			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 22, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET OST-1997-2880

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

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

Joint Application of CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. AND VIRGIN ATLANTIC
AIRWAYS LIMITED, filed  July 8, 2003, to amend Notice of Action Taken
dated  October 3, 1997, and confirmed by Order 97-11-19 in this Docket,
in order to grant new exemption authority and statements of
authorization to Continental and Virgin Atlantic, to provide the
carriers with the following additional authority:

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

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between any point or points in the United States and any point or points
in the United Kingdom, directly and via intermediate points, and beyond
the United Kingdom to any point or points in third countries, limited to
operations under its code-sharing agreement with Virgin Atlantic,
whereby Continental will place its code on flights operated by Virgin
Atlantic; and to combine this authority with authority at other points
Continental is authorized to serve by certificate or exemption.

XX  Exemption for Virgin Atlantic under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between any point or points in the United Kingdom and any point or
points in the United States, via Virgin Atlantic’s authorized U.S.
gateways, and beyond the United States to any point or points in third
countries, limited to operations under its code-sharing agreement with
Continental, whereby Virgin Atlantic will place its code on flights
operated by Continental.

XX Statement of Authorization for Continental under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Display Virgin Atlantic’s “VS*” designator code on flights
operated by Continental between (1) points in the United States; (2)
points in the United States and regional airports in the United Kingdom,
either nonstop or via third-country intermediates; and (3) points in
the United States and points in third countries, either nonstop or via
third-country intermediates.

XX Statement of Authorization for Virgin Atlantic under 14 CFR Part 212
to:

Display Continental’s “CO*” designator code on flights operated by
Virgin Atlantic between (1) points in the United Kingdom; (2) points in
the United States and regional airports in the United Kingdom either
nonstop or via third-country intermediates; and (3) points in the
United Kingdom and points in third countries, either nonstop or via
third-country intermediates.

The applicants initially propose to conduct code-share operations under
this authority over the routes set forth in Appendix D to this Notice.

Applicant reps:  Bruce Keiner (Continental)<PHONE_NUMBER> and Anita
Mosner (Virgin Atlantic)<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:    George Wellington<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to limitations and conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: August 22, 2003, through
August 22, 2005.

Responsive Pleadings:  United Air Lines, Inc. and British Midland
Airways Limited d/b/a bmi (United/bmi) and the City of Houston and the
Greater Houston Partnership (the Houston Parties) filed answers to the
request.  Continental and Virgin Atlantic filed replies.  United/bmi
filed a consolidated response to the replies of the applicants.

The Houston Parties support the application.

United/bmi state in their pleadings that they have no objection to the
request so long as the Department grants the application for code-share
authority that United/bmi have filed in Docket OST 2003-15758, but that
otherwise, the request should be denied.  United/bmi state that the
proposed Continental/Virgin Atlantic arrangement would allow Continental
to place its code on any Virgin Atlantic flight between the United
States and the United Kingdom, including flights to and from London
Heathrow and London Gatwick.  They state that the currently-authorized
extrabilateral Continental/Virgin Atlantic code-share primarily benefits
Virgin Atlantic, while United/bmi have entered into a similar code-share
arrangement where the operating carrier, United, would receive the
greater benefit.  Moreover, they state that the new authority at issue
in the applicants’ July 8, 2003, request will enable them to enhance
their extrabilateral code-sharing and that it far exceeds the
beyond-gateway or U.S.-Manchester authority held by United/bmi.

United/bmi note that the Department recently turned down United’s
request to implement its antitrust immunity with bmi, and states that
now United and bmi are requesting the ability to allow bmi to code share
on United’s U.S.-London Heathrow flights, the same kind of
extrabilateral code-share authority Continental and Virgin Atlantic are
seeking to renew and expand, and that this request would offer
comparable public benefits to the Continental/Virgin Atlantic
arrangement.

Virgin Atlantic states that while it will not address the merits of a
United/bmi application pending in another Docket, the authority sought
by United/bmi is different and broader than the new authority
Continental and Virgin Atlantic are seeking here.  It states that,
contrary to the assertion of United/bmi, Continental and Virgin Atlantic
are not seeking new U.S.-London code-share authority, but only authority
between the United States and regional U.K. airports, and that this new
authority is “virtually identical” to that already held by
United/bmi and American/British Airways.  It states that the Department
has found that such services provide public benefits, including benefits
from the carriage of beyond-segment code-share passengers.  Virgin
Atlantic disputes United/bmi’s claim that its code-share arrangement
with Continental is imbalanced in its favor, stating that the
arrangement will benefit both carriers

Continental also states that it and Virgin Atlantic are not requesting
to market transatlantic services to London airports, only to regional
U.K. airports.  It states that the addition of the proposed
Continental/Virgin Atlantic beyond-gateway code-share services will have
very little impact on United or bmi.  It further states that United/bmi
already have extensive code-share operations, and that it opposes the
award of code-share authority between the United States and London
Heathrow to either American/British Airways or United/bmi, because of
their dominance at London Heathrow.  Continental also states that to the
extent United/bmi are opposing renewal of the existing
Continental/Virgin Atlantic authority in this Docket, they are too late;
and that while United/bmi have been denied U.S.-London Heathrow
code-sharing authority, it is because of the unwillingness of the United
Kingdom to open London Heathrow to effective new competition.

Decision:  We have decided to amend the Notice of Action Taken dated
October 3, 1997, in this Docket, to add to the authority conferred by
that Notice the exemptions and statements of authorization for
Continental and Virgin Atlantic described herein, subject to certain
limitations and conditions.

Our action here grants the applicants the following authority, subject
to the conditions described herein:

Continental:

 I. Exemption authority to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation
of persons, property, and mail between any point or points in the United
States and regional airports in the United Kingdom, directly and via
intermediate points, and beyond the United Kingdom to any point or
points in third countries, limited to operations under its code-sharing
agreement with Virgin Atlantic, whereby Continental will place its code
on flights operated by Virgin Atlantic; and to combine this authority
with authority at other points Continental is authorized to serve by
certificate or exemption.

II. A statement of authorization to display Virgin Atlantic’s
“VS*” designator code on flights operated by Continental between (1)
points in the United States; (2) points in the United States and
regional airports in the United Kingdom, either nonstop or via
third-country intermediates; and (3) points in the United States and
points in third countries, either nonstop or via third-country
intermediates.

Virgin Atlantic:

 I. Exemption authority to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation
of persons, property, and mail between any point or points in the United
Kingdom and any point or points in the United States, via Virgin
Atlantic’s authorized U.S. gateways, and beyond the United States to
any point or points in third countries, limited to operations under its
code-sharing agreement with Continental, whereby Virgin Atlantic will
place its code on flights operated by Continental.

 II. A statement of authorization to display Continental’s “CO*”
designator code on flights operated by Virgin Atlantic between (1)
points in the United Kingdom; (2) points in the United States and
regional airports in the United Kingdom either nonstop or via
third-country intermediates; and (3) points in the United Kingdom and
points in third countries, either nonstop or via third-country
intermediates.

