[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27975-27977]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0558; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-133-AD;
Amendment 39-18930; AD 2017-12-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM)
to provide procedures to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and
attitude. This AD was prompted by two in-service incidents of loss of
all air data information in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 5, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 5,
2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0558.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0558; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-11, dated June 9, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on CL-600-2C10
aeroplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the
cockpit. The air data information was recovered as the aeroplane
descended to lower altitudes. An investigation determined that the
root cause in both events was high altitude icing (ice crystal
contamination). If not addressed, this condition may affect
continued safe flight.
    Due to similarities in the air data systems, such events could
happen on all Bombardier CRJ models, CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-
600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2E25. Therefore, the corrective
actions for these models will be mandated once their respective
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revisions become available.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AFM procedures
to guide the crew to stabilize the aeroplanes airspeed and attitude
for continued safe flight.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0558.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Section 03-19, ``Unreliable
Airspeed,'' of Chapter 3, ``Emergency Procedures,'' in the Bombardier
CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, Revision
9, dated February 13, 2015. The service information describes
procedures to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same
type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0558; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-133-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.

We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected airplanes on the U.S. Register.
However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S.
Register in the future, the required actions would take about 1 work-
hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD to be $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-12-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18930; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0558; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-133-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 5, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 and
subsequent, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service incidents of
loss of all air data information in the flight deck. We are issuing
this AD to advise the flight crew of procedures to stabilize the
airplane's airspeed and attitude in the event of loss of air data
information. Loss of air data information may result in loss of
continued flight safety.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Airplane Flight Manual Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Emergency Procedures section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to
include the information in Section 03-19, ``Unreliable Airspeed,''
of Chapter 3, ``Emergency Procedures,'' in the Bombardier CRJ Series
Regional Jet Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, Revision 9, dated
February 13, 2015.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-11, dated June 9, 2015, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0558.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Section 03-19, ``Unreliable Airspeed,'' of Chapter 3,
``Emergency Procedures,'' in the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet
Model CL-600-2E25 (Series 1000) AFM, Revision 9, dated February 13,
2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 7, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12396 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34929-34932]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0542]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones: Neptune Deep Water Port, Atlantic Ocean, Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones
extending 500 meters in all directions from each of the two submerged
turret loading (STL) buoys and accompanying systems that are part of
GDF Suez Energy's Neptune Deepwater Port located in the Atlantic Ocean
off of Boston, Massachusetts. The purpose of these temporary safety
zones is to protect vessels and mariners from the potential safety
hazards associated with construction of the deepwater port facilities
and the large sub-surface turret buoys, and to protect the deepwater
port infrastructure. All vessels, with the exception of deepwater port
support vessels, are prohibited from entering into, remaining or moving
within either of the safety zones.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR on June 21, 2010. This rule is
effective with actual notice for purposes of enforcement from 12:01
a.m. June 12, 2010 until 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0542 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0542 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Pamela Garcia,
Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Boston; telephone 617-223-
3028, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. The deepwater port facilities discussed
elsewhere in this rule are in the final stages of completion and
present a potential safety hazard to vessels, especially fishing
vessels, operating in the vicinity of submerged structures associated
with the deepwater port facility. A more robust regulatory scheme,
(NPRM; USCG-2009-0589), to ensure the safety and security of vessels
operating in the area, was developed via separate rulemaking, and was
available for review and comment at the Web site http://
www.regulations.gov. These safety zones are needed pending
implementation of a final regulatory action, which will be proposed in
a separate rulemaking docket titled: Neptune Deep Water Port, Atlantic
Ocean, Boston, MA; Final Rule (USCG-2009-0589), to protect vessels from
the hazard posed by the presence of the currently uncharted, submerged
deepwater infrastructure.
    The current construction schedule that includes installation of
underwater structures does not allow time to conduct a notice and
comment period for this rule therefore publication of an NPRM is
impractical. Further, delaying the effective date pending completion of
notice and comment rulemaking is contrary to the public interest to the
extent it would expose vessels currently operating in the area to the
known, but otherwise uncharted submerged hazards.
    For the reasons outlined above, the Coast Guard finds under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Further, a
delay or cancellation of this portion of the construction to facilitate
30 days publication before the rule is made effective is contrary to
the public's interest in the timely completion of this project.

Basis and Purpose

    On March 23, 2007, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), in
accordance with the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, issued a
license to Suez Energy to own, construct, and operate a natural gas
deepwater port, ``Neptune''. Neptune Deepwater Port (NEPTUNE) is
located in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately eight nautical miles
South-southeast of Gloucester, Massachusetts, in Federal waters. The
two STL buoys, which are circled at approximately 500 meters on the
surface of the water by several small white buoys labeled LNG with red
flags and radar-reflected buoys known as Hi Flyers are located in the
following approximate positions: STL Buoy A: Latitude
42[deg]29[min]12.3[sec] N, Longitude 070[deg]36[min]29.7[sec] W; and,
STL Buoy B: Latitude 42[deg]27[min]20.5[sec] N, Longitude
070[deg]36[min]07.3[sec] W. The Neptune Deepwater Port can accommodate
the mooring, connecting, and offloading of two liquefied natural gas
carriers (LNGCs) at one time. The Neptune Deepwater Port operator plans
to offload LNGCs by regasifying the liquefied natural gas (LNG) on
board the vessels. The regasified natural gas is then transferred
through two STL buoys, via a flexible riser leading to a seabed
pipeline that ties into the existing Algonquin Gas Transmission
Pipeline for transfer to shore. GDF Suez recently completed
installation of the STL buoys and associated sub-surface
infrastructure, which includes, among other things, a significant sub-
surface sea anchor and mooring system. The temporary zones created by
this rule ensures that there is no gap in safety regulations so as to
ensure the safety of persons and vessels operating around the submerged
deepwater port infrastructure while public comments on the NPRM
creating permanent regulations around the Neptune Deepwater Port
facility are analyzed and final regulatory action is completed.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones of 500
meters in radius around the two Neptune Deepwater Port STL buoys as
described above to protect vessels from these submerged hazards. All
vessels, other than Liquefied Natural Gas carriers and associated
support vessels are prohibited from entering into, remaining or moving
within the safety and security zones.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

