[1] Effective concentration for open path analyzers.
[2] Corrected concentration, if applicable for open path analyzers.
[3] NPAP, PM2.5 PEP and Pb-PEP must be implemented if data is used for NAAQS decisions otherwise implementation is at PSD reviewing authority discretion.
[4] Both primary and collocated sampler values are reported as raw data
5 A maximum number of days should be between these checks to ensure the checks are routinely conducted over time and to limit data impacts resulting from a failed check.

* * * * * *
32. In Appendix C to Part 58, insert paragraph 2.2 and revoke and reserve paragraph 2.4. to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 58 -- Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methodology
* * * * *
2.2 PM10, PM2.5, or PM10-2.5 continuous FEMs with existing valid designations may be calibrated using network data from collocated FRM and continuous FEM data under the following provisions:
2.2.1 Data to demonstrate a calibration may include valid data from State, local, or tribal air agencies or data collected by instrument manufacturers in accordance with § 53.35 or other data approved by the Administrator.
2.2.2 A request to update a designated methods calibration may be initiated by the instrument manufacturer of record or the EPA Administrator.
2.2.3 Requests for approval of an updated PM10, PM2.5, or PM10-2.5 continuous FEM calibration must meet the general submittal requirements of section 2.7 of this appendix.
2.2.4 Data included in the request should represent a subset of representative locations where the method is operational.  For cases with a small number of collocated FRMs and continuous FEMs sites, an updated candidate calibration may be limited to the sites where both methods are in use.
2.2.5 Data included in a candidate method updated calibration may include a subset of sites where there is a large grouping of sites in one part of the country such that the updated calibration would be representative of the country as a whole.
2.2.6 Improvements should be national in scope and ideally implemented through a firmware change.
2.2.7 The goal of a change to a methods calibration is to increase the number of sites meeting measurements quality objectives of the method as identified in section <IP_ADDRESS> of Appendix A to this part.
2.2.8 For meeting MQO's, the primary objective is to meet the bias goal as this statistic will likely have the most influence on improving the resultant data collected.
2.2.9 Precision data are to be included, but so long as precision data are at least as good as existing network data or meet the MQO referenced above, no further work is necessary with precision.
2.2.10 Data available to use may include routine primary and collocated data.
2.2.11 Audit data may be useful to confirm the performance of a candidate updated calibration but should not be used as the basis of the calibration to keep the independence of the audit data.
2.2.12 Data utilized as the basis of the updated calibration may be obtained by accessing EPA's AQS database.
2.2.13 Years of data to use in a candidate method calibration should include two recent years where we are past the certification period for the previous year's data, which is May 1[st] of each year.
2.2.14 Data from additional years is to be used to test an updated calibration such that the calibration is independent of the test years of interest.  Data from these additional years need to minimally demonstrate that a larger number of sites are expected to meet bias MQO especially at sites near the level of the NAAQS for the PM indicator of interest
2.2.15 Outliers may be excluded using routine outlier tests.
2.2.16 The range of data used in a calibration may include all data available or alternatively use data in the range from the lowest measured data available up to 125% of the 24-hour NAAQS for the PM indicator of interest.
2.2.17 Other improvements to a PM continuous method may be included as part of a recommended update so long as appropriate testing is conducted with input from EPA ORD's Reference and Equivalent (R&E) Methods Designation program.
2.2.18 EPA encourages early communication by instrument manufacturers considering an update to a PM method. Instrument companies should initiate such dialogue by contacting EPA ORD's Reference and Equivalent (R&E) Methods Designation program. The contact information for this can be found at 40 CFR § 53.4, "Applications for reference or equivalent method determinations."
2.2.19 Manufacturers interested in improving instrument's performance through an updated factory calibration must submit a written Modification Request to EPA with supporting rationale.  Because the testing requirements and acceptance criteria of any. field and/or lab tests can depend upon the nature and extent of the intended modification, applicants should contact EPA's R&E Methods Designation program for guidance prior to development of the Modification Request.
* * * * *
2.4 Reserved
* * * * *
34.  In Appendix D to Part 58,
a. Revise paragraphs 1 and 1.1(b);
b. Revise the text in paragraph 4.7.1(a);
c. Revise paragraph 4.7.1(b)(3); and
d. Revise paragraph 4.7.2.
These revisions read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 58 -- Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
* * *
1. Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales
The purpose of this appendix is to describe monitoring objectives and general criteria to be applied in establishing the required SLAMS ambient air quality monitoring stations and for choosing general locations for additional monitoring sites. This appendix also describes specific requirements for the number and location of FRM and FEM sites for specific pollutants, NCore multipollutant sites, PM10 mass sites, PM2.5 mass sites, chemically-speciated PM2.5 sites, and O3 precursor measurements sites (PAMS). These criteria will be used by EPA in evaluating the adequacy of the air pollutant monitoring networks.
1.1 * * *
(b) Support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emissions strategy development. Data from FRM and FEM monitors for NAAQS pollutants will be used for comparing an area's air pollution levels against the NAAQS. Data from monitors of various types can be used in the development of attainment and maintenance plans. SLAMS, and especially NCore station data, will be used to evaluate the regional air quality models used in developing emission strategies, and to track trends in air pollution abatement control measures' impact on improving air quality. In monitoring locations near major air pollution sources, source-oriented monitoring data can provide insight into how well industrial sources are controlling their pollutant emissions.
* * * * *
4.7.1* * *
(a) State, and where applicable local, agencies must operate the minimum number of required PM2.5 SLAMS sites listed in Table D-5 of this appendix. The NCore sites are expected to complement the PM2.5 data collection that takes place at non-NCore SLAMS sites, and both types of sites can be used to meet the minimum PM2.5 network requirements. The total number of PM2.5 sites needed to support the basic monitoring objectives of providing air pollution data to the general public in a timely manner, support compliance with ambient air quality standards and emission strategy development, and support for air pollution research studies will include more sites than the minimum numbers required in Table D-5 of this appendix. Deviations from these PM2.5 monitoring requirements must be approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. * * *
(b)* * *
(3)  For areas with additional required SLAMS, a monitoring station is to be sited in an at-risk community, particularly where there are anticipated effects from sources in the area (e.g., a major port, rail yard, airport, industrial area, or major transportation corridor).
