD
permitting for GHGs for those States that are unable to revise their
SIPs to provide that authority by the applicable deadline (the ``GHG
PSD FIP'').\6\ By a notice signed December 23, 2010, EPA finalized the
FIP for seven States:

Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \2\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \3\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \4\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
    \5\ ``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: Final Rule.'' 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
    \6\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 2010,\7\ in response to the Tailoring Rule and earlier
GHG-related EPA rules, and in anticipation of the GHG PSD SIP Call
rulemaking, KDAQ submitted a draft revision to EPA for approval into
the Kentucky SIP to: (1) Provide the Commonwealth with the authority to
regulate GHGs under its PSD program; and (2) establish appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary
sources become subject to Kentucky's PSD permitting requirements for
GHG emissions.\8\ Subsequently, on November 5, 2010, EPA published a
proposed rulemaking to approve a portion of Kentucky's August 5, 2010,
SIP revision under parallel processing. 75 FR 68272. Specifically,
Kentucky's August 5, 2010, draft SIP revision includes changes to
Kentucky's Air Quality Regulations, 401 KAR 51:001--Definitions for 401
KAR Chapter 51.\9\ The changes include incorporating by reference the
Federal definition for ``subject to regulation'' (as amended in the
Tailoring Rule at 51.166(b)(48)) and revising the definition for
``regulated NSR pollutant'' to provide authority for the Commonwealth
to regulate GHG and apply the Tailoring Rule's thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability. Detailed background information and EPA's
rationale for the proposed approval are provided in EPA's November 5,
2010, Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the transmittal letter for Kentucky's submission (the
subject of this action) is dated July 15, 2010, EPA did not
officially receive Kentucky's request for parallel processing until
August 5, 2010.
    \8\ Although Kentucky's August 5, 2010, draft SIP revision
included provisions (i.e., 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1(80)(b) and (c))
to incorporate changes pursuant to EPA's Fugitive Emissions Rule (73
FR 77882, December 19, 2008), the Commonwealth's final submission
did not include these provisions. Kentucky's December 14, 2010,
final SIP revision did include changes to exclude facilities that
produce ethanol through a natural fermentation process from the
definition of ``chemical process plants'' in the major NSR source
permitting program (i.e., 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1 (118)). However,
in today's final rulemaking, EPA is not taking any action on
Kentucky's provisions to exclude facilities that produce ethanol
through a natural fermentation process from the definition of
``chemical process plants'' in the major NSR permitting program.
    \9\ Kentucky's submittal also revises definitions for 401 KAR
52:001--Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 52; however, these
definitions relate to title V and are not included in the SIP. As
such, EPA is not taking final action to approve Kentucky's update to
these definitions in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed approval was contingent upon the
Commonwealth of Kentucky providing a final SIP revision that was
substantively the same as the revision proposed for approval by EPA in
the November 5, 2010, proposed rulemaking. 75 FR 68272. Kentucky
provided its final SIP revision on December 13, 2010. While there are
minor differences between the draft and final regulations, EPA has
determined that these differences do not warrant re-proposal of this
action. Kentucky's draft regulations proposed some changes to certain
definitions; however, Kentucky decided not to proceed with those
changes and instead chose to retain the definitions set forth in
Kentucky's regulations. The definitions retained from the prior version
of Kentucky's regulations had previously been approved by EPA and
incorporated into Kentucky's SIP. Kentucky's decision does not alter
the portions of the SIP revision authorizing Kentucky to issue PSD
permits governing GHGs and to implement the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