    This regulation is not significant as it establishes a safety zone
around the buoys and under water infrastructure of the Neptune Deep
Water Port. Extensive outreach has been conducted by the company, GDF
Suez Energy, with the local boating and fishing community so as to
minimize impacts. In addition, the company has stationed a vessel at
the location of the Neptune project to notify vessels potentially
conducting under water operations of the local dangers.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of fishing and recreational
vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Atlantic
Ocean, Massachusetts Bay area covered by this rule. These safety zones
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the following reasons. These two safety zones only
extend for 500 meters from each of the STL buoys allowing navigation in
all other areas of Massachusetts Bay and public notification of the
safety and the inherent dangers of the STL buoys and underwater
equipment will continue to be made by the Coast Guard as well as
Neptune personnel.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule

involves the creation of two safety zones around a submerged buoy and
its associated infrastructure. An environmental analysis checklist and
a categorical exclusion determination will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0542 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0542  Safety Zones: Neptune Deepwater Port, Atlantic
Ocean, Boston, MA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones: All navigable
waters of the United States within a 500-meter radius of each of the
two STL buoys of the Neptune Deepwater Port, marked on the surface of
the water by several small, white buoys labeled LNG with red flags and
radar-reflected buoys known as ``Hi Flyers'' located at approximate
positions 42[deg]29'12.3'' N, 070[deg]36'29.7'' W and 42[deg] 27'20.5''
N, 070[deg]36'07.3'' W. [NAD83].
    (b) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Boston will cause notice of
the enforcement of this temporary safety zone to be made by all
appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the effected
segments of the public, including publication in the Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced at 12:01
a.m. Saturday June 12, 2010 until 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2010.
    (d) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Authorized representative means a Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement
officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Boston
(COTP).
    Deepwater port means any facility or structure meeting the
definition of deepwater port in 33 CFR 148.5.
    Support vessel means any vessel meeting the definition of support
vessel in 33 CFR 148.5.
    (e) Regulations.
    (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations entry into or
movement within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Boston. Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier vessels
and related Support Vessels calling on the Neptune Deepwater Port are
authorized to enter and move within the safety zones of this section in
the normal course of their operations.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or authorized representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by an authorized representative by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (5) Persons and vessels may contact the Coast Guard to request
permission to enter the zone on VHF-FM Channel 16 or via phone at 617-
223-5761.

    Dated: June 9, 2010.
John N. Healey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. 2010-14851 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


we are setting the effective date of the PM2.5 increments at 1 year from
the date of promulgation of this final rule.  We are doing this by
setting the “trigger date” for PM2.5 as [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  See new 40 CFR
51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (ii)(c), and new 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and
(ii)(c).  At the same time, we are establishing an effective date for
the other provisions, i.e., the SILs and SMC for PM2.5, in this final
rule as [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PROMULGATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], which is 60 days from the date of promulgation.  This
will enable the implementation of these key elements of this rule under
the federal PSD program as soon as possible.

State PSD Programs

	In this final rule, we are establishing the final PM2.5 increments as
minimum program elements for all state PSD programs.  Accordingly,
states must submit for EPA’s approval revised SIPs that incorporate
the final PM2.5 increments or alternative measures that can be
demonstrated to EPA’s satisfaction to provide an equivalent level of
protection as the PM2.5 increments.  In accordance with section 166(b)
of the Act, we are requiring states to submit revised implementation
plans to EPA for approval within 21 months of promulgation, that is, by
[INSERT DATE 21 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].  Section 166(b) also specifies that we must approve or
disapprove these revisions within 25 months of promulgation (4 months
from the statutory deadline for SIP submittal).  We regard these
statutory deadlines as maximum allowed timeframes for action.  Moreover,
we do not believe that the Act restricts our ability to approve SIP
revisions requested by a state at any time before these deadlines.  In
this final rule, we are amending the regulatory provisions at 40 CFR
51.166(a)(6)(i) to articulate the deadline set forth by the statute for
the SIP submittals involving the PM2.5 increments pursuant to section
166(a) of the Act.

	It is very unlikely that states will be able to revise their SIPs and
submit them to EPA for approval prior to the effective date of the PM2.5
increments in this final rule, which is [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Therefore, there is likely to
be a period of time after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] when state laws will not require PSD applicants otherwise
subject to PSD for PM2.5 to complete an increment analysis for the PM2.5
increments, even though the PM2.5 increments, major source baseline
date, and trigger date have been established as a result of this final
rule.  Similarly, it is not clear whether states will have the authority
to consider such applicants as having triggered the minor source
baseline date during this interim period before their revised PSD rules
containing the new PM2.5 increments and relevant baseline dates become
effective.

	The EPA does not intend to prescribe the implementation timeline for
state programs; rather, each state will need to determine how increment
consumption and the setting of the minor source baseline date for PM2.5
will occur under its own PSD program.  Nevertheless, regardless of when
a state begins to require PM2.5 increment analyses and how it chooses to
set the PM2.5 minor source baseline date, the emissions from sources
subject to PSD for PM2.5 on which construction commenced after [INSERT
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FEDERAL REGISTER] (the major source baseline
date) will consume PM2.5 increment and must be included in increment
analyses occurring after the minor source baseline date is established
for an area under the state’s revised PSD program.

Federal PSD Program

	The federal PSD regulations under 40 CFR 52.21 apply where states do
not have approved PSD programs and in Indian lands.  In such cases,
either EPA implements the PSD program or the state will implement it
under authority granted by EPA through a delegation agreement.

	We proposed to begin implementing the federal PSD program for PM2.5 on
the effective date of the final rule, i.e., either 1 year from the date
of publication in the Federal Register or 60 days from date of
publication, if we developed the new increments pursuant to proposed
Option 1.  Alternatively, we requested comment on whether we should
delay implementation of the federal PSD program until 25 months after
promulgation, which is the latest date by which EPA is required to
approve state SIP revisions.  This is the same approach we took in 1988
to implement the then new NO2 increments.  See 53 FR 40658, October 17,
1988.  We did not propose the 24-month delay for the PM2.5 increments
because of the significant delay that had already occurred between the
time we promulgated the PM2.5 NAAQS and the time the PM2.5 increment
rulemaking would be finalized.  However, we sought comment on this
alternative approach because we recognized that it might not be
equitable to begin implementation of the new program requirements in
those few areas where the federal program applies before the majority of
states are required to implement the program.