* * * * *
4.7.2 Requirement for Continuous PM2.5 Monitoring. The State, or where appropriate, local agencies must operate continuous PM2.5 analyzers equal to at least one-half (round up) the minimum required sites listed in Table D-5 of this appendix. At least one required continuous analyzer in each MSA must be collocated with one of the required FRM/FEM monitors, unless at least one of the required FRM/FEM monitors is itself a continuous FEM or ARM monitor in which case no collocation requirement applies. State and local air monitoring agencies must use methodologies and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures approved by the EPA Regional Administrator for these required continuous analyzers.
* * * * *
34. Appendix E to part 58 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 58 -- Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
1. Introduction
2. Monitors and Samplers with Probe Inlets
3. Open Path Analyzers
4. Waiver Provisions
5. References
1. Introduction1.1 Applicability.
    (a) This appendix contains specific location criteria applicable to ambient air quality monitoring probes, inlets, and optical paths of SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and other monitor types whose data are intended to be used to determine compliance with the NAAQS. These specific location criteria are relevant after the general location has been selected based on the monitoring objectives and spatial scale of representation discussed in appendix D to this part. Monitor probe material and sample residence time requirements are also included in this appendix. Adherence to these siting criteria is necessary to ensure the uniform collection of compatible and comparable air quality data.
    (b) The probe and monitoring path siting criteria discussed in this appendix must be followed to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that there may be situations where some deviation from the siting criteria may be necessary. In any such case, the reasons must be thoroughly documented in a written request for a waiver that describes how and why the proposed siting deviates from the criteria. This documentation should help to avoid later questions about the validity of the resulting monitoring data. Conditions under which the EPA would consider an application for waiver from these siting criteria are discussed in section 4 of this appendix.
    (c) The pollutant-specific probe and monitoring path siting criteria generally apply to all spatial scales except where noted otherwise. Specific siting criteria that are phrased with a "must" are defined as requirements and exceptions must be approved through the waiver provisions. However, siting criteria that are phrased with a "should" are defined as goals to meet for consistency but are not requirements.
2. Monitors and Samplers with Probe Inlets2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Placement.
    The probe must be located greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than or equal to 15. meters above ground level for all O3 and SO2 monitoring, and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5, PM2.5, NO2, and CO sites.  Middle scale CO and NO2 monitors must also have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than or equal to 15. meters above ground level. Middle scale PM10-2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. Microscale Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. Microscale near-road NO2 monitoring sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. The probe inlets for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways must be greater than or equal to 2.0 and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. Those probe inlets for microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways in downtown areas or urban street canyons must be greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.5 meters above ground level. The probe must be at least 1.0 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If the probe is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.
2.2 Spacing from Minor Sources.
    (a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular location in order to interpret this particular requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO2, lead, or particles, can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site is likely to be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would in all likelihood be a microscale type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitor probe inlet near local, minor sources. The plume from the local minor sources should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site. Particulate matter sites should not be located in an unpaved area unless there is vegetative ground cover year-round, so that the impact of windblown dusts will be kept to a minimum.
    (b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 in the vicinity of probes for O3. To minimize these potential interferences the probe inlet should be away from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.
2.3 Spacing from Obstructions.
    (a) Buildings and other obstacles may possibly scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, the probe inlet must have unrestricted airflow pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and should be located away from obstacles. The horizontal distance from the obstacle to the probe inlet must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the probe inlet. An obstacle that does not meet the minimum distance requirement is considered an obstruction that restricts airflow to the probe inlet.
    (b) A probe inlet located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to possible removal mechanisms. A probe inlet must have unrestricted airflow with no obstructions (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees. An unobstructed continuous arc of 180 degrees is allowable when network design criteria regulations specified in Appendix D of this part require monitoring in street canyons and the probe is located on the side of a building. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential. For particle sampling, a minimum of 2.0 meters of horizontal separation from walls, parapets, and structures is required for rooftop site placement.
    (c) A sampling station having a probe inlet located closer to an obstacle than this criterion allows should be classified as middle scale or microscale rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a station would more closely represent these smaller scales.
    (d) For near-road monitoring stations, the monitor probe shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitor probe, between the monitor probe and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.
2.4 Spacing from Trees.
    (a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, or NO2 adsorption or reactions, and surfaces for particle deposition. Trees can also act as obstructions in cases where they are located between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the probe inlet. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, the probe inlet should be 20 meters or more from the drip line of trees and must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of trees. If a tree or trees is an obstacle, the probe inlet must meet the distance requirements of section 2.3.
    (b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.
    (c) Beginning January 1, 2024, microscale sites of any air pollutant, shall have no trees or shrubs located at or above the line-of-sight fetch between the probe and the source under investigation, such as a roadway or a stationary source.
2.5 Spacing from Roadways.
    Table E-1 of Appendix E to Part 58 -- Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Probes for Monitoring Neighborhood and Urban Scale Ozone (O3) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX, NOy)
                Roadway
average daily traffic,
vehicles per day
                        Minimum
distance[1 3]
(meters)
                       Minimum
distance[1 2 3]
(meters)
                                   <=1,000
                                      10
                                      10
                                    10,000
                                      10
                                      20
                                    15,000
                                      20
                                      30
                                    20,000
                                      30
                                      40
                                    40,000
                                      50
                                      60
                                    70,000
                                      100
                                      100
                                  >=110,000
                                      250
                                      250
    [1]Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
    [2]Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.
    [3]All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures.  When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
2.5.1 Spacing for Ozone Probes.
    In siting an O3 monitor, it is important to minimize destructive interferences from sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O3. Table E-1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe inlet for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling site having a monitor probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent these smaller scales.
2.5.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes.
    (a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.
    (b) Microscale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2.0 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.
    (c) Microscale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection and preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.