Thus, EPA concludes that Kentucky's decision to retain certain
definitions provided in its regulations does not warrant a new public
comment period prior to EPA's final approval of the SIP revision.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Kentucky's final rule also eliminates the draft provisions
(at 401 KAR 51:001 Section 1(80)(b) and (c) of the draft rule) that
would have incorporated changes pursuant to EPA's Fugitive Emissions
Rule, 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). As explained in the proposal,
75 FR 68273, EPA did not propose to take action on those provisions
because EPA has stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule (and the
associated amendments to 40 CFR part 51 and part 52) until October
3, 2011, to allow the Agency time to propose, take comment and issue
a final action regarding the inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR
applicability determinations. Therefore, Kentucky's decision not to
include those provisions in its final submittal has no impact on
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received two sets of comments on the November 5, 2010, proposed
rulemaking to approve revisions to Kentucky's SIP. One set of comments,
provided by the Sierra Club, was in favor of EPA's November 5, 2010,
proposed action. The other set of comments, provided by the Air
Permitting Forum, raised concerns with final action on EPA's November
5, 2010, proposed action. A full set of the comments provided by both
the Sierra Club and Air Permitting Forum (hereinafter referred to as
``the Commenter'') is provided in the docket for today's final action.
A summary of the adverse comments and EPA's responses are provided
below.
    Generally, the adverse comments fall into six categories. First,
the Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by
GHGs. Second, the Commenter objects to EPA's interpretation of the Act
that Kentucky will face a construction ban absent this SIP revision.
Third, the Commenter asserts that EPA's notice does not provide
sufficient information on which particular regulatory provisions are
proposed for approval in EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed action.
Fourth, the Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in the
November 5, 2010, proposal describing EPA's previously announced
intention to narrow its prior approval of some SIPs to ensure that
sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's
thresholds will not be obligated under Federal law to obtain PSD
permits prior to a SIP revision incorporating those thresholds. The
Commenter explains that the planned SIP approval narrowing action is
``inapplicable to this action and, if applicable, is illegal.'' Fifth,
the Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet applicable statutory
and executive order review requirements. Lastly, the Commenter states:
``EPA should explicitly state in any final rule that the continued
enforceability of these provisions in the Kentucky SIP is limited to
the extent to which the Federal requirements remain enforceable.''
EPA's response to these six categories of comments is provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be
triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the Commenter reiterates EPA's
statement that without the Tailoring Rule thresholds, PSD will apply as
of January 2, 2011, to all stationary sources that emit or have the
potential to emit, depending on the source category, either 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year. The Commenter also reiterates EPA's statement
that beginning January 2, 2011, a source owner proposing to construct
any new major source that emits at or higher than the GHG applicability
levels, or modify any existing major source in a way that would
increase GHG emissions, would need to obtain a PSD permit that
addresses these emissions before construction could begin. In raising
concerns with the two aforementioned statements, the Commenter states:
``[n]o area in the Commonwealth of Kentucky has been designated
attainment or unclassifiable for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is
no national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore,
GHGs cannot trigger PSD permitting.'' The Commenter notes that it made
this argument in detail in comments submitted to EPA on the Tailoring
Rule and other related GHG rulemakings. The Commenter attached those
previously submitted comments to its comments on the proposed