	Two commenters (0026, 0043) urged EPA to hold off implementation of
state programs administered under the federal PSD program in order to
provide a uniform and consistent national approach.  One state agency
(0015) supported implementing the federal PSD program with a delayed
effective date of 1 year after the effective date of the final rule
instead of 60 days.

	We have decided to begin implementing the revised federal PSD program
as set out previously in our introductory discussion of this issue in
section VIII.A.  That is, the revised regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 will
become effective in 60 days, on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  This will allow EPA or the
delegated state agency to begin using the SILs and SMC for PM2.5 on that
date, as described in section VIII.C of this preamble.  However, the
date established in the regulations for the trigger date will ensure
that the PM2.5 increments do not become effective for 1 year, consistent
with section 166(b) of the Act, and that the minor source baseline date
cannot be established until the PM2.5 increments become effective.
However, PSD sources subject to PM2.5 that receive their PSD permit
after the date of publication of this final rule will be considered to
consume PM2.5 increments by virtue of the fact that they will commence
construction after the major source baseline date for PM2.5, which is
the date of publication of this final rule.

	Thus, sources in an area subject to the federal PSD program for PM2.5
will be able to use the SILs and SMC as screening tools for the required
PM2.5 NAAQS compliance demonstration, but in most cases will not be
required to submit a PM2.5 increment analysis as part of a complete PSD
permit application for a federal PSD permit unless the application is
submitted on or after [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  On or after that date, when an applicant submits
a complete PSD permit application that is required to address PM2.5
under the federal PSD program, that first application will establish the
minor source baseline date for PM2.5 in the applicable attainment or
unclassifiable area.

	As with the state PSD program requirements, prior to the establishment
of the minor source baseline date in an area, emissions increases from
minor sources in the area will be counted toward the baseline
concentration, rather than to the PM2.5 increment.  As described
earlier, the emissions from major stationary sources that commence
construction after the major source baseline date, regardless of the
date on which their PSD application is submitted, must be counted toward
consumption of the PM2.5 increments.  While these sources will not be
required to submit an increment analysis for PM2.5 as part of their
complete application as long as they receive their PSD permit before the
trigger date for PM2.5 (see discussion that follows in section VIII.B),
the emissions increases resulting from the permitting of these sources
ultimately must be counted toward the PM2.5 increments when the first
PSD permit application submitted after the trigger date establishes the
minor source baseline date for the area of concern, and in all
subsequent PM2.5 increment analyses for that area.

Transition Period

	In the 2007 NPRM, we proposed a transition period to clarify when PSD
permit applications must contain an increment analysis demonstrating
compliance with the PM2.5 increments following the date the PM2.5
increments become effective in any state or federal PSD program.
Specifically, we proposed to establish a grandfathering provision to
allow complete applications submitted before the increment effective
date, but for which the permit had not yet been issued by the effective
date, to continue being processed using the PM10 Surrogate Policy to
satisfy the requirement to demonstrate compliance with the new PM2.5
requirements.  The grandfathering provision for PM2.5 was originally
proposed in the 2007 NPRM at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(10) and 40 CFR
52.21(i)(11) for state and federal PSD programs, respectively.  See 72
FR 54112, September 21, 2007, at 54149 and 54154.

	Three commenters (0015, 0022, 0026) supported the proposed
grandfathering provision for sources that submitted a complete
application before the effective date of the applicable PSD rules.
Another commenter (0043) felt that it was reasonable to allow states a
choice between using PM10 or PM2.5 increments during a transition period
including SIP approval, where applicable.

	During the time since the proposal of this rule in 2007, we have
reconsidered the need for the proposed transition period in the federal
PSD program to effectively implement the PM2.5 increments.  In light of
the importance of preventing significant deterioration of PM2.5 air
quality and the amount of time that has passed since the initial
promulgation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, we do not believe that further delay is
warranted.  We expect that most permits issued after [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] will be from sources
that submitted their PSD applications after the major source baseline
date for PM2.5, which is defined as the date of publication of this
final rule, so that they will be increment-consuming sources.
Therefore, when these sources apply for their PSD permits, they will
have had significant advance notice of when the new increments will
become effective, i.e., 1 year from the date of publication of this
final rule.  The review and permitting of permit applications submitted
prior to the publication date of this final rule should generally be
completed prior to the effective date of PM2.5 increments and thus
effectively have a transition period of 1 year to complete processing.

	Thus, we are requiring each source that receives its PSD permit after
the effective date of the PM2.5 increments, regardless of when the
application was submitted, to provide a demonstration that the
source’s proposed emissions increase, along with other
increment-consuming emissions, will not cause or contribute to a
violation of the PM2.5 increments.

Under this final rule, sources applying for a PSD permit under the
federal PSD program after the major source baseline date for PM2.5
(i.e., after the date of publication of this final rule), but before the
PM2.5 increments become effective (i.e., the date 1 year after
publication of this final rule), will be considered to consume PM2.5
increment.  While EPA will not require any such source to include a
PM2.5 increment analysis as part of its initial PSD application, an
increment analysis ultimately will be required before the permit may be
issued if the date of issuance will occur after the trigger date, when
the PM2.5 increments become effective under the federal PSD program.
Finally, for the same reasons that we are not adopting the proposed
transition period that would have exempted PSD applicants with pending
permit applications from demonstrating compliance with the PM2.5
increment requirements under the federal PSD program, we have decided
not to provide an option for states to apply a transition period under
40 CFR 51.166.  We believe it is appropriate for all increment-consuming
sources subject to PM2.5 to demonstrate compliance with the PM2.5
increments when the required permit is issued after the PM2.5 increments
become effective in the state’s PSD regulations.