    Table E-2 of Appendix E to Part 58 -- Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Probes for Monitoring Neighborhood Scale Carbon Monoxide
                Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per day
                        Minimum distance[1 2] (meters)
                                   <=10,000
                                      10
                                    15,000
                                      25
                                    20,000
                                      45
                                    30,000
                                      80
                                    40,000
                                      115
                                    50,000
                                      135
                                   >=60,000
                                      150
    [1]Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
    [2]All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures.  When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
2.5.3 Spacing for Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM2.5-10, PM10, Pb) Inlets
    (a) Since emissions associated with the operation of motor vehicles contribute to urban area particulate matter ambient levels, spacing from roadway criteria are necessary for ensuring national consistency in PM sampler siting.
    (b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot sites in areas of highest concentrations whether it be from mobile or multiple stationary sources. If the area is primarily affected by mobile sources and the maximum concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic corridor or street canyon location, then the monitors should be located near roadways with the highest traffic volume and at separation distances most likely to produce the highest concentrations. For the microscale traffic corridor site, the location must be greater than or equal 5.0 and less than or equal to 15 meters from the major roadway. For the microscale street canyon site, the location must be greater than or equal 2.0 and less than or equal to 10 meters from the roadway. For the middle scale site, a range of acceptable distances from the roadway is shown in Figure E-1 of this appendix. This figure also includes separation distances between a roadway and neighborhood or larger scale sites by default. Any PM probe inlet at a site, 2.0 to 15 meters high, and further back than the middle scale requirements will generally be neighborhood, urban or regional scale. For example, according to Figure E-1 of this appendix, if a PM sampler is primarily influenced by roadway emissions and that sampler is set back 10 meters from a 30,000 ADT (average daily traffic) road, the site should be classified as microscale, if the sampler's inlet height is between 2.0 and 7.0 meters. If the sampler's inlet height is between 7.0 and 15 meters, the site should be classified as middle scale. If the sampler is 20 meters from the same road, it will be classified as middle scale; if 40 meters, neighborhood scale; and if 110 meters, an urban scale.
2.5.4 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Probes.
    (a) In siting near-road NO2 monitors as required in paragraph 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitor probe shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment; but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment. Where possible, the near-road NO2 monitor probe should be within 20 meters of the target road segment.
    (b) In siting NO2 monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E-1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe inlet for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling site having a monitor probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale.

2.6 Probe Material and Pollutant Sampler Residence Time.
    (a) For the reactive gases (SO2, NO2, and O3), special probe material must be used for monitors. Studies have been conducted to determine the suitability of materials such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, Tygon[(R)], aluminum, brass, stainless steel, copper, borosilicate glass, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), and fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) for use as intake sampling lines. Of the above materials, only borosilicate glass, PVDF, PTFE, PFA, and FEP have been found to be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA[25] has specified borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon[(R)] as the only acceptable probe materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of reference or equivalent methods. Therefore, borosilicate glass, PVDF, PTFE, PFA, FEP, or their equivalent must be the only material in the sampling train (from probe inlet to the back of the monitor) that can be in contact with the ambient air sample for reactive gas monitors.  Nafion[TM] is composed primarily of PTFE and can be considered equivalent to PTFE. It has been shown in tests to exhibit virtually no loss of ozone at 20 second residence times.
    (b) For volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon[(R)] is unacceptable as the probe material because of VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon[(R)]. Borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or its equivalent are the acceptable probe materials for VOC and carbonyl sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that the sample residence time is kept to 20 seconds or less.
    (c) No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material is initially, after a period of use reactive particulate matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet to the sampling device is also critical. Ozone in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO) will show significant losses even in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds.[26] Other studies[27 28] indicate that a 10 second or less residence time is easily achievable. Therefore, sampling probes for reactive gas monitors (i.e., SO2, NO2, and O3) must have a sample residence time less than 20 seconds.
2.7 Summary.
    Table E-3 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for probe siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. It is apparent from Table E-3 that different elevation distances above the ground are shown for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitor or probe inlet. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For source oriented and near-road monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a single manifold for monitoring more than one pollutant.
       Table E-3 of Appendix E to Part 58 -- Summary of Probe Siting Criteria
                                   Pollutant
                                    Scale
                   Height from ground to probe [8] (meters)
Horizontal or vertical distance from supporting structures[2 8] to probe inlet  (meters)
            Distance from drip line of trees to probe [8]  (meters)
                 Distance from roadways to probe [8]  (meters)
SO2[2 3 4 5]
Middle (300 m) Neighborhood Urban, and Regional (1 km)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
N/A.
CO[3 4 6]
Micro [downtown or street canyon sites], micro [near-road sites], middle (300 m) and Neighborhood (1 km)
                           2.5-3.5; 2.0-7.0; 2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
2.0-10 for downtown areas or street canyon microscale; <=50 for near-road microscale; see Table E-2 of this appendix for middle and neighborhood scales.
O3[2 3 4]
Middle (300 m) Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
See Table E-1 of this appendix for all scales.
NO2[2 3 4]
Micro (Near-road [50-300 m])
                               2.0-7.0 (micro);
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
<=50 for near-road micro-scale.

Middle (300 m)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10

Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km)
                           2.0-15 (all other scales)
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
See Table E-1 of this appendix for all other scales.
Ozone precursors (for PAMS)[2 3 4]
Neighborhood and Urban (1 km)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
See Table E-1 of this appendix for all scales.
PM, Pb[2 3 4 7]
Micro, Middle, Neighborhood, Urban and Regional
2.0-7.0 (micro); 2.0-7.0 (middle PM10-2.5); 2.0-7.0 for near-road; 2.0-15 (all other scales)
                 >=2.0 (all scales, horizontal distance only)
                              >=10 (all scales)
2.0-10 (micro); see Figure E-1 of this appendix for all other scales. <=50 for near-road.
    N/A -- Not applicable.
    [1]When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
    [2]Should be greater than 20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline.
    [3]Distance from sampler or probe inlet to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes above the sampler or probe inlet. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as microscale or middle scale (see text).
    [4]Must have unrestricted airflow in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building or a wall for street canyon monitoring.
    [5]The probe or sampler should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
    6For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >=10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
    [7]Collocated monitor inlets must be within 4.0 meters of each other and at least 2.0 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1.0 meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference, unless a waiver is in place as approved by the Regional Administrator pursuant to section 3 of Appendix A. For PM2.5, collocated monitor inlet heights should be within 1 meter of each other vertically.