rulemaking related to this action. Finally, the Commenter states that
``EPA should immediately provide notice that it is now interpreting the
Act not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and allow Kentucky to rescind
that portion of its rules that would allow GHGs to trigger PSD.''
    Response 1: EPA established the requirement that PSD applies to all
pollutants newly subject to regulation, including non-NAAQS pollutants,
in earlier national rulemakings concerning the PSD program, and EPA has
not re-opened that issue in this rulemaking. In an August 7, 1980,
rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710-52712, and 45 FR 52735, EPA
stated that a ``major stationary source'' was one which emitted ``any
air pollutant subject to regulation under the Act'' at or above the
specified numerical thresholds; and defined a ``major modification,''
in general, as a physical or operational change that increased
emissions of ``any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act'' by
more than an amount that EPA variously termed as de minimis or
significant. In addition, in EPA's NSR Reform rule at 67 FR 80186 and
67 FR 80240 (December 31, 2002), EPA added to the PSD regulations the
new definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' (currently codified at 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)); noted that EPA added this
term based on a request from a commenter to ``clarify which pollutants
are covered under the PSD program;'' and explained that in addition to
criteria pollutants for which a NAAQS has been established, ``[t]he PSD
program applies automatically to newly regulated NSR pollutants, which
would include final promulgation of an NSPS [new source performance
standard] applicable to a previously unregulated pollutant.'' Id. at 67
FR 80240 and 67 FR 80264. Among other things, the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' includes ``[a]ny pollutant that otherwise
is subject to regulation under the Act.'' See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); see also id. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)(iv).
    In any event, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's underlying premise
that PSD requirements are not triggered for GHGs when GHGs become
subject to regulation as of January 2, 2011. As just noted, this has
been well established and discussed in connection with prior EPA
actions, including, most recently, the Johnson Reconsideration and the
Tailoring Rule. In addition, EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed
rulemaking notice provides the general basis for the Agency's rationale
that GHGs (while not a NAAQS pollutant) can trigger PSD permitting
requirements. The November 5, 2010, notice also refers the reader to
the preamble to the Tailoring Rule for further information on this
rationale. In that rulemaking, EPA addressed at length the comment that
PSD can be triggered only by pollutants subject to the NAAQS, and
concluded such an interpretation of the Act would contravene Congress'
unambiguous intent. See 75 FR 31560-31562. Further discussion of EPA's
rationale for concluding that PSD requirements are triggered by non-
NAAQS pollutants such as GHGs appears in the Tailoring Rule Response-
to-Comments document (``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments''), pp.
34-41; and in EPA's response to motions for a stay filed in the
litigation concerning those rules (``EPA's Response to Motions for
Stay,'' Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D. C. Cir. No. 09-
1322 (and consolidated cases)), at pp. 47-59, and are incorporated by
reference here. These documents have been placed in the docket for
today's action.
    Comment 2: The Commenter raised concerns regarding EPA's
interpretation of the Act that Kentucky will face a construction ban
absent this SIP revision. In its letter, the Commenter mentions that it
provided comments on EPA's GHG PSD SIP Call and GHG PSD FIP rulemakings
expressing that ``EPA's interpretation of the Act to impose a
construction ban based on Section 165(a) is incorrect.'' Further, the
Commenter states: ``No statutory language addressing implementation
plan requirements can be construed to produce self-executing changes to
SIPs or FIPs approved or promulgated under section 110 of the Act
unless Congress enacts statutory provisions explicitly amending those
SIPs or FIPs to incorporate new requirements, thereby obviating the
need for rulemaking under section 110(a) or (c) of the Act to effect
revisions to those implementation plans.'' The Commenter also contends
that there is no support for EPA's ``permit moratorium'' interpretation
because (in the Commenter's opinion) CAA section 165(a) is not self-
executing and approved SIPs and promulgated FIPs can only be changed
through section 110 rulemakings to revise those plans. In support of
its position, Commenter cites to United States v. Cinergy Corp., No.
09-3344 (7th Cir. October 12, 2010). The Commenter further states that
Kentucky would be able to issue PSD permits after January 2, 2011, even
without GHG limits, because its current SIP is approved and it would be
acting consistent with that approved SIP. Further, the Commenter states
that ``EPA's rule contemplated that states have 3 years to revise their
SIPs when an NSR-related change occurs and, assuming without conceding
that EPA could impose PSD on GHGs, EPA should have followed that
procedure in this case.''
    Response 2: EPA notes that the Agency provided an extensive
response in the final GHG SIP Call rulemaking to comments nearly
identical to comments received on this rulemaking, 75 FR 77698, and EPA
incorporates by reference those responses, as contained in the preamble
and the Tailoring Rule Response to Comment document, into this
rulemaking. The following gives examples of references in the GHG SIP
Call rulemaking preamble and record in which EPA responded to these, or
substantially similar, comments:
    With respect to the comments that (i) ``EPA's interpretation of the
Act to impose a construction ban based on Section 165(a) is
incorrect;'' (ii) ``No statutory language addressing implementation
plan requirements can be construed to produce self-executing changes to
SIPs or FIPs approved or promulgated under section 110 of the Act
unless Congress enacts statutory provisions explicitly amending those
SIPs or FIPs to incorporate new requirements, thereby obviating the
need for rulemaking under section 110(a) or (c) of the Act to effect
revisions to those implementation plans;'' and (iii) there is no
support for EPA's ``permit moratorium'' interpretation because (in the
Commenter's opinion) CAA section 165(a) is not self-executing and
approved SIPs and promulgated FIPs can only be changed through section
110 rulemakings to revise those plans, see, for example, 75 FR 77705 in
footnote 16, and 75 FR 77710-77711. EPA notes further that the
requirement of CAA section 165(a)(1) that stationary sources that emit
the requisite quantity of pollutants subject to regulation obtain a
pre-construction permit is mandated by the CAA and is automatically
updated to apply to any pollutant newly subject to regulation; thus,
contrary to the commenter's statement, EPA is not construing the CAA to
``produce self-executing changes to SIPs * * *.'' In addition, today's
action does not create what the Commenter calls a ``permit
moratorium''; in fact today's rule puts in place a permitting authority
for GHG-emitting sources for Kentucky only one day after GHG PSD
permitting requirements go into effect. Further, no ``self-executing
changes'' to Kentucky's SIP are made in today's action; EPA is simply
approving Kentucky's submitted