SILs and SMC for PM2.5

	In the 2007 NPRM, we explained our position that SILs and SMCs are not
minimum required elements of an approvable SIP.  While these de minimis
values are widely considered to be useful components for implementing
the PSD program, they are not absolutely necessary for the states to
implement their PSD programs.  That is, states can satisfy the statutory
requirements for a PSD program by requiring each PSD applicant to submit
air quality monitoring data and to conduct a comprehensive air quality
impacts analysis for PM2.5 without using de minimis thresholds to exempt
certain sources from such requirements.  Because the de minimis values
for PM2.5 (and other pollutants) are not mandatory elements, we proposed
not to establish specific deadlines for submitting revisions to
incorporate the specific values for PM2.5 into SIPs.

	One state/local commenter (0033) agreed that the SILs and SMCs should
not be a required element of the PSD SIP.  Another state/local commenter
(0015) agreed with our proposal, but stated that EPA has the authority
to include SILs and SMCs as minimum program requirements per the opinion
set forth in Alabama Power v. Costle.  This commenter added that the EPA
Environmental Appeals Board has affirmed EPA’s interpretation of the
Act to allow EPA to evaluate the significance of a source’s impact
when determining whether the source’s emissions would “cause or
contribute” to a NAAQS or increments violation under section 165(a)(3)
of the Act.

	Two commenters (0035, 0037) disagreed with our proposed position and
argued that SILs and SMCs should be mandatory elements of a state PSD
program.  One of these commenters argued that the requirement to model
without the use of screening models with SILs and SMCs is so
unreasonable that EPA must require that states adopt the SILs and SMCs
to meet the Purpose clause of the Act, which requires a balancing of
environmental and economic considerations.  The other opposing commenter
stated that the increments, SILs, and SMCs need to be adopted as a
single regulatory approach because the SILs and SMCs define when
additional work is needed to ensure that PSD requirements, such as
maintaining adequate increment, are met.  This commenter added that
there is no reason for sources to be placed in the position of
conducting expensive modeling that can delay a project when it is
unnecessary from an air quality perspective.

	We agree that the SILs and SMCs used as de minimis thresholds for the
various pollutants are useful tools that enable permitting authorities
and PSD applicants to screen out “insignificant” activities;
however, the fact remains that these values are not required by the Act
as part of an approvable SIP program.  We believe that most states are
likely to adopt the SILs and SMCs because of the useful purpose they
serve regardless of our position that the values are not mandatory.
Alternately, states may develop more stringent values if they desire to
do so.  In any case, states are not under any SIP-related deadline for
revising their PSD programs to add these screening tools.

	Using the SILs for PM2.5, when a proposed major new source or major
modification of PM2.5 predicts (via air quality modeling) an impact less
than the PM2.5 de minimis value, the proposed source or modification is
not considered to have a significant air quality impact and would not
need to complete a cumulative impact analysis involving an analysis of
other sources in the area.  Also, a source with a de minimis ambient
impact would not be considered to cause or contribute to a violation of
either the PM2.5 NAAQS or increments.

	The PM2.5 SILs will become effective under the federal PSD program on
the effective date of this final rule, that is, on [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER], when either EPA, or a
state acting under a delegation of EPA’s authority, implements the
revised PSD permitting requirements for PM2.5 pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21.
The SILs will be for use initially with the compliance demonstration for
the PM2.5 NAAQS, and later for the PM2.5 increment analysis, under the
federal PSD program.  We emphasize, however, that the PM2.5 SILs are not
intended to be used as part of the determination of adverse impacts on
AQRVs for PM2.5 in Class I areas.

	Similarly, we intend to use the PM2.5 SMC (4 µg/m3, 24-hour average)
as a screening tool in the federal PSD permit program beginning on
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
 Accordingly, when either the modeled PM2.5 impact of, or the existing
ambient air quality within the area of, the proposed new major source or
major modification is less than the PM2.5 SMC, the reviewing authority
may exempt the source or modification from the monitoring data
requirements for PM2.5 under 40 CFR 52.21(m).

Other Regulatory Changes

	The Act provides that the PSD regulations apply to areas designated as
“attainment” or “unclassifiable” as defined by the Act.  When
the original regulations were written, the Act provisions for
designating areas as either “attainment” or “unclassifiable”
were contained in sections 107(d)(1)(D) and (E), respectively.  In 1990,
Congress revised section 107 and changed the relevant paragraphs
defining “attainment” and “unclassifiable” areas to sections
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii), respectively.  In accordance with these
statutory changes, we are correcting the references to the statutory
classifications contained in the existing PSD rules to match the revised
paragraphs in the Act.  See revised 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(iii)(a) and
(15)(i) and (ii), and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(iii)(a) and (15)(i) and (ii).

 	In adding the SILs for PM2.5 in this final rule, we restructured
paragraph (k) (“Source impact analysis”) in the existing PSD
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.  Under the restructuring of
paragraph (k), old paragraph (k)(2) is now paragraph (k)(1)(b).  To
accommodate this restructuring change, we are also revising
grandfathering provisions that are contained in existing paragraphs
(i)(8) and (i)(9) at 40 CFR 51.166, and paragraphs (i)(9) and (i)(10) at
40 CFR 52.21, which contained references to requirements contained in
paragraph (k)(2).  As revised, the grandfathering provisions now
reference new paragraph (k)(1)(b).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866 - Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a “significant regulatory action” because it raises novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s
priorities, or the principle set forth in the Executive Order.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket
for this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

	The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.

	Pursuant to title I, part C, of the Act, the PSD program requires the
owner or operator to obtain a permit prior to either constructing a new
major stationary source of air pollutants or making a major modification
to an existing major stationary source.  The information collection for
sources under PSD results from the requirement for owners or operators
to submit applications for NSR permits.  In some cases, sources must
conduct preconstruction monitoring to determine the existing ambient air
quality.  For reviewing authorities, the information collection results
from the requirement to process permit applications and issue permits,
and to transmit associated information to EPA.  The EPA oversees the PSD
program, and the information collected by sources and reviewing
authorities is used to ensure that the program is properly implemented.