    [8] All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures.  When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
3. Open Path Analyzers
3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Placement.
    At least 80 percent of the monitoring path, must be located greater than or equal 2.0 and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level for all O3 and SO2 monitoring sites, and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale NO2, and CO sites. Middle scale CO and NO2 sites must also have monitoring paths greater than or equal 2.0 and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level. Microscale near-road monitoring sites are required to have monitoring paths greater than or equal 2.0 and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. The monitoring path for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways must be greater than or equal 2.0 and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. Those monitoring paths for microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways in downtown areas or urban street canyons must be greater than or equal 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.5 meters above ground level. At least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be at least 1.0 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If a significant portion of the monitoring path is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.
3.2 Spacing from Minor Sources.
    (a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular location in order to interpret this particular requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO2 can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site is likely to be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would in all likelihood be a microscale type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitoring path near local, minor sources. The plume from the local minor sources should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site.
    (b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 in the vicinity of monitoring paths for O3. To minimize these potential interferences, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be away from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.
3.3 Spacing from Obstructions.
    (a) Buildings and other obstacles may possibly scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must have unrestricted airflow and should be located away from obstacles. The horizontal distance from the obstacle to the monitoring path must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the monitoring path. An obstacle that does not meet the minimum distance requirement is considered an obstruction that restricts airflow to the monitoring path.
    (b) A monitoring path located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to possible removal mechanisms. At least 90 percent of the monitoring path for open path analyzers must have unrestricted airflow with no obstructions (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees. An unobstructed continuous arc of 180 degrees is allowable when network design criteria regulations specified in Appendix D of this part require monitoring in street canyons and the monitoring path is located on the side of a building. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential.
    (c) Special consideration must be given to the use of open path analyzers due to their inherent potential sensitivity to certain types of interferences, or optical obstructions. A monitoring path must be clear of all trees, brush, buildings, plumes, dust, or other optical obstructions, including potential obstructions that may move due to wind, human activity, growth of vegetation, etc. Temporary optical obstructions, such as rain, particles, fog, or snow, should be considered when siting an open path analyzer. Any of these temporary obstructions that are of sufficient density to obscure the light beam will affect the ability of the open path analyzer to continuously measure pollutant concentrations. Transient, but significant obscuration of especially longer measurement paths could occur as a result of certain meteorological conditions (e.g., heavy fog, rain, snow) and/or aerosol levels that are of a sufficient density to prevent the open path analyzer's light transmission. If certain compensating measures are not otherwise implemented at the onset of monitoring (e.g., shorter path lengths, higher light source intensity), data recovery during periods of greatest primary pollutant potential could be compromised. For instance, if heavy fog or high particulate levels are coincident with periods of projected NAAQS-threatening pollutant potential, the representativeness of the resulting data record in reflecting maximum pollutant concentrations may be substantially impaired despite the fact that the site may otherwise exhibit an acceptable, even exceedingly high overall valid data capture rate.
    (d) A sampling station having a monitoring path located closer to an obstacle than this criterion allows should be classified as middle scale or microscale rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a station would more closely represent these smaller scales.
    (e) For near-road monitoring stations, the monitoring path shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitoring path, between the monitoring path and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.
3.4 Spacing from Trees.
    (a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, or NO2 adsorption or reactions. Trees can also act as obstructions in cases where they are located between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the monitoring path. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be 20 meters or more from the drip line of trees and must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of trees. If a tree or trees could be considered an obstacle, the monitoring path must meet the distance requirements of section 3.3.
    (b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.
    (c) Beginning January 1, 2024, microscale sites of any air pollutant shall have no trees or shrubs located at or above the line-of-sight fetch between the monitoring path and the source under investigation, such as a roadway or a stationary source.
    3.5 Spacing from Roadways.
    Table E-4 of Appendix E to Part 58 -- Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood and Urban Scale Ozone (O3) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX, NOy)
                Roadway
average daily traffic,
vehicles per day
                        Minimum
distance[1 3]
(meters)
                       Minimum
distance[1 2 3]
(meters)
                                   <=1,000
                                      10
                                      10
                                    10,000
                                      10
                                      20
                                    15,000
                                      20
                                      30
                                    20,000
                                      30
                                      40
                                    40,000
                                      50
                                      60
                                    70,000
                                      100
                                      100
                                  >=110,000
                                      250
                                      250
    [1]Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
    [2]Applicable for ozone open path monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.
    [3] All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures.  When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
3.5.1 Spacing for Ozone Monitoring Paths.
    In siting an O3 open path analyzer, it is important to minimize destructive interferences form sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O3. Table E-4 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A monitoring site having a monitoring path located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-4 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent these smaller scales. The monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For those situations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference from automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined from the Table E-4 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.
3.5.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Paths.
    (a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.
    (b) Microscale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2.0 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.
    (c) Microscale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection and preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.
    Table E-5 of Appendix E to Part 58 -- Minimum Separation Distance Between Roadways and Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood Scale Carbon Monoxide
                Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per day
                        Minimum distance[1 2] (meters)
                                   <=10,000
                                      10
                                    15,000
                                      25
                                    20,000
                                      45
                                    30,000
                                      80
                                    40,000
                                      115
                                    50,000
                                      135
                                   >=60,000
                                      150
    [1]Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count.
    [2] All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures.  When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
3.5.3 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring Paths.
    (a) In siting near-road NO2 monitors as required in paragraph 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitoring path shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment; but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.
    (b) In siting NO2 open path monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E-5 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. An open path analyzer having a monitoring path located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-4 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale. The monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For those situations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference form automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined form the Table E-5 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.
3.6 Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path.
    The cumulative length or portion of a monitoring path that is affected by minor sources, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.