December 13, 2010, SIP revision according to the proper process.
    With respect to the comment that a decision by Judge Posner (i.e.,
United States v. Cinergy Corp., No. 09-3344 (7th Cir. October 12,
2010)) directly addresses this issue, see 75 FR 77705 in footnote 16.
    With respect to the comment that Kentucky would be able to issue
PSD permits after January 2, 2011, even without GHG limits, because its
current SIP is approved and it would be acting consistent with that
approved SIP, EPA notes that it is true that Kentucky could issue such
a permit to cover the non-GHG pollutants emitted by a source. If the
source emits GHGs in at least the specified amount, however, then the
source would need a PSD permit for its GHG emissions. Kentucky, absent
an approved SIP revision applying the State's PSD program to GHGs,
would not have the authority to issue such a permit.
    With respect to the comment that ``EPA's rule contemplated that
States have 3 years to revise their SIPs when an NSR-related change
occurs and, assuming without conceding that EPA could impose PSD on
GHGs, EPA should have followed that procedure in this case,'' see 75 FR
77707-77708. In any event, the proper length of time EPA must provide
States to act is also irrelevant to this rule because this action deals
with a SIP revision actually submitted by Kentucky to EPA for approval.
    Comment 3: The Commenter indicates that EPA's proposed action on
Kentucky's draft rules is inconsistent with CAA section 110 because it
does not provide for Federal notice and comment on the final State
action.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that EPA's
proposed action is inconsistent with section 110 of the CAA because
EPA's proposed approval was based on a draft form of the Commonwealth's
regulations. As explained in our proposal at 75 FR 68273, EPA utilized
a ``parallel processing'' procedure for this SIP revision. Under this
procedure, EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the State's
procedures for approving a SIP submittal and amending its regulations
(40 CFR part 51, appendix V, 2.3). EPA reviews that SIP submittal, even
though the regulation is not yet adopted in final form by the State, as
if it were a final, adopted regulation. In doing so, EPA evaluates the
draft regulation against the same approvability criteria as any other
SIP submittal. Thus, we have not used the ``parallel processing''
procedure to avoid any statutory requirements. In this case, as
explained earlier in this notice, EPA has determined that the minor
differences between the draft and final regulations are not significant
and do not warrant re-proposal of this action. Accordingly, the
proposal gave the public the appropriate opportunity to comment on the
substance of the August 5, 2010, SIP revision for which EPA is today
issuing a final approval.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA's proposed rulemaking does
not provide sufficient information on which particular revisions are
included in the November 5, 2010, proposed action. Specifically, the
Commenter mentions that EPA does not provide citations or other
explicit reference to what EPA is actually approving. The Commenter
states that ``this failure makes it impossible for the public to
meaningfully assess and comment regarding the provisions on which EPA
proposes to act.'' Further, the Commenter explains that the docket
contained over 100 pages of underline/strikeout regulatory text, much
of which is already in the Kentucky SIP.
    Response 4: EPA disagrees that the November 5, 2010, proposed
rulemaking does not provide sufficient information on which particular
regulatory provisions EPA was proposing for approval. To the contrary,
in the section entitled ``V. What is EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's
Proposed SIP Revision?'' of the November 5, 2010, proposal, EPA
explains that the proposed rulemaking would approve changes to
Kentucky's regulations, at 401 KAR 51:001--Definitions for 401 KAR
Chapter 51, including an update to the definition of ``subject to
regulation'' that provides the Commonwealth with authority to issue PSD
permits governing GHGs and establishes appropriate GHG emission
thresholds for PSD applicability. 75 FR 68278. Additionally, EPA's
November 5, 2010, notice identifies those portions of Kentucky's
submittal that are not being acted upon in this proceeding. See 75 FR
68273 and 68278 n.10. Finally, as the Commenter notes, the docket for
this action includes a marked up version of 401 KAR 51:001--Definitions
for 401 KAR Chapter 51 showing the revisions under consideration. Thus,
EPA sufficiently identified the particular SIP revisions at issue in
this action.
    Comment 5: The Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in
which EPA describes its previously announced intention to narrow its
prior approval of some SIPs to ensure that sources with GHG emissions
that are less than the Tailoring Rule's thresholds will not be
obligated under Federal law to obtain PSD permits during any gap
between when GHG permitting requirements go into effect and when the
SIP is revised to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The
Commenter explains that narrowing is ``inapplicable to this action and,
if applicable, is illegal.''
    Response 5: While EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion
that the narrowing approach discussed in EPA's Tailoring Rule is
illegal, EPA does acknowledge that the narrowing approach is
inapplicable to the action that EPA is today taking for Kentucky's
December 13, 2010, SIP revision. In today's final action, EPA is acting
to approve a SIP revision submitted by Kentucky, and is not otherwise
narrowing its approval of prior submitted and approved provisions in
the Kentucky SIP. Accordingly, the legality of the narrowing approach
is not at issue in this rulemaking.
    Comment 6: The Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements.
Specifically, the Commenter refers to the statutory and executive
orders for the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and Executive Order 13132
(Federalism). Additionally, the Commenter mentions that EPA has never
analyzed the costs and benefits associated with triggering PSD for
stationary sources in Kentucky, much less nationwide.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA
has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review
requirements. As stated in EPA's proposed approval of Kentucky's
December 13, 2010, SIP revision, this action merely approves State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, EPA
approval, in and of itself, does not impose any new information
collection burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and (c), that would
require additional review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In
addition, this SIP approval will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, beyond that which would be
required by the State law requirements, so a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required under the RFA. Accordingly, this rule is
appropriately certified under section 605(b) of the RFA. Moreover, as
this action 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 mandates or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, such that it