	The final rule will increase the PSD permitting burden for owners and
operators of major stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions by adding PM2.5
increments to the list of existing increments for which air quality
impact analyses must be carried out to track the amount of increment
consumed by the proposed source and other sources in the area.  Over the
3-year period covered by the Information Collection Request (ICR), we
estimate an average annual burden totaling about 29,000 hours and $2.8
million for all industry entities that will be affected by the final
rule.  For the same reasons, we also expect the final rule (when fully
implemented) to increase burden for the state and local authorities
reviewing PSD permit applications.  In addition, there will be
additional burden for state and local agencies to revise their SIPs to
incorporate the proposed changes.  Over the 3-year period covered by the
ICR, we estimate that the average annual burden for all state and local
reviewing authorities will total about 7,500 hours and $581,000.  Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.  When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR
part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the
approved information collection requirements contained in this final
rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

	For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
“small entity” is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.

	After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because small
entities are not subject to the requirements of this rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
 The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector.  The final rules adds only a
relatively small number of new requirements to the existing permit
requirements already in place under the PSD program, since states are
currently implementing a PM10 surrogate program pursuant to EPA
guidance.  Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

	This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.  The final rule
applies only to new major stationary sources and to major modifications
at existing major stationary sources.

Executive Order 13132 - Federalism

	This final rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  The final rule makes relatively
minor changes to the established PSD program, simply making it possible
for states to implement PSD for PM2.5 instead of relying on PM10 as a
surrogate.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.  In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA
specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from state and local
officials.

Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments

	This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).  The final rule
provides the elements to implement a PM2.5 PSD program in attainment
areas.  The Act provides for states to develop plans to regulate
emissions of air pollutants within their jurisdictions.  The Tribal Air
Rule (TAR) under the Act gives tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement Act programs to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS, but
leaves to the discretion of the tribes the decision of whether to
develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate elements of a
program they will adopt.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

	The EPA did reach out to national tribal organizations in 2006 to
provide a forum for tribal professionals to provide input to the
rulemaking.  However, not much participation or input was received.

Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

	This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.  One of the basic requirements of the
PSD program is that new and modified major sources must demonstrate that
any new emissions do not cause or contribute to air quality in violation
of the NAAQS.

Executive Order 13211 - Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

	This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy.  Further, we have concluded that this rule is not
likely to have any adverse energy effects.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

	This action does not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

	Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.

	The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect
the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.
This final rule will provide regulatory certainty for implementing the
preconstruction NSR permitting program for PM2.5.  However, the
requirements are similar to the existing requirements of the PM10
program and hence do not impact the human health or environmental
effects.

Congressional Review Act

	The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Nevertheless, this rule needs to be reviewed for the new increments
being promulgated herein so that they can be scrutinized by Congress as
intended under section 166(b) of the Act.  Even though the PM2.5
increments will not become effective for 1 year, the final rule will
become effective 60 days from the date of publication, that is, on
[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], for the screening tools (SILs and SMC) being established in
this rule.

Judicial Review

	Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Any such judicial review is
limited to only those objections that are raised with reasonable
specificity in timely comments.  Filing a petition for reconsideration
by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of
this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall
not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.  Under section
307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to
enforce these requirements.

Statutory Authority

	The statutory authority for this final action is provided by sections
101, 160, 163, 166, 301, and 307(d) of the Act as

Page 200 of 216 – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) – Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)

amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7470, 7473, 7475, 7476, 7601, and 7607(d)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

	Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations.

40 CFR Part 52

	Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations.

___________________________

Dated:

____________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For the reasons set out in the preamble, title
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51 - [Amended]

	1.  The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

	Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401 - 7671q.

Subpart I - [Amended]

	2.  Section 51.165 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (b)(2)
to read as follows:

§51.165  Permit requirements.

* * * * *

	(b)  * * *

	(2)  * * *

Pollutant	Annual	Averaging time (hours)

24	8	3	1

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

NO2

CO		1.0 µg/m3

1.0 µg/m3

0.3 µg/m3

1.0 µg/m3

		5 µg/m3

5 µg/m3

1.2 µg/m3

0.5 mg/m3	25 µg/m3

2 mg/m3

* * * * *

	3.  Section 51.166 is amended as follows:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 By revising paragraph (a)(6)(i);

By revising paragraph (b)(14)(i)(a);

By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(14)(i)(b) and adding
“; and” in its place;

By adding paragraph (b)(14)(i)(c);

By revising paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(a);

By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(b) and adding
“; and” in its place;

By adding paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(c);

By revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(a);

By revising paragraph (b)(15)(i) and paragraph (b)(15)(ii) introductory
text;

By revising the table in paragraph (c)(1);

By revising paragraph (c)(2);

By revising paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c);

By redesignating existing paragraphs (i)(5)(i)(d) through (j) as
paragraphs (i)(5)(i)(e) through (k);

By adding new paragraph (i)(5)(i)(d);

By removing “(k)(2)” from paragraph (i)(8) and adding
“(k)(1)(b)” in its place;

By removing in two places “(k)(2)” from paragraph (i)(9) and adding
“(k)(1)(b)” in those places;

By revising paragraph (k);

By removing the words “particulate matter” in the last sentence of
paragraph (p)(4) and adding in their place “PM2.5, PM10,”; and

By revising the table in paragraph (p)(4).

§51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

	(a) * * *

	(6) * * *

	(i) Any State required to revise its implementation plan by reason of
an amendment to this section, with the exception of amendments to add
new maximum allowable increases or other measures pursuant to section
166(a) of the Act, shall adopt and submit such plan revision to the
Administrator for approval no later than 3 years after such amendment is
published in the Federal Register.  With regard to a revision to an
implementation plan by reason of an amendment to paragraph (c) of this
section to add maximum allowable increases or other measures, the state
shall submit such plan revision to the Administrator for approval within
21 months after such amendment is published in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

	(b)  * * *

	(14)(i)  * * *

	(a)	In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, January 6, 1975;

* * * * *

	(c)  In the case of PM2.5, [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

	(ii)  * * *

	(a)	In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, August 7, 1977;

* * * * *

	(c)  In the case of PM2.5, [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(iii) * * *

(a) The area in which the proposed source or modification would
construct is designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the pollutant on the date of
its complete application under 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations
approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166; and

* * * * *

	(15)(i) Baseline area means any intrastate area (and every part
thereof) designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act in which the major source or major
modification establishing the minor source baseline date would construct
or would have an air quality impact equal to or greater than 1 µg/m3
(annual average) for SO2, NO2, or PM10, or an air quality impact equal
or greater than 0.3 µg/m3 (annual average) for PM2.5.