3.7 Maximum Monitoring Path Length.
    The monitoring path length must not exceed 1 kilometer for open path analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional scale. For middle scale monitoring sites, the monitoring path length must not exceed 300 meters. In areas subject to frequent periods of dust, fog, rain, or snow, consideration should be given to a shortened monitoring path length to minimize loss of monitoring data due to these temporary optical obstructions. For certain ambient air monitoring scenarios using open path analyzers, shorter path lengths may be needed in order to ensure that the monitoring site meets the objectives and spatial scales defined in appendix D to this part. The Regional Administrator may require shorter path lengths, as needed on an individual basis, to ensure that the SLAMS sites meet the appendix D requirements. Likewise, the Administrator may specify the maximum path length used at NCore monitoring sites.
3.8. Summary.
    Table E-6 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for monitoring path siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. It is apparent from Table E-6 that different elevation distances above the ground are shown for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitoring path. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For source oriented and near-road monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a monitoring path for monitoring more than one pollutant.
    Table E-6 of Appendix E to Part 58 -- Summary of Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
                                   Pollutant
                        Maximum monitoring path length
         Height from ground to 80% of monitoring path[1 8]
(meters)
Horizontal or vertical distance from supporting structures[2] to 90% of monitoring path[1 8]
(meters)
         Distance from trees to 90% of monitoring path[1 8]
(meters)
           Distance from roadways to monitoring path[1 8]
(meters)
SO2[3 4 5 6]
Middle (300 m) Neighborhood Urban, and Regional (1 km)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
N/A
CO[4 5 7]
Micro [downtown or street canyon sites], micro [near-road sites], middle (300. m) and Neighborhood (1.0 km)
                          2.5-3.5;
2.0-7.0;
2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
2.0-10 for downtown areas or street canyon microscale; <=50. for near-road microscale; see Table E-5 of this appendix for middle and neighborhood scales.
O3[3 4 5]
Middle (300. m) Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1.0 km)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
See Table E-4 of this appendix for all scales.
NO2[3 4 5]
Micro (Near-road [50-300 m])
                               2.0-7.0 (micro);
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
<=50. for near-road micro-scale.

Middle (300 m)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10

Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km)
                           2.0-15 (all other scales)
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
See Table E-4 of this appendix for all other scales.
Ozone precursors (for PAMS)[3 4 5]
Neighborhood and Urban (1 km)
                                    2.0-15
                                    >=1.0
                                     >=10
See Table E-4 of this appendix for all scales.
    N/A -- Not applicable.
    [1]Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring, middle, neighborhood, urban, and regional scale NO2 monitoring, and all applicable scales for monitoring SO2, O3, and O3 precursors.
    [2]When the monitoring path is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
    [3]At least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be greater than 20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s).
    [4]Distance from 90 percent of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle protrudes above the monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as microscale or middle scale (see text).
    5Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around at least 90 percent of the monitoring path; 180 degrees if the monitoring path is adjacent to the side of a building or a wall for street canyon monitoring.
    [6]The monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur, ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
    [7]For microscale CO monitoring sites, the monitoring path must be >=10. meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
    [8] All distances listed are expressed as having 2 significant figures.  When rounding is performed to assess compliance with these siting requirements, the distance measurements will be rounded such as to retain at least two significant figures.
4. Waiver Provisions
    Most sampling probes or monitors can be located so that they meet the requirements of this appendix. New sites with rare exceptions, can be located within the limits of this appendix. However, some existing sites may not meet these requirements and still produce useful data for some purposes. The EPA will consider a written request from the State, or where applicable local, agency to waive one or more siting criteria for some monitoring sites providing that the State or their designee can adequately demonstrate the need (purpose) for monitoring or establishing a monitoring site at that location.
    4.1   For establishing a new site, a waiver may be granted only if both of the following criteria are met:
    4.1.1   The site can be demonstrated to be as representative of the monitoring area as it would be if the siting criteria were being met.
    4.1.2   The monitor or probe cannot reasonably be located so as to meet the siting criteria because of physical constraints (e.g., inability to locate the required type of site the necessary distance from roadways or obstructions).
    4.2   However, for an existing site, a waiver may be granted if either of the criteria in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this appendix are met.
    4.3   Cost benefits, historical trends, and other factors may be used to add support to the criteria in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this appendix, however, they in themselves, will not be acceptable reasons for granting a waiver. Written requests for waivers must be submitted to the Regional Administrator. Approved waivers must be renewed minimally every 5 years and ideally as part of the annual monitoring network plan accompanying the network assessment as defined in §58.10(d). The approval date of the waiver must be documented in the annual monitoring network plan to support the requirements of §58.10(a)(1) and 58.10(b)(10).
5. References
1. Bryan, R.J., R.J. Gordon, and H. Menck. Comparison of High Volume Air Filter Samples at Varying Distances from Los Angeles Freeway. University of Southern California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago, IL. June 24-28, 1973. APCA 73-158.)
2. Teer, E.H. Atmospheric Lead Concentration Above an Urban Street. Master of Science Thesis, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. January 1971.
3. Bradway, R.M., F.A. Record, and W.E. Belanger. Monitoring and Modeling of Resuspended Roadway Dust Near Urban Arterials. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. (Presented at 1978 Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. January 1978.)
4. Pace, T.G., W.P. Freas, and E.M. Afify. Quantification of Relationship Between Monitor Height and Measured Particulate Levels in Seven U.S. Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (Presented at 70th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Toronto, Canada. June 20-24, 1977. APCA 77-13.4.)
5. Harrison, P.R. Considerations for Siting Air Quality Monitors in Urban Areas. City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago, IL. June 24-28, 1973. APCA 73-161.)
6. Study of Suspended Particulate Measurements at Varying Heights Above Ground. Texas State Department of Health, Air Control Section, Austin, TX. 1970. p.7.
7. Rodes, C.E. and G.F. Evans. Summary of LACS Integrated Pollutant Data. In: Los Angeles Catalyst Study Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-600/4-77-034. June 1977.
8. Lynn, D.A. et al. National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem: Volume 1, National Assessment. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-024. June 1976.
9. Pace, T.G. Impact of Vehicle-Related Particulates on TSP Concentrations and Rationale for Siting Hi-Vols in the Vicinity of Roadways. OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1978.
10. Ludwig, F.L., J.H. Kealoha, and E. Shelar. Selecting Sites for Monitoring Total Suspended Particulates. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-018. June 1977, revised December 1977.
11. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-013. April 1977.
12. Ludwig, F.L. and J.H.S. Kealoha. Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-077. September 1975.
13. Ludwig, F.L. and E. Shelar. Site Selection for the Monitoring of Photochemical Air Pollutants. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-013. April 1978.
14. Lead Analysis for Kansas City and Cincinnati, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 66-02-2515, June 1977.
15. Barltrap, D. and C.D. Strelow. Westway Nursery Testing Project. Report to the Greater London Council. August 1976.
16. Daines, R. H., H. Moto, and D. M. Chilko. Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 4:318, 1970.
17. Johnson, D. E., et al. Epidemiologic Study of the Effects of Automobile Traffic on Blood Lead Levels, Southwest Research Institute, Houston, TX. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/1-78-055, August 1978.
18. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA-600/8-83-028 aF-dF, 1986, and supplements EPA-600/8-89/049F, August 1990. (NTIS document numbers PB87-142378 and PB91-138420.)
19. Lyman, D. R. The Atmospheric Diffusion of Carbon Monoxide and Lead from an Expressway, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 1972.
20. Wechter, S.G. Preparation of Stable Pollutant Gas Standards Using Treated Aluminum Cylinders. ASTM STP. 598:40-54, 1976
21. Wohlers, H.C., H. Newstein and D. Daunis. Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide Adsorption On and Description From Glass, Plastic and Metal Tubings. J. Air Poll. Con. Assoc. 17:753, 1976.
22. Elfers, L.A. Field Operating Guide for Automated Air Monitoring Equipment. U.S. NTIS. p. 202, 249, 1971.
23. Hughes, E.E. Development of Standard Reference Material for Air Quality Measurement. ISA Transactions, 14:281-291, 1975.
24. Altshuller, A.D. and A.G. Wartburg. The Interaction of Ozone with Plastic and Metallic Materials in a Dynamic Flow System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll., 4:70-78, 1961.
25. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 part 53.22, July 1976.
26. Butcher, S.S. and R.E. Ruff. Effect of Inlet Residence Time on Analysis of Atmospheric Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone, Anal. Chem., 43:1890, 1971.
27. Slowik, A.A. and E.B. Sansone. Diffusion Losses of Sulfur Dioxide in Sampling Manifolds. J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc., 24:245, 1974.
28. Yamada, V.M. and R.J. Charlson. Proper Sizing of the Sampling Inlet Line for a Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 3:483, 1969.
29. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria for Particulate Matter, GEOMET Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3584. EPA 450/4-87-009. May 1987.
30. Burton, R.M. and J.C. Suggs. Philadelphia Roadway Study. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-600/4-84-070 September 1984.
31. Technical Assistance Document For Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/8-91-215. October 1991.
32. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/4-90-0003. August 1989.
33. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 450/4-87-013. June 1987F.
35. Appendix G of Part 58 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix G to Part 58 -- Uniform Air Quality Index (AQI) and Daily Reporting
1. General Information
2. Reporting Requirements
3. Data Handling
1. General Information
1.1 AQI Overview. The AQI is a tool that simplifies reporting air quality to the general public in a nationally uniform and easy to understand manner. The AQI converts concentrations of pollutants for which the EPA has established national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), into a uniform scale from 0-500. These pollutants are ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The scale of the index is divided into general categories that are associated with health messages.
2. Reporting Requirements
2.1 Applicability. The AQI must be reported daily for a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with a population over 350,000. When it is useful and possible, it is recommended, but not required for an area to report a sub-daily AQI as well.
2.2 Contents of AQI Report.
2.2.1 Content of AQI Report Requirements. An AQI report must contain the following:
a. The reporting area(s) (the MSA or subdivision of the MSA).
b. The reporting period (the day for which the AQI is reported).
c. The main pollutant (the pollutant with the highest index value).
d. The AQI (the highest index value).
e. The category descriptor and index value associated with the AQI and, if choosing to report in a color format, the associated color. Use only the following descriptors and colors for the six AQI categories:
Table 1. AQI Categories
For this AQI
Use this descriptor
And this color[1]
0 to 50
"Good"
Green
51 to 100
"Moderate"
Yellow
101 to 150
"Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups"
Orange
151 to 200
"Unhealthy"
Red
201 to 300
"Very Unhealthy"
Purple
301 and above
"Hazardous"
Maroon[1]
[1]Specific color definitions can be found in the most recent reporting guidance (Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality), which can be found at https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-index/technical-assistance-document-for-reporting-the-daily-aqi/).

f. The pollutant specific sensitive groups for any reported index value greater than 100. The sensitive groups for each pollutant are identified as part of the periodic review of the air quality criteria and the NAAQS.  For convenience, EPA lists the relevant groups for each pollutant in the most recent reporting guidance (Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality), which can be found at https://www.airnow.gov/publications/air-quality-index/technical-assistance-document-for-reporting-the-daily-aqi/).
2.2.2 Contents of AQI Report When Applicable. When appropriate, the AQI report may also contain the following, but such information is not required:
a. Appropriate health and cautionary statements.
b. The name and index value for other pollutants, particularly those with an index value greater than 100.
c. The index values for sub-areas of your MSA.
d. Causes for unusually high AQI values.
e. Pollutant concentrations.
f. Generally, the AQI report applies to an area's MSA only. However, if a significant air quality problem exists (AQI greater than 100) in areas significantly impacted by the MSA but not in it (for example, O3 concentrations are often highest downwind and outside an urban area), the report should identify these areas and report the AQI for these areas as well.
2.3. Communication, Timing, and Frequency of AQI Report. The daily AQI must be reported 7 days per week and made available via website or other means of public access. The daily AQI report represents the air quality for the previous day. Exceptions to this requirement are in section 2.4 of this appendix.
Reporting the AQI sub-daily is recommended, but not required, to provide more timely air quality information to the public for making health-protective decisions.
Submitting hourly data in real-time to the EPA's AirNow (or future analogous) system is recommended, but not required, and assists the EPA in providing timely air quality information to the public for making health-protective decisions.