Our basis for grant of this authority, as limited and conditioned by
this Notice, is the 1995 Memorandum of Consultations between the United
States and the United Kingdom (MOC).  We also find that the services we
are authorizing will enhance competition in the markets involved, to the
benefit of the traveling and shipping public.  Moreover, the authority
is comparable to authority we recently granted to American and British
Airways (see Order 2003-5-33).

We have decided not to grant Continental the broad authority it seeks to
hold out code-share services between any point in the United States and
London, as such expansive authority is not available to a carrier of the
United States at this time.

With respect to the concerns raised by United/bmi and not already
addressed above, we find, in light of the public interest and
precedential factors already cited, that the question of which carrier
in a code-share relationship may benefit more is not decisional here.
As to United/bmi’s assertion that we should grant Continental/Virgin
Atlantic the authority they seek only if we grant the application of
United/bmi for code-share authorities in Docket OST-2003-15758, we note
that the United/bmi request is pending before the Department and we will
issue a decision in that case soon.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

                               Office of International Aviation

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

	XX   Continental’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX   Virgin Atlantic’s foreign air carrier permit

	XX   Standard Exemption Conditions (attached as Appendices A and B)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------Conditions:  The exemption authority granted to Continental
and Virgin Atlantic is limited to services provided on a code-share
basis only.  The code-share operations conducted under this
authorization are subject to the conditions contained in Appendices A,
B, and C below.  Continental and Virgin Atlantic may initially conduct
the authorized code-share operations over the routes set forth in
Appendix D to this Notice; and may conduct code-share operations in
additional markets subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations of
this Notice, and in particular conditions (b) and (e) of Appendix C.

The route integration authority granted to Continental is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Continental rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Continental notifies the Department of its intent to
serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed
any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any such carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that
are included in Continental’s authority by virtue of the route
integration authority granted here, but that are not then being used by
Continental, the holding of such authority by route integration will not
be considered as providing any preference for Continental in a
competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s)
should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
_________________

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

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

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

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

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.aspAPPENDIX A

U.S. CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

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

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

APPENDIX B

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CODE-SHARE CONDITIONS			APPENDIX C

The code-share operations authorized here are subject to the following
conditions:

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

(b)  Continental and/or Virgin Atlantic must notify the Department no
later than 30 days before they begin any new code-share service under
the code-share services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the
market(s) to be served, which carrier will be operating the aircraft in
the code-share market added, and the date on which the service will
begin.  Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-1997-2280;

(c)  Continental and/or Virgin Atlantic must notify the Department
immediately if the code-share agreement under which these code-share
services are operated is no longer in effect or if the carriers decide
to cease operating all or a portion of the approved code-share services.
 We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.  Such notices should be filed in
Docket OST-1997-2280;

(d)  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendments to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be
unaffected; and that the operating carrier shall not permit the code of
its U.S. code-sharing partner to be carried on any flight that enters,
departs, or transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the
Federal Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition;

(e)  The authority to operate to third countries is subject to the
condition that any service provided under the statement of authorization
shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United
States and the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (i) nothing in
the award of this blanket statement of authorization should be construed
as conferring upon Continental and Virgin Atlantic rights (including
code-share, fifth freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve
markets where U.S. carrier rights are limited unless Continental and
Virgin Atlantic notify us of their intent to serve such a market and
unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights;1 and (ii) should there be a request by any
carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
Continental and Virgin Atlantic’s authority by virtue of the blanket
statement of authorization granted here, but that are not being used by
Continental and Virgin Atlantic, the holding of such authority will not
be considered as providing any preference for Continental and Virgin
Atlantic in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine
which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue; and

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

________________________

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

APPENDIX D

The Joint Applicants initially propose to conduct code-share operations
in the following markets:

Continental (CO*) on Virgin Atlantic (VS) between London and:

Lagos, Nigeria

Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Virgin Atlantic (VS*) on Continental (CO) between New York/Newark and:

Albany, NY

Birmingham, AL

Boston, MA

Buffalo, NY

Burlington, VT

Cleveland, OH

Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Hartford, CT

Houston, TX

Indianapolis, IN

Jacksonville, FL

Las Vegas, NV

Los Angeles, CA

Manchester, NH

Nashville, TN

New Orleans, LA

Norfolk, VA

Omaha, NE

Orlando, FL

Portland, ME

Providence, RI

Rochester, NY

Syracuse, NY

Tampa, FL

Washington, DC

West Palm Beach, FL

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Halifax, Canada

Montreal, Canada

Ottawa, Canada

Quebec, Canada

Toronto, Canada

 That Notice gave (1) Continental an exemption to conduct scheduled
operations between named U.S. cities and London Heathrow; named U.S.
cities and London Gatwick, and Orlando and Manchester, limited to
code-share operations with Virgin Atlantic; (2) Continental a statement
of authorization to display Virgin Atlantic’s code on Continental
flights between Newark and London Gatwick; and (3) Virgin Atlantic a
statement of authorization to display Continental’s code on Virgin
Atlantic flights over the routes granted to Continental by exemption in
(1) above.  The carriers filed an application to renew this authority,
and the authority remains in effect under the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §558(c), and 14 CFR Part 377 of
the Department’s regulations.

 “Regional airports” in the United Kingdom refer to all U.K.
airports, except Heathrow and Gatwick.

 United/bmi accompanied this latter pleading with a motion for leave to
file late.  We will grant the motion.

 As noted in footnote 1 above, the other authority contained in the
Notice of Action Taken dated October 3, 1997, in this Docket, remains in
effect under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. §558(c), and 14 CFR Part 377 of the Department’s regulations.
Our action here amending this Notice of Action Taken does not affect the
status of that previously awarded authority.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17585-17592]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7470]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0309; FRL-9287-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal from the state of Missouri addressing the requirements
of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone. Section 110(a)(1) requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP to support implementation of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated
by the EPA and these SIPs are commonly referred to as
``infrastructure'' SIPs. EPA believes that Missouri's infrastructure
SIP adequately addresses the elements described in section 110(a)(2)
and further described in the October 2, 2007, guidance for
infrastructure SIPs issued by the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. However, because EPA already approved the portion of
Missouri's SIP submittal relating to the interstate transport
infrastructure element, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), this proposed
rulemaking does not address the interstate transport element, nor does
this proposal reopen any aspect of EPA's prior action on the interstate
transport element. Furthermore, this action does not address
infrastructure requirements with respect to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS or the 2006 revisions to the NAAQS. Those requirements will be
addressed in future rulemaking.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2011-0309 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning and Development Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste
Management Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Ms. Elizabeth
Kramer, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste Management Division, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2011-0309. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and should be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning and
Development Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: (913)
551-7186; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?
II. What elements are applicable under section 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the
relevant elements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is a section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP?

    Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require, in part, that states
submit to EPA plans to implement, maintain and enforce each of the
NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These provisions require states to address
basic SIP requirements including, for example, adequate provisions for
emission inventory development, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance of the applicable standards. By statute,
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be
submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or
revised standard. These SIPs are commonly referred to as
``infrastructure'' SIPs.

II. What elements are applicable under section 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure
SIP elements required under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ EPA will address these
elements below under the following headings: (A) Emission limits and
other control measures; (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system;
(C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source Review
for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of all
stationary sources); (D) Interstate and international transport; (E)
Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight; (F)
Stationary source monitoring system; (G) Emergency authority; (H)
Future SIP revisions; (I) Nonattainment areas; \2\ (J) Consultation
with government officials, public notification, prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD), and visibility protection; \3\ (K) Air
quality and modeling/data; (L) Permitting fees; and (M) Consultation/
participation by affected local entities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X,
October 2, 2007.
    \2\ As discussed in further detail below, subsection
110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable for the infrastructure SIP approval
process and therefore EPA will take action on the requirements of
part D attainment plans separately.
    \3\ As discussed in further detail below, subsection
110(a)(2)(J), as it relates to visibility protection, is also not
applicable for the infrastructure SIP approval process, and
therefore EPA is not addressing it in today's proposed rulemaking.
    \4\ This action also does not address infrastructure
requirements with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or the
2006 revisions to the NAAQS. Those requirements will be addressed in
future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's evaluation of how the state addressed the relevant
elements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new 8-hour ozone and new fine
particulate matter primary and secondary NAAQS. (62 FR 38894; 62 FR
38711.) On February 27, 2007, EPA Region 7 received the state of
Missouri's ozone and particulate matter infrastructure SIP submittal.
The SIP submission was determined to be complete on March 27, 2007. EPA
has reviewed the state's formal submission and the relevant statutory
and regulatory authorities and provisions generally referenced in the
submittal from Missouri.
    As described below, today's action only pertains to the 1997 ozone
standard; it does not pertain to EPA's 1997 promulgation of the
PM2.5 standards. In addition, it does not address issues
relating to interstate transport under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
have already been addressed for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS in prior rulemaking (72 FR 25975).
    Missouri's SIP submittal addresses the provisions of section
110(a)(1) and (2) as described below. EPA believes that Missouri has
the adequate infrastructure needed to address all applicable elements
of section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and
other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance
and other related matters as needed to implement, maintain and enforce
each NAAQS.
    The state of Missouri's Air Conservation Law and Air Pollution
Control Rules authorize the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) to regulate air quality and implement air quality control
regulations. Section 643.030 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (``Air
Conservation Law'') authorizes the ``Air Conservation Commission of the
State of Missouri'' (MACC) to control air pollution, which is defined
in Section 643.020 to include air contaminants, which cause or
contribute to injury to public health or welfare. Section 643.050
authorizes the MACC to classify and identify air contaminants.
    State rule 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.010 (``Ambient
Air Quality Standards'') adopts the 1997 ozone standards promulgated by
EPA. EPA also notes that emissions from new and existing sources of
both volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX)--which are known ozone precursors \5\--are also
regulated (e.g., 10 CSR 10-2.360 relating to VOC emissions from bakery
ovens in Kansas City, 10 CSR 10-5.510 relating to NOX
emissions from various sources in the St. Louis area). In addition, 10
CSR 10-6.040 incorporates by reference the relevant appendices in 40
CFR part 50 for measuring and calculating the concentration of
photochemical oxidants (ozone) in the atmosphere to determine whether
the ozone standards have been met. Therefore, ozone is an air
contaminant which may be regulated under Missouri law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ VOCs and NOX as precursors to ozone are also
discussed in element (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 643.050 of the Air Conservation Law authorizes the MACC,
among other things, to regulate the use of air contaminant sources and
to establish emissions limitations for air contaminant sources.
Missouri also establishes timetables for compliance in its rules, as
appropriate. Appendix A of the state submittal contains a link to the
Missouri Air Conservation Law and Appendix C contains a link to
Missouri's Effective State Rules and Forms.
    EPA notes that 10 CSR 10-6.050 provides that sources may submit
information relating to excess emissions during startup, shutdown or
malfunction (SSM) events, but expressly provides that nothing in this
rule limits the ability of MDNR or the MACC to

take appropriate enforcement action. In today's proposed rulemaking,
EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state
provisions with regard to excess emissions during a SSM of operations
at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions
that are contrary to the Clean Air Act and existing EPA guidance,\6\
and the Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future.
In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM
provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, September 20,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that the Air Conservation Law contains provisions at
Sections 643.055 and 643.110, which give the MACC the authority, under
certain circumstances, to grant variances from rules and regulations
established pursuant to the Clean Air Act.\7\ Furthermore, the Missouri
air regulations contain provisions which allow the Director of MDNR to
exercise his or her discretion to approve alternatives to the Missouri
regulations (see, e.g., 10 CSR 10-6.030(19), which allows for the use
of an alternative sampling method). In this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard
to ``variance'' or ``Director's discretion'' provisions. EPA believes
that a number of states have such provisions that are contrary to the
Clean Air Act and existing EPA guidance,\8\ and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a ``variance'' or
``Director's discretion'' provision that is contrary to the Clean Air
Act and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ With respect to Missouri, we note that the EPA-approved SIP
rules do not contain variance provisions. In any event, any
variances issued by the MACC under its statutory authority must be
approved by EPA as revisions to the SIP before they can alter any
requirements of the approved SIP (see, 40 CFR 51.104(d)).
    \8\ J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, Thomas L. Adams, Jr., Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, and Francis S. Blake, General
Counsel, Office of General Counsel. ``Review of State Implementation
Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency.''
Memorandum, September 23, 1987. See also 52 FR 45109 (November 24,
1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that Missouri has statutory and regulatory authority
to establish additional emissions limitations and other measures, as
necessary to address attainment and maintenance of the ozone standards.
Therefore, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collection
and analysis of ambient air quality data, and making these data
available to EPA upon request.
    To address this element, section 643.050 of the Air Conservation
Law provides the enabling authority necessary for Missouri to fulfill
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B). The Air Pollution Control
Program and Air Quality Analysis Section, within MDNR, implement these
requirements. Along with their other duties, the monitoring program
collects air monitoring data, quality assures the results, and reports
the data.
    MDNR submits annual monitoring network plans to EPA for approval,
including plans for its ozone monitoring network, as required by 40 CFR
58.10.\9\ Prior to submission to EPA, Missouri makes the plans
available for public review on MDNR's Web site. See http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/monitoring/monitoringnetworkplan.pdf. MDNR also conducts five-
year monitoring network assessments, including the ozone monitoring
network, as required by 40 CFR 58.10(d). On October 27, 2010, EPA
approved Missouri's 2010 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan and
Missouri's Five-Year Air Monitoring Network Assessment. As mentioned
previously under element (A), 10 CSR 10-6.040(4)(D) requires that
ambient concentrations of ozone be measured in accordance with the
applicable Federal regulations in 40 CFR Part 50, App. D, or equivalent
methods as approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR Part 53. Missouri submits
air quality data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) system quarterly,
pursuant to the provisions of work plans developed in conjunction with
EPA grants to the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/esp/aqm/critmap.htm, for a
description of the monitoring network for all pollutants, including
identification of locations for the ozone monitoring network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures (PSD, New Source
Review for nonattainment areas, and construction and modification of
all stationary sources): Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to
include the following elements in the SIP: (1) A program providing for
enforcement of all SIP measures described in section 110(a)(2)(A); (2)
a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of
stationary sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS; and
(3) a permit program to meet the major source permitting requirements
of the Act (including the program for areas designated as not attaining
the NAAQS, and a program for the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality program in other areas). As discussed in
further detail below, this infrastructure SIP rulemaking will not
address the Missouri program for nonattainment area-related provisions,
since these submittals are not applicable for the infrastructure SIP
approval process.
    (1) With respect to enforcement of requirements of the SIP, the
Missouri statutes provide authority for MDNR to enforce the
requirements of the Air Conservation Law, and any regulations, permits,
or final compliance orders issued under the provisions of that law. For
example, Section 643.080 of the Air Conservation Law authorizes MDNR to
issue compliance orders for violations of the Air Conservation Law,
rules promulgated thereunder (which includes rules comprising the
Missouri SIP), and conditions of permits (which includes permits under
SIP-approved permitting programs). Section 643.085 authorizes MDNR to
assess administrative penalties for violations of the statute,
regulations, permit conditions, or administrative orders. Section
643.151 authorizes the MACC to initiate civil actions for these
violations, and to seek penalties and injunctive relief to prevent any
further violation. Section 643.191 provides for criminal penalties for
knowing violations of the statute, regulations or permit conditions, in
addition to other acts described in that section.
    (2) Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires that the SIP include
measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary
sources to protect the NAAQS. With respect to smaller sources
(Missouri's major source permitting program is discussed in (3) below),
Missouri has a program under rule 10 CSR 10-6.060 to review such
sources to ensure, among other requirements, that new and modified
sources will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. The state rule
contains two general categories of sources subject to the minor source
permitting program. The first category is ``de minimis'' sources
(regulated at 10 CSR 10-6.060(5))--sources which are not exempt by
virtue