would be subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally, this
action does not have federalism implications that would make Executive
Order 13132 applicable because it merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
    In sum, today's rule is a routine approval of a SIP revision,
approving State law, and does not impose any requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. To the extent these comments are directed more
generally to the application of the statutory and executive order
reviews to the required regulation of GHGs under PSD programs, these
comments are irrelevant to the approval of State law in today's action.
However, EPA provided an extensive response to similar comments in
promulgating the Tailoring Rule. EPA refers the Commenter to the
sections in the Tailoring Rule entitled ``VII. Comments on Statutory
and Executive Order Reviews,'' 75 FR 31601-31603, and ``VI. What are
the economic impacts of the final rule?,'' 75 FR 31595-31601. EPA also
notes that today's action does not in-and-of itself trigger the
regulation of GHGs. To the contrary, by putting in place higher PSD
applicability thresholds for GHGs than would otherwise be in effect
under the Act, this rulemaking, as well as EPA's Tailoring Rule,
provides relief to smaller GHG-emitting sources that would otherwise be
subject to PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions.
    Comment 7: The Commenter states that ``[i]f EPA proceeds with this
action, it must condition approval on the continued validity of its
determination that PSD can be triggered by or is applicable to GHGs.''
Further, the Commenter remarks on the ongoing litigation in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Specifically, regarding EPA's
determination that PSD can be triggered by GHGs or is applicable to
GHGs, the Commenter mentions that ``EPA should explicitly state in any
final rule that continued enforceability of these provisions in the
Kentucky SIP is limited to the extent to which the Federal requirements
remain enforceable.'' The Commenter notes that if a stay is issued,
these requirements should also be stayed.
    Response 7: EPA believes that it is most appropriate to take
actions that are consistent with the Federal regulations that are in
place at the time the action is being taken. To the extent that any
changes to Federal regulations related to today's action result from
pending legal challenges or other actions, EPA will process appropriate
SIP revisions in accordance with the procedures provided in the Act and
EPA's regulations. EPA notes that in an order dated December 10, 2010,
the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied motions to
stay EPA's regulatory actions related to GHGs. Coalition for
Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-1073, 10-1092
(and consolidated cases), Slip Op. at 3 (DC Cir. December 10, 2010)
(order denying stay motions).