Submitting hourly data for appropriate monitors (referenced in Section 3.2) satisfies the daily AQI reporting requirement because the AirNow system makes daily and sub-daily AQI reports widely available through its website and other communication tools.
Forecasting the daily AQI provides timely air quality information to the public and is recommended but not required. Sub-daily forecasts are also recommended, especially when air quality is expected to vary substantially throughout the day, like during wildfires. Long-term (multi-day) forecasts can also be made available when useful.
2.4. Exceptions to Reporting Requirements.
i. If the index value for a particular pollutant remains below 50 for a season or year, then it may be excluded from the calculation of the AQI in section 3.
ii. If all index values remain below 50 for a year, then the AQI may be reported at the discretion of the reporting agency. In subsequent years, if pollutant levels rise to where the AQI would be above 50, then the AQI must be reported as required in section 2 of this appendix.
iii. As previously mentioned in Section 2.3, submitting hourly data in real-time from appropriate monitors (referenced in Section 3.2) to the EPA's AirNow (or future analogous) system satisfies the daily AQI reporting requirement.
3. Data Handling.
3.1 Relationship of AQI and pollutant concentrations. For each pollutant, the AQI transforms ambient concentrations to a scale from 0 to 500. As appropriate, the AQI is associated with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant. In most cases, the index value of 100 is associated with the numerical level of the short-term standard (i.e., averaging time of 24-hours or less) for each pollutant. The index value of 50 is associated with the numerical level of the annual standard for a pollutant, if there is one, at one-half the level of the short-term standard for the pollutant, or at the level at which it is appropriate to begin to provide guidance on cautionary language. Higher categories of the index are based on the potential for increasingly serious health effects to occur following exposure and increasing proportions of the population that are likely to be affected. The reported AQI corresponds to the pollutant with the highest calculated AQI. For the purposes of reporting the AQI, the sub-indexes for PM10 and PM2.5 are to be considered separately. The pollutant responsible for the highest index value (the reported AQI) is called the "main" pollutant for that day.
3.2 Monitors Used for AQI Reporting. Concentration data from State/Local Air Monitoring Station (SLAMS) or parts of the SLAMS required by 40 CFR 58.10 must be used for each pollutant except PM. For PM, calculate and report the AQI on days for which air quality data has been measured (e.g., from continuous PM2.5 monitors required in Appendix D to this part). PM measurements may be used from monitors that are not reference or equivalent methods (for example, continuous PM10 or PM2.5 monitors). Detailed guidance for relating non-approved measurements to approved methods by statistical linear regression is referenced here:
Reference for relating non-approved PM measurements to approved methods (Eberly, S., T. Fitz-Simons, T. Hanley, L. Weinstock., T. Tamanini, G. Denniston, B. Lambeth, E. Michel, S. Bortnick. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) For Relating Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Continuous PM2.5 Measurements to Report an Air Quality Index (AQI). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454/B-02-002, November 2002)
3.3 AQI Forecast. The AQI can be forecasted at least 24-hours in advance using the most accurate and reasonable procedures considering meteorology, topography, availability of data, and forecasting expertise. The guidance document, "Guidelines for Developing an Air Quality (Ozone and PM2.5) Forecasting Program," can be found at https://www.airnow.gov/publications/weathercasters/guidelines-developing-air-quality-forecasting-program/.
3.4. Calculation and Equations.
i. The AQI is the highest value calculated for each pollutant as follows:
a. Identify the highest concentration among all of the monitors within each reporting area and truncate as follows:
(1) Ozone - truncate to 3 decimal places
PM2.5 - truncate to 1 decimal place
PM10 - truncate to integer
CO - truncate to 1 decimal place
SO2 - truncate to integer
NO2 - truncate to integer
(2) [Reserved]
b. Using Table 2, find the two breakpoints that contain the concentration.
c. Using Equation 1, calculate the index.
d. Round the index to the nearest integer.
Table 2 - Breakpoints for the AQI
These breakpoints
Equal these AQI's
O3 (ppm)
8-hour
O3 (ppm)
1-hour[1]
PM2.5
(ug/m[3])
24-hour
PM10
(ug/m[3])
24-hour
CO
(ppm)
8-hour
SO2
(ppb)
1-hour
NO2
(ppb)
1-hour
AQI
Category
0.000-0.054
-
0.0  -  (9.0-10.0)
0-54
0.0-4.4
0-35
0-53
0-50
Good.
0.055-0.070
-
(9.1-10.1) - 35.4
55-154
4.5-9.4
36-75
54-100
51-100
Moderate.
0.071-0.085
0.125-0.164
35.5 - 55.4
155-254
9.5-12.4
76-185
101-360
101-150
Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups.
0.086-0.105
0.165-0.204
 55.5 - 125.4
255-354
12.5-15.4
[3] 186-304
361-649
151-200
Unhealthy.
0.106-0.200
0.205-0.404
 125.5 - 225.4
355-424
15.5-30.4
[3] 305-604
650-1249
201-300
Very Unhealthy.
0.201-([2])

0.405-0.604
 225.5 - 325
425-604
30.5-50.4
[3] 605-1004
1250 -2049
301-500
[4] Hazardous.
[1] Areas are generally required to report the AQI based on 8-hour ozone values. However, there are a small number of areas where an AQI based on 1-hour ozone values would be more precautionary. In these cases, in addition to calculating the 8-hour ozone index value, the 1-hour ozone index value may be calculated, and the maximum of the two values reported.
[2] 8-hour O3 concentrations do not define higher AQI values (>301). AQI values > 301 are calculated with 1-hour O3 concentrations.
[3] 1-hr SO2 concentrations do not define higher AQI values (>=200). AQI values of 200 or greater are calculated with 24-hour SO2 concentration.
[4] AQI values for pollutant concentrations higher than the top of the index should be calculated using the breakpoints corresponding to the highest AQI category (301-500).

ii. If the concentration is equal to a breakpoint, then the index is equal to the corresponding index value in Table 2. However, Equation 1 can still be used. The results will be equal. If the concentration is between two breakpoints, then calculate the index of that pollutant with Equation 1. It should also be noted that in some areas, the AQI based on 1-hour O3 will be more precautionary than using 8-hour values (see footnote 1 to Table 2). In these cases, the 1-hour values as well as 8-hour values may be used to calculate index values and then use the maximum index value as the AQI for O3.