	(ii) Area redesignations under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the
Act cannot intersect or be smaller than the area of impact of any major
stationary source or major modification which:

* * * * *

	(c)  * * *

	(1)  * * *

Pollutant	Maximum allowable increase (micrograms per cubic meter)

Class I Area

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

1

2

4

8

2

5

25

2.5

Class II Area

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

4

9

17

30

20

91

512

25

Class III Area

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

8

18

34

60

40

182

700

50

* * * * *

	(2)  Where the State can demonstrate that it has alternative measures
in its plan other than an area classification plan, including maximum
allowable increases as defined under paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
that satisfy the requirements in sections 166(c) and 166(d) of the Act
for a regulated NSR pollutant for which the Administrator has
established maximum allowable increases pursuant to section 166(a) of
the Act, the requirements for an area classification plan and maximum
allowable increases for that pollutant under paragraph (c)(1) of this
section shall not apply upon approval of the plan by the Administrator.
The following regulated NSR pollutants are eligible for such treatment:

	(i)  Nitrogen dioxide.

	(ii) PM2.5.

* * * * *

	(i)  * * *

	(5)  * * *

	(i)  * * *

	(c)  PM2.5—4 µg/m3, 24-hour average;

	(d)  PM10—10 µg/m3, 24-hour average;

* * * * *

	(k)  Source impact analysis.

(1)  Required demonstration.  The plan shall provide that the owner or
operator of the proposed source or modification shall demonstrate that
allowable emission increases from the proposed source or modification,
in conjunction with all other applicable emissions increases or
reduction (including secondary emissions), would not cause or contribute
to air pollution in violation of:

	(i)  Any national ambient air quality standard in any air quality
control region; or

	(ii)  Any applicable maximum allowable increase over the baseline
concentration in any area.

	(2)  Significant impact levels.  The plan may provide that, for
purposes of PM2.5, the demonstration required in paragraph (k)(1) of
this section is deemed to have been made if the emissions increase from
the new stationary source alone or from the modification alone would
cause, in all areas, air quality impacts less than the following
amounts:

Pollutant	Averaging time	Class I

Area	Class II

Area 	Class III

Area

PM2.5	Annual		0.06 µg/m3		0.3 µg/m3		0.3 µg/m3

	24-hour		0.07 µg/m3		1.2 µg/m3		1.2 µg/m3

* * * * *

	(p)  * * *

	(4)  * * *

Pollutant	Maximum allowable increase (micrograms per cubic meter)

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

4

9

17

30

20

91

325

25

* * * * *

	4.  Appendix S to part 51 is amended by revising the table in Section
III.A to read as follows:

Appendix S to Part 51—Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling

* * * * *

	III.  * * *

	A.  * * *

Pollutant	Annual	Averaging time (hours)

24	8	3	1

SO2

PM10

PM2.5

NO2

CO		1.0 µg/m3

1.0 µg/m3

0.3 µg/m3

1.0 µg/m3

		5 µg/m3

5 µg/m3

1.2 µg/m3

0.5 mg/m3	25 µg/m3

2 mg/m3

* * * * *

PART 52 - [Amended]

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

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

Subpart A - [Amended]

	6.  Section 52.21 is amended as follows:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 By revising paragraph (b)(14)(i)(a);

By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(14)(i)(b) and adding
“; and” in its place;

By adding paragraph (b)(14)(i)(c);

By revising paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(a);

By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(b) and adding
“; and” in its place;

By adding paragraph (b)(14)(ii)(c);

By revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(a);

By revising paragraph (b)(15)(i) and paragraph (b)(15)(ii) introductory
text;

By revising the table in paragraph (c);

By revising paragraph (i)(5)(i);

By removing “(k)(2)” from paragraph (i)(9) and adding
“(k)(1)(b)” in its place;

By removing in two places “(k)(2)” from paragraph (i)(10) and adding
“(k)(1)(b) in those places;

By revising paragraph (k);

By removing the words “particulate matter” in the last sentence of
paragraph (p)(5) and adding in their place “PM2.5, PM10,”; and

By revising the table in paragraph (p)(5).

§52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *

	(b)  * * *

	(14)(i)  * * *

	(a)	In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, January 6, 1975;

* * * * *

	(c)  In the case of PM2.5, [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].

	(ii)  * * *

	(a)	In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, August 7, 1977;

* * * * *

	(c)  In the case of PM2.5, [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

	(iii) * * *

(a) The area in which the proposed source or modification would
construct is designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the pollutant on the date of
its complete application under 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations
approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166; and

* * * * *

	(15)(i) Baseline area means any intrastate area (and every part
thereof) designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act in which the major source or major
modification establishing the minor source baseline date would construct
or would have an air quality impact equal to or greater than 1 µg/m3
(annual average) for SO2, NO2, or PM10, or an air quality impact equal
or greater than 0.3 µg/m3 (annual average) for PM2.5.

	(ii) Area redesignations under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the
Act cannot intersect or be smaller than the area of impact of any major
stationary source or major modification which:

* * * * *

	(c)  * * *

Pollutant	Maximum allowable increase (micrograms per cubic meter)

Class I Area

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

1

2

4

8

2

5

25

2.5

Class II Area

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

4

9

17

30

20

91

512

25

Class III Area

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

8

18

34

60

40

182

700

50

* * * * *

	(i)  * * *

	(5)  * * *

	(i)   The emissions increase of the pollutant from the new source or
the net emissions increase of the pollutant from the modification would
cause, in any area, air quality impacts less than the following amounts:

	(a)  Carbon monoxide—575 µg/m3, 8-hour average;

	(b)  Nitrogen dioxide—14 µg/m3, annual average;

	(c)  PM2.5—4 µg/m3, 24-hour average;

	(d)  PM10—10 µg/m3, 24-hour average;

	(e)  Sulfur dioxide—13 µg/m3, 24-hour average;

	(f)  Ozone;1

	(g)  Lead—0.1 µg/m3, 3-month average;

	(h)  Fluorides—0.25 µg/m3, 24-hour average;

	(i)  Total reduced sulfur—10 µg/m3, 1-hour average;

	(j)  Hydrogen sulfide—0.2 µg/m3, 1-hour average;

	(k)  Reduced sulfur compounds—10 µg/m3, 1-hour average; or

	1 No de minimis air quality level is provided for ozone.  However, any
net emissions increase of 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic
compounds or nitrogen oxides subject to PSD would be required to perform
an ambient impact analysis, including the gathering of ambient air
quality data.