III. What is the effect of today's final action?

    Final approval of Kentucky's December 13, 2010, SIP revision will
make Kentucky's SIP adequate with respect to PSD requirements for GHG-
emitting sources, thereby negating the need for a GHG PSD FIP.
Furthermore, final approval of Kentucky's SIP revision will put in
place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in
EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), ensuring that smaller
GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to
permitting requirements when these requirements begin applying to GHGs
on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
approving a portion of the changes made in Kentucky's December 13,
2010, proposed SIP revision into the Commonwealth's SIP.
    The changes to Kentucky's SIP-approved PSD program that EPA is
approving today are to Kentucky's rules which have been formatted to
conform to Kentucky's rule drafting standards for 401 KAR 51:001--
Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51, but in substantive content the
rules that address the Tailoring Rule provisions are the same as the
Federal rules. As part of its review of the Kentucky submittal, EPA
performed a line-by-line review of Kentucky's proposed SIP changes and
has determined that the provisions that EPA is approving today are
consistent with the Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA has determined
that the December 13, 2010, revision to Kentucky's SIP is consistent
with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring Rule, at 75 FR 31561.

IV. When is today's action effective?

    EPA is making the effective date of today's final action the same
day as the Commonwealth's effective date for its rulemaking. In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this
action to become effective on January 3, 2011. This is because a
delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of the
Commonwealth's changes to its PSD regulations, which provide the
Commonwealth with the needed authority to regulate GHG-emitting sources
for permitting purposes. Additionally, Kentucky's changes to its PSD
regulations to establish appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability with respect to new or modified GHG-
emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule, thereby
relieving the Commonwealth from certain CAA requirements that would
otherwise apply to it. The January 3, 2011, effective date for this
action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' The purpose
of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare
before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not
create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would
need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule
provides sources emitting GHGs at or above the higher emissions
thresholds with a permitting authority from which it can seek the
permits which, prior to this rule, Federal and State law already
required them to seek, and relieves the sources within the Commonwealth
from considering the lower emissions thresholds for GHG permitting
purposes. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) for this action to become effective January 3, 2011.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's December 13, 2010, SIP revision, which includes updates to
Kentucky's air quality regulations, 401 KAR 51:001--Definitions for 401
KAR Chapter 51, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources.
Significantly, Kentucky's December 13, 2010, SIP revision: (1) Provides
the Commonwealth with the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD
program, and (2) establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability with respect to new or modified GHG-
emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made
the determination that the December 13, 2010, SIP revision is

approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA
regulations, including regulations pertaining to PSD permitting for
GHGs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 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
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this 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 the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 February 28, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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 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, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920(c) table 1 is amended by revising the entry for
``401 KAR 51:001'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA-Approved Kentucky Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         State citation              Title/subject      effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
               Chapter 51 Attainment and Maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
401 KAR 51:001..................  Definitions for 401   01/03/2011  12/29/2010 [Insert   Except the phrase
                                   KAR Chapter 51.                   citation of          ``except ethanol
                                                                     publication].        production facilities
                                                                                producing ethanol by
                                                                                natural fermentation
                                                                                under the North
                                                                                American Industry
                                                                                Classification System
                                                                                (NAICS) codes 325193
                                                                                or 312140,'' in 401
                                                                                KAR 51:001 Section 1
                                                                                (118)(a)(2)(a) and the
                                                                                phrase ``except
                                                                                ethanol production
                                                                                facilities producing
                                                                                ethanol by natural
                                                                                fermentation under
                                                                                NAICS codes 325193 or
                                                                                312140,'' in 401 KAR
                                                                                51:001 Section 1
                                                                                (118)(3)(b)(20).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-32664 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56118-56119]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Indianapolis
International Airport, Indianapolis, Indiana