Ip=IHi-ILoBPHi-BPLoCp-BPLo+ILo   (Equation 1)
Where:
Ip = the index value for pollutantp
Cp = the truncated concentration of pollutantp
BPHi = the breakpoint that is greater than or equal to Cp
BPLo = the breakpoint that is less than or equal to Cp
IHi = the AQI value corresponding to BPHi
Ilo = the AQI value corresponding to BPLo.
iii. If the concentration is larger than the highest breakpoint in Table 2 then the last two breakpoints in Table 2 may be used when Equation 1 is applied.
Example
iv. Using Table 2 and Equation 1, calculate the index value for each of the pollutants measured and select the one that produces the highest index value for the AQI. For example, if a PM10 value of 210 ug/m[3] is observed, a 1-hour O3 value of 0.156 ppm, and an 8-hour O3 value of 0.130 ppm, then do this:
a. Find the breakpoints for PM10 at 210 ug/m[3] as 155 ug/m[3] and 254 ug/m[3], corresponding to index values 101 and 150;
b. Find the breakpoints for 1-hour O3 at 0.156 ppm as 0.125 ppm and 0.164 ppm, corresponding to index values 101 and 150;
c. Find the breakpoints for 8-hour O3 at 0.130 ppm as 0.116 ppm and 0.374 ppm, corresponding to index values 201 and 300;
d. Apply Equation 1 for 210 ug/m[3], PM10:
150-101254-155210-155+101=128
e. Apply Equation 1 for 0.156 ppm, 1-hour O3:
150-1010.164-0.1250.156-0.125+101=140
f. Apply Equation 1 for 0.130 ppm, 8-hour O3:
300-2010.374-0.1160.130-0.116+201=206
g. Find the maximum, 206. This is the AQI. A minimal AQI report could read: "Today, the AQI for my city is 206, which is Very Unhealthy, due to ozone." It would then reference the associated sensitive groups.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42035-42036]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0821]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) between mile
marker (MM) 179.2 and MM 180. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect persons and property from potential damage and safety
hazards during a fireworks display on and over the navigable waterway.
During the period of enforcement, entry into the safety zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or other designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September
23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0821 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, Sector Upper
Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LNM Local Notice to Mariners
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Section
U.S.C. United States Code
UMR Upper Mississippi River

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule
because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the
application until August 18, 2017. After full review of the details for
the planned and locally advertised display, the Coast Guard determined
action is needed to protect people and property from the safety hazards
associated with the fireworks display on the Upper Mississippi River
(UMR) near St. Louis, MO. We must establish this safety zone by
September 23, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the
rule.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of the rule is contrary to the public interest as it would delay
the effectiveness of the temporary safety zone needed to respond to
potential related safety hazards until after the planned fireworks
display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display
will be a safety concern before, during, and after the display. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable
waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled
event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
September 23, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
between mile marker (MM) 179.2 and MM 180 on the UMR in St. Louis, MO.
Exact times of the closures and any changes to the planned schedule
will be communicated to mariners using Broadcast and Local Notice to
Mariners. The safety zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels
and these navigable waters before, during and after the fireworks
display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This temporary
final rule establishes a safety zone impacting a less than one mile
area on the UMR for a limited time period of one hour and a half.
During the enforcement period, vessels are prohibited from entering
into or remaining within the safety zone unless specifically authorized
by the COTP or other designated representative. Based on the location,
limited safety zone area, and short duration of the enforcement period,
this rule does not pose a significant regulatory impact. Additionally,
notice of the safety zone or any changes in the planned schedule will
be made via Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners. Entry into this
safety zone may be requested from the COTP or other designated
representative and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding these rules. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting one and a half hours that will
prohibit entry from MM179.2 to MM 180 on the UMR on September 23, 2017.
It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)
of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0821 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0821  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis,
MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 179.2 to
MM 180, St. Louis, MO.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector
Upper Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Effective period. This section will be effective from 8:30 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on September 23, 2017.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any
changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: August 31, 2017.
Scott A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2017-18863 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58853]
[DOCID:fr05oc06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2630-004]

PacifiCorp, Oregon; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Assessment

September 28, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for
the Prospect Nos. 1, 2, and 4 Hydroelectric Project, located on the
Rogue River, Middle Fork Rogue River, and Red Blanket Creek in Jackson
County, Oregon, and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment
(Final EA) for the project. The Final EA contains the staff's analysis
of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes
that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the Final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings

and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Nicholas Jayjack at (202) 502-
6073.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16414 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71352]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGR 2022 Lessee 8, LLC.................  EG23-220-000
Porter Solar, LLC......................  EG23-221-000
Orlando CoGen Limited, L.P.............  EG23-222-000
Vineyard Wind 1 LLC....................  EG23-223-000
Derby Fuel Cell, LLC...................  EG23-224-000
Chevelon Butte RE II LLC...............  EG23-225-000
Strauss Wind, LLC......................  EG23-226-000
Arica Solar, LLC.......................  EG23-227-000
Redonda PV LLC.........................  EG23-228-000
Victory Pass I, LLC....................  EG23-229-000
Misenheimer Solar LLC..................  EG23-230-000
Downeast Wind, LLC.....................  EG23-231-000
Great Cove Solar LLC...................  EG23-232-000
Great Cove Solar II LLC................  EG23-233-000
Tunica Windpower LLC...................  EG23-234-000
Platteview Solar, LLC..................  EG23-235-000
Cavalier Solar A2, LLC.................  EG23-236-000
McFarland Solar B, LLC.................  EG23-237-000
Copperhead Solar, LLC..................  EG23-238-000
7V Solar Ranch, LLC....................  EG23-239-000
Crystal Hill Solar, LLC................  EG23-240-000
EnerSmart Los Coches BESS LLC..........  EG23-241-000
Eleven Mile Solar Center, LLC..........  EG23-242-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of September 2023, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)
(2022).

    Dated: October 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22768 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please file the attached comments to Docket No. OSHA-2015-0018 on behalf of Great American Insurance Company.