of rule 10-6.061, permit exemptions, and emit below specified levels
(e.g., 40 tons per year of VOCs). De minimis sources which emit above
certain levels specified in rule 10-6.061 (e.g., 2.75 pounds per hour
of NOx or VOCs, and, for VOCs that do not contain hazardous
air pollutants, more than 4 tons per year) are required to do an
ambient air quality analysis to show that they are not adversely
impacting the NAAQS. MDNR may also require impact analyses for other
sources (sources lower than these levels) that may be likely to
adversely affect air quality. 10 CSR 10-6.060(5).
    Missouri also requires preconstruction permits for a second
category of sources above the de minimis levels, but below the major
source levels. Permits for these sources may only be issued after a
determination, among other requirements, that the proposed source or
modification would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of a
NAAQS. 10 CSR 10-6.060(6).
    EPA has determined that Missouri's minor new source review (NSR)
program adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates
emissions of ozone and its precursors. EPA has also determined that
certain provisions of the state's minor NSR program adopted pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act likely do not meet all the requirements
found in EPA's regulations implementing that provision. See 40 CFR
51.160-51.164. EPA previously approved Missouri's minor NSR program
into the SIP, and at the time there was no objection to the provisions
of this program. See 61 FR 7714 (February 29, 1996) (originally
approved at 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). Since then, the state and EPA
have relied on the existing state minor NSR program to assure that new
and modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs
do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's
infrastructure SIP for ozone with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove the state's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program.
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
    (3) Missouri also has a program approved by EPA as meeting the
requirements of Part C, relating to prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality. Missouri's implementing rule, 10 CSR 10-
6.060(8), incorporates the relevant portions of the Federal rule, 40
CFR 52.21, by reference, including the relevant portions of EPA's ``NSR
reform'' rule promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002. In this action,
EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with
regard to NSR reform requirements. EPA will act on NSR reform
submittals through a separate rulemaking process. For Missouri, we have
previously approved the relevant portions of Missouri's NSR reform
rules for attainment areas. See 71 FR 36486 (June 27, 2006).
    The Missouri SIP also contains a permitting program for major
sources and modifications in nonattainment areas; however, this
requirement is not addressed in this rulemaking (see discussion of the
section 110(a)(2)(I) requirements for nonattainment areas, below).
    With respect to the PSD program, EPA notes that the Missouri SIP
provides that ozone precursors (volatile organic compounds--VOC and
nitrogen oxides--NOx) are regulated. For example, a source
that is major for NOx is major for ozone under the state's
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality program in rule
10 CSR 10-6.060(8). In addition, rules 10 CSR 10-6.060(1)(A) and 10-
6.060(8)(A) incorporate 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a) by reference. The
latter regulation specifically identifies volatile organic compounds
and nitrogen oxides as precursors to ozone in all attainment and
unclassifiable areas.
    Finally, with respect to the applicability of the Missouri PSD
program to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, EPA notes that Missouri
promulgated an emergency amendment to its rules effective January 3,
2011, to ensure that it maintains full authority over its permitting
program with respect to GHGs and avoids an overwhelming increase in the
number of required permits and resulting burden on Missouri's
permitting resources. See 36 Missouri Register 218-219 (January 18,
2011). Although this emergency amendment expires on July 2, 2011, EPA
understands that prior to that date, Missouri intends to take further
regulatory action to more permanently address GHGs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Missouri proposed regulations, by notice dated February 15,
2011, to adopt EPA's ``tailoring rule'' (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the interim, on March 8, 2011, Missouri informed EPA that the
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone standard that it submitted on
February 22, 2007 only covered the portion of Missouri's PSD program
that remained approved after promulgation of EPA's GHG PSD ``Narrowing
Rule'' (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010).\11\ Therefore, EPA believes
that it can approve the SIP submission as meeting the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for the PSD requirements referenced in
section 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The narrowing rule, in effect, narrowed EPA's approval of
Missouri's PSD program for GHGs so that the approved SIP would only
cover sources of GHGs consistent with the timing and thresholds
specified by EPA in the tailoring rule referenced previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of the foregoing, EPA believes that the Missouri SIP
and underlying statutory authority are adequate to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (D) Interstate and international transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment in, or interfering with maintenance by, another state
with respect to the NAAQS, or from interfering with measures required
in another state to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or
to protect visibility.
    Missouri addressed the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), as it
relates to the 1997 ozone and PM standards, in the SIP submission
received by EPA on February 27, 2007. EPA approved the portion of the
Missouri SIP submittal relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), on May 8,
2007 (72 FR 25975). Therefore, the proposed action addressed in this
notice does not include the interstate transport elements, nor does
this rulemaking reopen any aspect of EPA's prior action on the
transport elements for Missouri for the 1997 standards.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that the SIP insure compliance
with the