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change 1.423 acres of
airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use of airport
property located at Indianapolis International Airport, Indianapolis,
Indiana. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use.
The land is made up of one parcel and is located along the White River,
just west of downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. It was the site of a
decommissioned outer marker which has been removed and the land is
vacant with no future aeronautical use. The Sponsor is proposing to
release and ultimately sell the land to the City of Indianapolis in its
revitalization efforts of Belmont Beach.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: All requisite and supporting documentation will be made
available for review by appointment at the FAA Chicago Airports
District Office, Melanie Myers, Program Manager, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:
(847) 294-7046 and Eric Anderson, Director of Properties, Indianapolis
Airport Authority, 7800 Col. H. Weir Cook Memorial Drive, Indianapolis,
IN 46241 Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request may be submitted using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Melanie Myers, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to mail address above between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Myers, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Telephone: (847) 294-
7525/Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The land consists of one original airport acquired parcel. The
parcel was acquired under Airport Improvement Program grant 3-18-0038-
020 and local funding. The Sponsor is proposing to release the land
from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and intends to ultimately
sell the land at fair market value for future public use. This is all
vacant land and is not needed for aeronautical purposes.
    The disposition of proceeds from any future sale of the airport
property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal
Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Indianapolis International Airport,
Indianapolis, Indiana from federal land covenants, subject to a
reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on
the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16.
Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a
determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

Land Description

    PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34 IN TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH,
OF RANGE 3 EAST OF THE SECOND PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
    BEGINNING IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION AT A POINT
DISTANT 2016.94 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF, SAID
BEGINNING POINT BEING IN THE NORTH LINE OF THE WHITE RIVER BOULEVARD
PER MISCELLANEOUS RECORD 694, PAGE 296 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
MARION COUNTY RECORDER; THENCE SOUTH 74 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 08 SECONDS
EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 112.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 27
MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST 69.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 32 MINUTES
12 SECONDS EAST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE AND THE NORTH LINE OF
WHITE RIVER BOULEVARD; THENCE TO THE RIGHT ON SAID CURVE AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 203.28 FEET, SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 1146.28 FEET AND
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD BEARING SOUTH 85 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 52 SECONDS
EAST 203.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST
46.78 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LAND TRACT CONVEYED TO THE
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF ITS BOARD OF FLOOD
CONTROL COMMISSIONERS AND THE INDIANAPOLIS FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT BY
INSTRUMENT NUMBER 66-46498; THENCE NORTH 53 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 30
SECONDS WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LAND TRACT 480.34 FEET TO THE
WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 40 MINUTES
43 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 264.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
    CONTAINING 1.423 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on August 10, 2023.
Debra L. Bartell,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2023-17706 Filed 8-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 232 (Thursday, December 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 75701]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-60]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Freight
Runners Express, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal
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 December 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-4436
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: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20009.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 25, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-4436.
    Petitioner: Freight Runners Express, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 135.128(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: Freight Runners Express, Inc. is
requesting an exemption from Sec.  135.128(a) to allow FAA-certificated
flight attendants to perform duties related to the safety of the
airplane and its occupants by leaving their duty stations during taxi.

[FR Doc. 2015-30574 Filed 12-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Docket No:  FAA-2006-23639

Deadline for Notification of Intent to use the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) Sponsor, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement Funds for
Fiscal Year 20036.

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration, DOT

ACTION:  Notice.

SUMMARY:  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces May 1,
2006, as the deadline for each airport sponsor to notify the FAA that it
will use its fiscal year 2006 entitlement funds to accomplish projects
identified in the Airports Capital Improvement Plan that was formulated
in the spring of 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Barry Molar, Manager, Airports
Financial Assistance Division, Office of Airport Planning and
Programming,

APP-500, on<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

	Section 47105(f) of Title 49, United States Code, provides that the
sponsor of each airport to which funds are apportioned shall notify the
Secretary by such time and in a form as prescribed by the Secretary, of
the sponsor’s intent to apply for the funds apportioned to it
(entitlements).  This notice applies only to those airports that have
had entitlement funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary
airports located in designated Block Grant States.  Notification of the
sponsor’s intent to apply during fiscal year 2006 for any of its
available entitlement funds including those unused from prior years,
shall be in the form of inclusion of projects for fiscal year 2006 in
the Airports Capital Improvement Plan.

	This notice is promulgated to expedite and prioritize grants in the
final quarter of the fiscal year.  Absent an acceptable application by
May 1, 2006, FAA will defer an airport’s entitlement funds until the
next fiscal year.  Pursuant to the authority and limitations in section
47117(f), FAA will issue discretionary grants in an aggregate amount not
to exceed the aggregate amount of deferred entitlement funds.  Airport
sponsors may request unused entitlements after September 30, 2006.

Issued in Washington, DC on                .

________________________

Barry L. Molar

Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   1