* * * * *

	(k)  Source impact analysis.

(1)  Required demonstration.  The owner or operator of the proposed
source or modification shall demonstrate that allowable emission
increases from the proposed source or modification, in conjunction with
all other applicable emissions increases or reductions (including
secondary emissions), would not cause or contribute to air pollution in
violation of:

	(i)  Any national ambient air quality standard in any air quality
control region; or

	(ii)  Any applicable maximum allowable increase over the baseline
concentration in any area.

	(2)  Significant impact levels.  For purposes of PM2.5, the
demonstration required in paragraph (k)(1) of this section is deemed to
have been made if the emissions increase from the new stationary source
alone or from the modification alone would cause, in all areas, air
quality impacts less than the following amounts:

Pollutant	Averaging time	Class I Area 	Class II

Area	Class III

Area

PM2.5	Annual		0.06 µg/m3		0.3 µg/m3		0.3 µg/m3

	24-hour		0.07 µg/m3		1.2 µg/m3		1.2 µg/m3

* * * * *

	(p)  * * *

	(5)  * * *

Pollutant	Maximum allowable increase (micrograms per cubic meter)

PM2.5:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

PM10:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

24-hr maximum

3-hr maximum

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean

4

9

17

30

20

91

325

25

* * * * *

 We view “promulgation” to occur on the date that a final rule is
published in the Federal Register.  Hence, references in this preamble
to the date of promulgation of this final rule alternatively refer to
the date of publication of this final rule.

 We have delegated our authority to some states to implement the federal
PSD program.  The EPA remains the reviewing authority in non-delegated
states lacking SIP-approved programs and in Indian country.

 The basic monitoring exemption provision is part of the original
monitoring requirements adopted in the 1980 PSD rulemaking.  45 FR
52710, August 7, 1980.

 Baseline dates are pollutant specific.  That is, a complete PSD
application establishes the baseline date only for those regulated NSR
pollutants that are projected to be emitted in significant amounts (as
defined in the regulations) by the applicant’s new source or
modification.  Thus, an area may have different baseline dates for
different pollutants.

 See EPA’s “Guideline on Air Quality Models” at 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W.

 The term “air quality related values” is not defined in the Act,
but the legislative history provides language saying that “The term
‘air quality related values’ of federal lands designated as Class I
includes the fundamental purposes for which such lands have been
established and preserved by the Congress and the responsible federal
agency.  For example, under the 1916 Organic Act to establish the
National Park Service (16 U.S.C. 1), the purpose of such national park
lands ‘is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects
and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.’”  S. Rep. No. 95-127 at 36 (1977).

hñ

hñ

hñ

 hñ

hñ

d

®

÷

Ó

Ѐ0摧冔

戁	摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

2

3

4

5

7

8

B

C

D

^

_

`

a

b

c

d

e

f

‚

ƒ

-ƒ

„

…

‡

ˆ

Œ

Ž

¨

©

ª

«

¬

®

¯

°

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

Ñ

Ò

Õ

Ö

×

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

ù

(

)

*

+

-

.

V

X

^

_

`

z

{

|

~

€

‚

ƒ

Ÿ

¡

¢

¤

¥

§

ª

°

±

²

Ì

Í

Î

Ð

Ñ

Ò

Ó

Ô

Õ

ñ

ò

j¸

j;

,ò

ó

ô

ö

÷

j¬

j/

j

Ѐ0摧冔

戁	摧冔

摧冔

-

Ѐ0摧冔

戁	摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

␱愀Ĥ摧冔

㄀$摧冔

	̀Ȥ␱愀Ȥ摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

$ hñ

hñ

hñ

 hñ

hñ

hñ

戁	摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

㄀$摧冔

	̀Ĥ␱愀Ĥ摧冔

h

 h;

h;

h;

h

h

h;

摧冔

Ѐ0摧冔

戁	摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ0摧冔

戁	摧冔

㄀$摧冔

摧冔

戁	摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葞ñ葠／摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

阂s㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

阂s㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

摧冔

Ȁ玖ԀᣖČ

Č

愀Ĥ摧冔

Ȁ玖ԀᣖČ

Č

瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葠ː摧冔

ᰆ㄀$摧冔

hµ

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

吀阂s㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

吀阂s㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

ŔȀ玖ԀᣖČ

Č

摧冔

ŔȀ玖ԀᣖČ

Č

瑹冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

h

葠ː摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

hÇu

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葠Ũ摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

hÐB

hÐB

hÐB

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

hy

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

阂l㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

昀Ĵ瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

阂l㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

yt³

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

(

ࠀ&萑ː葠ː摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

 h

 h

V

W

æ

é

'

 h³

h³

h³

 h³

h³

h³

h³

 h³

h³

 h³

h³

h³

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

hº

摧冔

葠Ũ摧冔

摧冔

葠ː摧冔

hú

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

 hª

hª

hF&

摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

༏ᄀ킄ሂā᐀¤㄀$葠ː摧冔

h?

h}

h}

 hª

摧冔

༏ᄀ킄ሂā᐀¤㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

h™

h™

h™

h

h

㄀$摧冔

฀킄༂킄㄂$葝ː葞ː摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

摧冔

༐ༀ킄ᄂ킄ᐂ¤㄀$葞ː葠ː摧冔

༔฀킄༂킄ᄂ킄ᐂ¤㄀$葝ː葞ː葠ː摧冔

༏ᄀ킄ሂā᐀¤㄀$葠ː摧冔

༏ᄀ킄ሂā᐀¤㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

h?