applicable requirements of Sections 126 and 115, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    Missouri sources have not been identified by EPA as having any
interstate or international impacts under Section 126 or Section 115 in
any pending actions relating to the 1997 ozone standards. Missouri
sources have been identified in findings under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
relating to interstate impacts, in the NOx SIP call (63 FR
57355) and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162),\12\ and
Missouri has satisfactorily revised its SIP to respond to these
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA notes that subsequent to the promulgation of the Clean
Air Interstate Rule, on December 23, 2008, the District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the rule back to EPA without
vacatur. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA
has since proposed the Transport Rule (75 FR 45210) that would
replace CAIR when final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 126(a) of the Act requires new or modified sources to
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from sources within the
state. Missouri regulations require that affected states receive notice
prior to the commencement of any construction or modification of a
source. Rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(6) requires that the review of all PSD
permit applications follow the procedures of 10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(A),
Appendix A. Appendix A in turn requires that the permitting authority
notify affected states once a draft permit goes out for public comment.
10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(A)11.
    Based on the foregoing, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate
infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that SIPs provide for the following: (1)
Necessary assurances that the state (and other entities within the
state responsible for implementing the SIP) have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state or local law to implement the SIP,
and that there are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2)
requirements that the state comply with the requirements relating to
state boards, pursuant to section 128 of the Act; and (3) necessary
assurances that the state has responsibility for implementation of any
plan provision for which it relies on local governments or other
entities to carry out that portion of the plan.
    (1) With respect to adequate authority, we have previously
discussed Missouri's authority to implement the SIP for the 1997 ozone
standards, primarily in the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(A). Neither
Missouri nor EPA has identified any legal impediments to implementation
of those standards.
    With respect to adequate resources, MDNR asserts that it has
adequate personnel to implement the SIP. The SIP submittal for the 1997
ozone standards describes the regulations governing the various
functions of personnel within the Air Pollution Control Program,
including the Technical Support (Air Quality Analysis), Air Quality
Planning, Enforcement, and Permitting Sections of the program (10 CSR
10-1.010(2)(D)).
    With respect to funding, the Air Conservation Law requires the MACC
to establish an annual emissions fee for sources in order to fund the
reasonable costs of the implementing various air pollution control
programs. Section 643.079 of the Air Conservation Law provides for the
deposit of the fees into various subaccounts (e.g., a subaccount for
the Title V operating permit program used for Title V activities; a
subaccount for non-Title V activities) for use in implementing the
programs. The state uses funds in the non-Title V subaccounts, along
with General Revenue funds and EPA grants under, for example, sections
103 and 105 of the Act, to fund the programs. EPA conducts periodic
program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate resources and
funding to, among others, implement the SIP.
    (2) Conflict of interest provisions--Section 128.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also provides that the state must meet the
requirements of Section 128, relating to representation on state boards
and conflicts of interest by members of such boards. We note that this
particular provision is not related to promulgation or revision of any
NAAQS, and we have not determined that Missouri must show specifically
that it meets this requirement with respect to the ozone infrastructure
SIP for the 1997 standards. However, the following discussion shows how
Missouri generally meets the requirements of Section 128.
    Section 128 requires that a SIP-implementing body which approves
permits or enforcement orders under the Act must have at least a
majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive
a ``significant portion'' of income from entities or individuals
subject to permits and enforcement orders under the Act. In addition,
Section 128 requires that members of such a body or the agency head
with similar authorities adequately disclose any potential conflicts of
interest.
    Section 643.040 of the Air Conservation Law generally tracks the
language of section 128 of the Act, and requires that the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission promulgate rules regarding conflict of
interest. Rule 10 CSR 10-1.020 provides the specific process for
disclosure of potential conflicts of interest prior to discussion of,
or voting on, a rule, variance, appeal or order, and rules for voting
when a member has been excluded from participation. The MACC also has
an operations manual which directs members to comply with statutory
requirements relating to conflict of interest, including Chapter 105 of
the Missouri Revised Statutes, which contains more general prohibitions
relating to conflict of interest.
    MDNR officials, including the Director, are also subject to the
conflict of interest provisions in Chapter 105 of the Missouri Revised
Statutes. Sections 105.452 and 105.454 contain prohibitions on actions
which may result in a conflict of interest.
    (3) With respect to assurances that the state has responsibility to
adequately implement the SIP when it authorizes local or other agencies
to carry out portions of the plan, Section 643.190 designates the MDNR
as the air pollution control agency ``for all purposes'' of the Clean
Air Act. Although Section 643.140 authorizes the MACC to allow local
governments such as cities or counties to carry out their own air
pollution control programs, the MACC retains authority to carry out the
provisions of Missouri's Air Conservation Law in local areas,
notwithstanding any such authorization.
    The MDNR Air Program oversees the activities of the local agencies
to ensure adequate implementation of the plan by the local agencies
(Kansas City, City of St. Louis, St. Louis County, and Springfield-
Greene County). MDNR utilizes subgrants to the local agencies both to
provide adequate funding, and as an oversight mechanism with respect to
the local agencies. EPA conducts reviews of the local program
activities in conjunction with its oversight of the state program.
    Based on the foregoing, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate
infrastructure needed to address section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires states to establish a system to monitor emissions from
stationary sources and to submit periodic emission reports. That
section also requires that the state

correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards
established under the Act and make reports available for public
inspection.
    To address this element, Section 643.050.1(3)(a) of the Air
Conservation Law authorizes the state to require persons engaged in
operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions
and to file reports containing information relating to rate, period of
emission and composition of effluent. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.030
incorporates various EPA reference methods for testing source
emissions, including methods for NOX and VOCs. The Federal
test methods are in 40 CFR Part 60, App. A.
    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.110 also requires monitoring of emissions
and filing of periodic reports on emissions, and Missouri makes this
information available to the public. Missouri uses this information to
track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and
maintenance strategies, identifying sources and general emission
levels, and determining compliance with emission regulations and
additional EPA requirements. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.210, relating to
treatment of confidential information, specifically excludes emissions
data from confidential treatment. Under that rule emissions data
includes information regarding monitoring results required to be
reported by sources under Missouri's air pollution control rules.
Finally, Section 643.192.2 of the Air Conservation Law requires that
MDNR provide an annual report that summarizes annual changes in air
quality.
    EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed
to address section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (G) Emergency authority: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment
(comparable to the authorities provided in Section 303 of the Act),
including contingency plans to implement the emergency authorities.
    Section 643.090 of the Air Conservation Law authorizes the MACC or
the Director of MDNR to declare an emergency where the ambient air, due
to meteorological conditions and a buildup of air contaminants, may
present an ``emergency risk'' to public health, safety, or welfare. The
MACC or Director may, with the written approval of the governor, by
order prohibit, restrict or condition all sources of air contaminants
contributing to the emergency condition, during such periods of time
necessary to alleviate or lessen the effects of the emergency
condition. The statute also enables MDNR to promulgate implementing
regulations. Even in the absence of an emergency condition, Section
643.090 also authorizes the Director to issue ``cease and desist''
orders to specific persons engaging in activities which involve a
discharge of air contaminants, or a risk of air contamination, that
presents a danger to public health or welfare.
    Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.130 (``Controlling Emissions During
Episodes of High Air Pollution Potential'') includes action levels and
contingency measures for ozone and other pollutants. This rule
specifies the conditions that establish an air pollution alert, watch
or emergency and the associated procedures and emissions reduction
objectives for dealing with each. The rule establishes action levels
for one-hour and eight-hour average concentrations. The action levels
and associated contingency measures vary depending on the level of
ozone concentrations in a particular area. This rule is contained in
the Federally approved SIP.
    EPA believes that the Missouri SIP adequately addresses section
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires states to
have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the
NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in
response to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to
attain the NAAQS.
    In addition to Missouri's general enabling authority in Section
643.050 of the Air Conservation Law, discussed previously, Section
643.055 and rules 10 CSR 10-1.010(2)(B)9 and (D) grant MACC authority
to promulgate rules, and establish standards and guidelines, to ensure
that the state complies with the provisions of the Federal Clean Air
Act. This includes authority to revise rules as necessary to respond to
a revised NAAQS and to respond to EPA findings of substantial
inadequacy (see, for example, 71 FR 46860, August 15, 2006, in which
EPA approved Missouri rules promulgated in response to EPA's
NOX SIP call for Missouri and other states).
    EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate authority to address
section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (I) Nonattainment areas: Section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the
case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as nonattainment
areas, states must meet applicable requirements of Part D of the Act,
relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment areas.
    The plan submitted by Missouri is a statewide ozone infrastructure
SIP and was not intended by Missouri to meet its obligations for
nonattainment areas. Missouri has one ozone nonattainment area (the St.
Louis metropolitan area).
    EPA has not addressed Section 110(a)(2)(I) in its recent
infrastructure SIP guidance because Part D SIPs are due on a different
schedule than the infrastructure SIP submittal schedule. (See, e.g.,
the infrastructure SIP guidance for the revised lead standard, 73 FR
67034, n. 113, Nov. 12, 2008, and the infrastructure SIP guidance for
the revised NO2 standards, 75 FR 6523, n. 27, Feb. 9, 2010.)
Therefore, this proposal does not address Section 110(a)(2)(I). EPA
will take action on any Part D nonattainment plans through a separate
rulemaking.
    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to
meet the applicable requirements of the following CAA provisions: (1)
section 121, relating to interagency consultation regarding certain CAA
requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public notification of NAAQS
exceedances and related issues; and (3) Part C of the Act, relating to
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility
protection.
    (1) With respect to interagency consultation, Section 643.050.3 of
the Air Conservation Law requires the MACC to consult and cooperate
with other Federal and state agencies, and with political subdivisions,
for the purpose of implementing its air pollution control
responsibilities. Missouri also has appropriate interagency
consultation provisions in its preconstruction permit program. For
instance, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(B) requires that when a
permit goes out for public comment, the permitting authority must
provide notice to local air pollution control agencies, the chief
executive of the city and county where the installation or modification
would be located, any comprehensive regional land use planning agency,
any state air program permitting authority, and any Federal Land
Manager whose lands may be affected by emissions from the installation
or modification.
    (2) With respect to the requirements for public notification in
Section 127, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.130, discussed previously in
connection with

the state's authority to address emergency episodes, contains
provisions for public notification of elevated ozone and other air
pollutant levels, and measures which can be taken by the public to
reduce concentrations. In addition, information regarding air pollution
and related issues, is provided on an MDNR website, http://www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/index.html.
    (3) With respect to the applicable requirements of Part C, relating
to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and
visibility protection, we previously noted in the discussion of section
110(a)(2)(C) (relating to enforcement of control measures) how the
Missouri SIP meets the PSD requirements, incorporating the Federal rule
by reference. With respect to the visibility component of section
110(a)(2)(J), we reiterate the statutory requirement providing, in
relevant part, that each plan must meet the ``applicable requirements''
of Part C (of Title I of the Act) relating to visibility protection. We
note that the other Part C requirements specified in Section
110(a)(2)(J) (applicable requirements relating to prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality), specifically relate to the
1997 and 2006 NAAQS (as well as other pollutants regulated under the
CAA), and a state must be able to implement those requirements with
respect to a new or revised NAAQS when promulgated. In contrast to the
PSD program, the visibility protection requirements are not directly
related to the promulgation of, or revision to, a NAAQS. While the SIP
must independently meet the visibility protection requirements of Part
C by virtue of the specific SIP requirements in Sections 169A and 169B
of the Act, EPA believes that the visibility protection requirements
are not ``applicable requirements'' within the meaning of Section
110(a)(2)(J) and that the infrastructure SIP is not required to be
revised with respect to visibility protection merely due to
promulgation of, or revision to, these 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    For the reasons stated above, EPA believes that Missouri has met
the applicable requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the state.
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by
EPA, to predict effects on ambient air quality of emissions of any
NAAQS pollutant, and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    Missouri has authority to conduct air quality modeling and report
the results of such modeling to EPA. Section 643.050 of the Air
Conservation Law provides Missouri with the general authority to
develop a general comprehensive plan to prevent, abate, and control air
pollution. EPA believes that this statutory authority, along with other
authorities such as found in Section 643.055 discussed above, provides
MDNR with authority to conduct modeling to address NAAQS issues. As an
example of regulatory authority to perform modeling for purposes of
determining NAAQS compliance, Missouri regulation 10 CSR 10-6.060, App.
F requires the use of EPA-approved air quality models (e.g., those
found in 40 CFR part 51, App. W) for construction permitting. Rule 10
CSR 10-6.110 requires specified sources of air pollution to report
emissions to MDNR, which among other purposes may be utilized in
modeling analyses. These data are available to any member of the
public, upon request. 10 CSR 10-6.110(3)(D).
    EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate infrastructure needed
to address section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    (L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require
each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to the permitting
authority to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing and
enforcing a permit. That section provides that the fee requirement
applies until a fee program established by the state pursuant to Title
V of the Act, relating to operating permits, is approved by EPA.
    Section 643.079 of the Air Conservation Law provides authority for
MDNR to collect permit fees, including Title V fees. Missouri's Title V
program, including the fee program addressing the requirements of the
Act and 40 CFR 70.9 relating to Title V fees, was approved by EPA in
May 1997 (62 FR 26405, May 14, 1997). Therefore, EPA believes that the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) are met.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires SIPs to provide for consultation and
participation by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    Section 643.050.3(6) of the Air Conservation Law requires that the
MACC encourage political subdivisions to handle air pollution control
problems within their respective jurisdictions to the extent possible
and practicable. Section 643.140 provides the mechanism for local
political subdivisions to participate in plan development, while
maintaining oversight of local programs within the MACC. The MDNR's Air
Pollution Control Program has signed State and Local Agreements with
the air agencies with St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Kansas City and
Springfield/Greene County. In addition, the program participates in
community meetings, consults with, and participates in, interagency
consultation groups such as the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in
both Kansas City and St. Louis. In Kansas City, MDNR works with the
Mid-America Regional Council and in St. Louis, MDNR works with East-
West Gateway Coordinating Council of Governments.
    Therefore, EPA believes that Missouri has the adequate
infrastructure needed to address Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from the state of Missouri which addresses the requirements
of Clean Air Act section 110 (a)(2) for the 1997 revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. As described
above, EPA believes that Missouri has the required infrastructure to
address all elements of section 110(a)(2) to ensure that the revised
ozone standards are implemented in the state.
    We are hereby soliciting comment on this proposed action. Final
rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by Section 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone.

    Dated: March 23, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2011-7470 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


July 18, 2016

MEMORANDUM

FROM:  	Kenneth Davidson

Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality

TO:	 	 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR–2014-0827

SUBJECT:	BenMAP-CE Air Quality Modeling Data Files for Estimation of
Supplemental Benefits Analysis to support the Final Phase 2 Heavy-Duty
(HD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) National Program

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit BenMAP-CE air quality
modeling data input and configuration files used for the estimation of
the supplemental PM and ozone-related benefits associated with the Final
Phase 2 HD GHG Rule.  When used as input files to the publicly-available
Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program – Community
Edition (BenMAP-CE), a user will be able to replicate the supplemental
benefits analysis results presented in Appendix 8A of the Regulatory
Impact Analysis for this rulemaking.  The summary files are as follows:

File 1: HDGHG_Phase2_CMAQ_Output_Files.zip

12km ambient PM and ozone air quality CMAQ output data (baseline and
control for 2040)

File 2: HDGHG_Phase2_AirQualityGridFiles_BenMAP.zip

12km ambient PM and ozone air quality grid input data for BenMAP
(baseline and control .aqgx files for 2040)

File 3: HDGHG_Phase2_AirQualityConfigurationFiles_BenMAP-CE.zip

PM and ozone health effects configuration file for BenMAP-CE (.cfgx
files)

PM and ozone health effects aggregation, pooling, and valuation file for
BenMAP (.apvx files)

File 4: BenMAP.exe

BenMAP-CE executable for version 1.1 used to estimate supplemental
health impacts for the final rulemaking analysis

The supplemental benefits analysis is discussed in Appendix 8A of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis.

 BenMAP-CE v.1.1 is compatible with these files and can be downloaded at
https://www.epa.gov/benmap


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6510-6512]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the Airfield Improvement Program at Palm Beach
International Airport, West Palm Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement.

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

    Location of Proposed Action: The Palm Beach International Airport
(PBIA) is located in east Palm Beach County, Florida, adjacent to the
City of West Palm Beach and immediately east of the Town of Haverhill.
SUMMARY: The FAA announces that the FEIS for the proposed Airfield
Improvement Program (AIP) at PBIA is available for public review.
    The FEIS includes the Section 106 consultation with the Florida
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Keeper of the
National Register of Historic Places (Keeper) regarding the National
Register eligibility of properties within the EIS Area of Potential
Effect (APE) and the proposed action's potential effect to historic
resources eligible for, or listed-in, the National Register of Historic
Places. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as
amended, the proposed AIP is being evaluated in the FEIS for
consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP).
Comments regarding the compatibility of the No-Action Alternative, the
AIP, and Alternative 2 with regard to Section 106 resources and the
Florida's Coastal Management Program are encouraged by the FAA.
    The FAA is seeking comments on those sections of the FEIS that have
been updated and/or contain information that has become available since
the release of the DEIS. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below for more information.
    Updated information regarding the forecasts of aviation operations
at PBIA became available and was published following the public
availability of the September, 2008 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). Also, Palm Beach County (the Airport Sponsor)
submitted to the FAA a revised implementation plan and schedule for the
proposed AIP after the publication of the DEIS. The FAA determined that
this information should be considered by the agency and be disclosed to
the public in the FEIS.
    All comments on the FEIS are to be submitted to Mr. Bart Vernace of
the FAA, at the address shown in the section below entitled For Further
Information or to Submit Comments Contact. The FAA is providing a
forty-five (45) day comment period for the public to comment on the
FEIS. The comment period begins on the date of the publication of this
Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register, and will close on
March 21, 2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA, as the lead Federal agency, has
prepared the EIS for the proposed AIP at PBIA. The FAA published a DEIS
in September, 2008. The DEIS was prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The DEIS comparatively
assessed and disclosed the potential future impacts of the No-Action
Alternative (no development at PBIA besides that which has already been
planned, environmentally reviewed, and/or that are needed for safety,
security or maintenance reasons), and two proposed action alternatives,
designated as the Airport Sponsor's AIP (Proposed Project) and
Alternative 2. The primary capacity enhancement elements of these two
proposed action alternatives consists of the following: AIP--relocate
existing Runway 10R/28L 100 feet south of its existing location and
expand the runway to a length of 8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet;
Alternative 2--construct new Runway 10L/28R located 800 feet north of
existing Runway 10L/28R to a length of 10,000 feet and a width of 150
feet. Both the AIP and Alternative 2 include other less substantial
airport-related projects that are either associated with the primary
runway development components of each alternative or are stand-alone
projects that could be constructed by the Airport Sponsor outside of
the EIS process.
    Since the publication of the DEIS, the economic recession has
resulted in a decrease in aviation activity at PBIA and changes in the
FAA's forecasts of aviation activity for both PBIA and for the national
system. The actual and forecast decrease in aircraft operations at PBIA
have been, and are expected to continue to be, substantial enough to
bring into question the initially proposed timing for implementation of
the airport improvement program studied in the DEIS. As a result, the
FAA made a determination that the 2006 PBIA Master Plan Update
forecasts approved for use in the DEIS, and which were used as the
basis for the justification for the airport capacity enhancement
component of the Airport Sponsor's AIP, were no longer appropriate for
use in determining the timing for the implementation of the AIP and
Alternative 2. After the publication of the DEIS, and the review of
comments on the DEIS, the FAA determined that a more recent forecast of
aviation activity that is representative of the changed conditions at
PBIA should be used for the FEIS. Subsequently, the FAA decided that
the agency's own 2009 Terminal Area Forecast (2009 TAF) would be the
most applicable forecast of aviation activity