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

阂l㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

昀Ĵ瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

阂l㐃ԁᣖČ

Č

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

瑹冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

*

-

ô

÷

Š

Ž

¬

¯

õ

ø

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

␱㜀$␸䠀$摧冔

摧冔

 hê\

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

h\

hÊ

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

䠀$摧冔

䠀$摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

T

V

 hà

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

	ሀā㄀$摧冔

hñr

愀Ĥ摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

愀Ĥ摧冔

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

葠ː摧冔

摧冔

ገ᐀¤㄀$摧冔

 hR

hR

hR

hR

摧冔

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀$葠ː摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

ऀ

hR

hR

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

hî

 hî

hî

hî

摧冔

摧冔

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧冔

搒Ǡ摧冔

葠ː摧冔

hº

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

萑ﾈ葠ﾈ摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

 h‹

 h‹

 h‹

h‹

 h‹

h„

h‡'

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

hMJ

hQ

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

hZ

hZ

hZ

hZ

‹

§

¬

»

Ü

ê

;

hZ

hZ

hZ

=;

>

J

M

„

‡

™

¥

·

½

À

Á

Ä

hZ

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

 ho4

ho4

ho4

ho4

摧冔

ࠀ1萑ː葠ː摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

ho4

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

搒Ǡ摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

h«

 h«

h«

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

܀1搒ð摧罱܀1搒ð摧冔

㄀$摧冔

Ѐ1摧冔

摧冔

h”Q

h”Q

h”Q

h”Q

h”Q

h”Q

h¢

h¢

 h¢

 h¢

í

 h

: regulation, states can adopt measures other than increments as long as
they can demonstrate that the measures selected comply with the same
criteria and goals of sections 166 (c) and (d) of the Act that must be
met for increments.

 We also believe that we clearly described how section 166(f) might
provide alternative authority for establishing increments for PM2.5
(see, e.g., 72 FR 54120 - 54121), but will not address that in detail
here because the increments in this rule are not based on section 166(f)
authority.

 Even if such a waiver of the Class I increment is allowed upon a
finding of no adverse impact, the source must comply with such emissions
limitations as may be necessary to ensure that alternative increments
specified in the rules for SO2 or PM are not exceeded.  The alternative
increments are generally at the level of the Class II increments, with
the lone exception being a more restrictive 3-hour increment for SO2.
Section 165(d)(2)(C)(iv).  The EPA made this provision applicable to the
PSD provisions for NOx at the level of the NO2 Class II increment (53 FR
3704; 53 FR 40656) and substituted the PM10 Class II increments for the
statutory alternative PM increments, which were based on TSP (58 FR
31622).  This final rule expands this provision to include the PM2.5
Class II increments as well.  See 40 CFR 51.166(p)(4) and 52.21(p)(5).

 In response to concerns that Class I increment would hinder growth in
areas surrounding the Class I area, Congress established Class I
increments as a means of determining where the burden of proof should
lie for a demonstration of adverse effects on AQRVs.  See Senate Debate,
June 8, 1977 (3 LH at 725).

 See S. Rep. 95-127, at 12, reprinted at 3 LH at 1386, 1410 (describing
the goal of protecting “air quality values” in “Federal lands –
such as national parks and wilderness areas and international parks,”
and in the next paragraph and subsequent text using the term “air
quality related values” to describe the same goal); id. at 35, 36
(“The bill charges the Federal land manager and the supervisor with a
positive role to protect air quality values associated with the land
areas under the jurisdiction of the [FLM]” and then describing the
statutory term as “air quality related values”).  H.R. Report 95-564
at 532 (describing duty of Administrator to consider “air quality
values” of the tribal and State lands in resolving an appeal of a
tribal or State redesignation, which is described in the final bill as
“air quality related values”).

 We have paraphrased these factors here and in other sections to
facilitate the explanation of our reasoning.  However, we recognize, as
we did in our regulation for NOx, that the statutory language is broader
than the shorthand we use here for convenience.

 Note that the PM10 increment may still be more limiting in areas where
much of that increment has already been consumed.

 The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 µg/m3) is about 23 percent of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS (150 µg/m3).

 The review completed in 2006 updated the previous review, which began
in 1994 and resulted in revised standards for PM in 1997.

 It should be noted, however, that an increment does not allow air
pollution levels in an area to increase beyond the ambient concentration
of a pollutant that would exceed the level allowed by the NAAQS.

 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0605 can be accessed on line at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .

 In the 2005 OAQPS Staff Paper reviewing the NAAQS for PM, EPA cited the
following accepted definition of “critical load”: “quantitative
estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which
significant harmful effects on specified sensitive elements of the
environment do not occur according to present knowledge.”  See page
6-45.

 The commenter cited   HYPERLINK
"http://www.nps.gov/shen/naturescience/visibility_and_haze.htm"
http://www.nps.gov/shen/naturescience/visibility_and_haze.htm  for
historic visibility in national parks.

 “A source will be considered to impact an area if it has an impact of
1 µg/m3 or more of SO2 or PM on an annual basis.  This figure has been
selected because it corresponds to levels of significance used in
previous Agency determinations for SO2 and PM.  45 FR 52676, August 7,
1980, at page 52716.

 We note that, under the 2007 NPRM, we proposed that the SILs for PM2.5
would not be treated as a minimum program element for state PSD
programs; however, the proposed regulatory language incorrectly stated
the “the plan shall provide”, which would indicate that the use of
the SILs for PM2.5 was required in the state plan.  This final rule
corrects this error.

 See “Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration for PM2.5 - Increments, Significant Impact
Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentration,” Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0628.

 In 1985, the requirements now contained in 40 CFR 51.165(b) were
contained in 40 CFR 51.18(k), which was later part of a major
restructuring of the part 51 SIP requirements.

 In the case of a NAAQS compliance analysis, all sources in the area are
considered to contribute to the air quality levels; for increments,
however, “all” refers only to those sources whose emissions, in
whole or in part, consume PSD increment for a particular pollutant.

 The provision for the monitoring exemption was originally promulgated
at 40 CFR 51.24(i)(8) and 52.21(i)(8); it should be noted, however, that
this provision is now found at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5) and 52.21(i)(5).

 This information is contained in a March 12, 2009 internal EPA
memorandum from Dennis Crumpler to Raj Rao, titled “PSD Monitoring De
Minimis Concentration for PM2.5,” which has been placed in the docket
for this rulemaking.

 PAGE

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  iii

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  137