for use in the FEIS. The 2009 TAF shows that future aircraft activity
at PBIA would likely increase at only a modest annual rate when
compared to the 2006 PBIA Master Plan Update Forecasts.
    After consultation with the FAA and review of the 2009 TAF, the
Airport Sponsor concluded, and the FAA agreed, that the airfield
capacity enhancement elements of the AIP and Alternative 2, the primary
components of which is the relocation and expansion of Runway 10R/28L,
would not be needed at PBIA by the year 2013, which was the proposed
AIP and Alternative 2 implementation year identified and evaluated by
the FAA in the DEIS.
    As a result, the Airport Sponsor proposed to the FAA a revised
implementation plan and schedule for the AIP. The revised plan and
schedule consists of developing the AIP in two components, which are
designated in the FEIS as the Near-Term AIP Project and the Long-Term
AIP Project. The FAA subsequently evaluated in the FEIS both the
Airport Sponsor's AIP and Alternative 2 based on the revised
implementation plan and schedule.
    The Near-Term AIP Alternative component consists of the development
of general aviation (GA) facilities in the northwest quadrant of PBIA;
widening Taxiway ``L'' from 50 feet to 75 feet, and the acquisition of
approximately 13.2 acres of property along the western PBIA property
line. The Long-Term AIP Alternative component consists of the expansion
of Runway 10R/28L as described above, the shortening of the southeast
end of Runway 14/32 by 3,412 feet, the extension of the northwest end
of Runway 14/32 by 480 feet, GA facility relocation, other connected
actions to the Runway 10R/28L project, and other minor stand alone
airport improvement projects.
    The Near-Term Alternative 2 component consists of essentially the
same projects as the Near-Term AIP Alternative component, with the
exception of a revised configuration for the GA development area in the
northwest quadrant of PBIA. The Long-Term Alternative 2 component
consists of the development of new Runway 10L/28R as described above,
the closure of Runway 14/32, relocation of portions of Concourses ``B''
and ``C'', relocation of the ARFF and Air Cargo Building, other
connected actions to the Runway 10L/28R project, and other minor stand
alone airport improvement projects.
    The Airport Sponsor is requesting the FAA's ``unconditional''
approval of the Near-Term AIP Project through the FAA's findings and
determinations in its Record of Decision (ROD) on the FEIS. If
``unconditional'' approval is granted by the FAA in its ROD, the
Airport Sponsor anticipates that the Near-Term AIP Projects would be
constructed and operational by the year 2015. However, the FAA
acknowledges that the development schedule for future GA facilities
would be influenced by prevailing market conditions, the demand for
additional GA facilities, and respective business decisions by the
Airport Sponsor and Fixed Base Operators (FBO's). Therefore, the build-
out of the Near-Term AIP or Near-Term Alternative 2 GA facilities could
occur sometime before or after the FEIS Near-Term study year of 2015.
    Through the EIS process and the FAA's subsequent ROD, the Airport
Sponsor is also requesting the FAA's ``conditional'' approval of the
Long-Term AIP Project. The Long-Term AIP Project consists of the
primary airfield capacity enhancement components of the AIP, which
includes the relocation and expansion of Runway 10R/28L and connected
actions, as well as other minor stand-alone airport improvement
projects. The Long-Term AIP Project would be considered by the FAA for
unconditional approval only when the number of aircraft operations at
PBIA returns to the levels that would cause unacceptable aircraft
operational delay. At such time that this occurs, the FAA will consider
the appropriate level of additional NEPA processing and environmental
analysis/documentation that may be needed to fully evaluate and
disclose the potential environmental impacts associated with the Long-
Term AIP Project and its connected actions.
    Public Comment: Because of the amount of time that has elapsed
since the publication of the DEIS, the consideration of revised
forecasts (FAA's 2009 TAF) in the FEIS, and the Airport Sponsor's
revised implementation plan and schedule for the proposed project, the
FAA is seeking comments on its FEIS for a period of 45 days following
the publication of the NOA of the FEIS in the Federal Register. After
review and consideration of the comments received on the FEIS, and
sometime after the 45-day comment period on the FEIS has ended, the FAA
will issue its ROD. The public comment period on the FEIS will begin on
February 4, 2011 and will close on March 21, 2011. Copies of the FEIS
are available for review at the following locations during regular
business hours:
     Palm Beach County Library Greenacres Branch, 3750 Jog
Road, Greenacres, FL 33467.
     Palm Beach County Library Okeechobee Boulevard Branch,
5689 West Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm Beach, FL 33417.
     West Palm Beach Public Library, 411 Clematis Street, West
Palm Beach, FL 33401.
    A limited number of copies of the FEIS will be available for review
by appointment only during regular business hours at the following
locations:
     Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District
Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive Citadel International Building,
Suite 400, Orlando, Florida. Contact Bart Vernace at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Palm Beach International Airport, Palm Beach County
Department of Airports, 846 Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm
Beach, Florida. Contact Gary Sypek at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic copy of the FEIS will be available for review and
download from the EIS Web site (http://www.pbia-eis.com) beginning
February 4, 2011.
    Written comments on the FEIS may be mailed or e-mailed to Mr. Bart
Vernace of the FAA at the address shown in the section below entitled
For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact. All comments
must be postmarked by March 21, 2011.
    Comments should be as specific as possible and address the analysis
of potential environmental impacts, the adequacy of the proposed
action, or the merits of alternatives and the mitigation being
considered. Reviewers should organize their participation so that it is
meaningful and makes the agency aware of the viewer's interests and
concerns using quotations and other specific references to the text of
the FEIS and related documents. This commenting procedure is intended
to ensure that substantive comments and concerns are made available to
the FAA in a timely manner so that the FAA has an opportunity to
address them in its ROD.
    Comments can only be accepted with the full name and address of the
individual commenting. Before including your address, phone number, e-
mail address, or other personal identifying information in your
comment, be advised that your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask the FAA in your comment to withhold from public
review your personal identifying information, the FAA cannot guarantee
that it will be able to do so.
    For Further Information or to Submit Comments Contact: Mr. Bart
Vernace, PE, Assistant Manager, Federal Aviation Administration,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National

Drive, Citadel International Building, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida
32822. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Orlando, Florida on January 25, 2011.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-2065 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 229)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62699]
[DOCID:fr01de09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0759]

Southern California Annual Marine Events

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in
33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Christmas Boat Parade of Lights on
the San Diego Bay from 5:30 p.m. through 8 p.m. on December 13, 2009,
and from 5:30 p.m. through 8 p.m. on December 20, 2009. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, and other vessels and users of the waterway. During the
enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or
impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels
in the regulated area, unless cleared for such entry by or through an
official patrol vessel.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 5:30
p.m. through 8 p.m. on December 13, 2009, and from 5:30 p.m. through 8
p.m. on December 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Petty Officer Kristen Beer, USCG, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulation for the annual San Diego Christmas Boat Parade of
Lights in 33 CFR 100.1101 on December 13, 2009, from 5:30 to 8 p.m. and
on December 20, 2009, from 5:30 to 8 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, spectator vessels may
safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block,
loiter in, or impede the transit of ship parade participants or
official patrol vessels, unless cleared for such entry by or through an
official patrol vessel. When hailed and/or signaled by an official
patrol vessel, a spectator shall come to an immediate stop. Vessels
shall comply with all directions given. The Coast Guard may be assisted
by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing
this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1101 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP or his
designated representative determines that the regulated area need not
be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may
use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter
the regulated area.

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
T. H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-28719 Filed 11-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9910-04-P