6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 51 EPA HQ OAR 2005 0175; [ FRL ]

[ RIN A2060 ]

TRANSITION TO NEW OR REVISED PARTICULATE MATTER ( PM)

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ( NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( ANPR).

SUMMARY: The EPA recently issued a notice of proposed revisions to the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) for particulate matter ( PM). EPA will take final action on the proposal by September 27, 2006. This notice provides advance notice of key issues for consideration in the development of potentially new or revised policies and/ or regulations to implement such proposed revised NAAQS for PM. The EPA is posing a number of questions related to the transition from the current to potentially revised PM2.5 standards, as well as the transition from the current PM10 standards to new PM10 2.5 standards. In this ANPR, EPA is soliciting comment on the Agency's preferred approaches to revocation of the 1997 PM2.5 standards once any new 2006 PM2.5 standards would be in place, and also approaches to revocation of the 24 hour PM10 standard in areas where it would remain after promulgation of any new PM10 2.5 standards. 2 The EPA is also highlighting and providing preliminary thinking on how to address some of the key New Source Review ( NSR) issues related to the new PM10 2.5 standards, and the transition from PM10 standards to PM10 2.5 standards.

Finally, EPA is requesting comment on potential timeframes for designations, attainment demonstrations and State Implementation Plan ( SIP) submittals and attainment dates for both any new PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [ insert date 60 days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.

EPA HQ OAR 2005 0175, by one of the following methods:

  www. regulations. gov: Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

  Email: A and R Docket@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No.

EPA HQ OAR 2005 0175.

  Fax: Fax your comments to ( 202) 566 1741, Attention Docket ID. No. EPA HQ OAR 2005 0175.

Mail: Docket EPA HQ OAR 2005 0175 Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460. Please include a total of two copies.

  Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: Air Docket, 3 Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room B102, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA HQ OAR 2005 0175. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket= s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

HQOAR 2005 0175. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www. regulations. gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www. regulations. gov or e mail.

The www. regulations. gov website is an " anonymous access"

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through www. regulations. gov, your e mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 4 comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,

any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For further information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www. epa. gov/ epahome/ dockets. htm. For additional instruction on submitting a comment, go to " What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for the EPA?" of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov index. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, e. g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www. regulations. gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/ DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 5 from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding PM implementation issues, contact Ms. Barbara Driscoll, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C504 02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number ( 919) 541 1051 or by e mail at:

driscoll. barbara@ epa. gov. Regarding NSR issues, contact Raj Rao, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C339 03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number ( 919) 541 5344 or by e mail at rao. raj@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through www. regulations. gov or e mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI.

For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 6 one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404 02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone ( 919) 541 0880, e mail at morales. roberto@ epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA

HQOAR 2005 0175.

What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives. 7 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response.

It would also be helpful if you provided the name,

date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. WHAT ACTIONS RELATED TO THE PM NAAQS HAVE RECENTLY BEEN PROPOSED OR WILL SOON BE PROPOSED WHICH RELATE TO THIS NOTICE? A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter B. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations C. Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events II. WHAT IS EPA'S STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING PM? A. The State Implementation Plan ( SIP) System B. National Rules III. HOW SHOULD EPA IMPLEMENT THE TRANSITION FROM THE 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS TO ANY NEW 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS? A. What is the Status of Areas Designated Under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS? B. How Might EPA Implement the Transition from the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to the Any New PM2.5 NAAQS? 1. PM2.5 NAAQS Option 1 2. PM2.5 NAAQS Option 2 IV. WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY NEW 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS? A. How Would the Implementation Schedules of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and Any New PM2.5 NAAQS Fit Together if the RevisedPM2.5 Standards Are More Stringent Than the Current Standards? B. What is EPA's Preferred Schedule for Any New 2006 PM2.5 Designation Process? 8 C. What is a Schedule for Attainment Demonstrations and SIP Submittals for Any New PM2.5 Standards? D. What are Attainment Dates for Any New PM2.5 Standards?

V. WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY NEW PM10 2.5 NAAQS? A. What is a Potential Schedule for Any New PM10 2.5 Designation Process? B. What is EPA's Preferred Schedule for Designations for any New PM10 2.5 Standards? C. What is EPA's Preferred Schedule for Attainment Demonstrations and SIP Submittals for Any New PM10 2.5 Standards? D. What is EPA's Preferred Schedule for Attaining Any New PM10 2.5 Standards?

VI. HOW SHOULD EPA IMPLEMENT THE TRANSITION FROM THE PM10 STANDARDS TO POSSIBLE PM10 2.5 STANDARDS? A. What is EPA's Proposal for Revocation of the PM10 Standards? B. What Should the Timing be for Revocation of the 24 hour PM10 Standard for Those Areas 24 hour PM10 Standard is Retained? C. What Transition Issues are Created by Revocation of the 24 hour PM10 Standard in the Areas where the PM10 Standard is Retained and How Might They be Addressed? 1. Control measures 2. Transportation conformity 3. General conformity 4. New Source Review program VII. WHAT EMISSIONS INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS SHOULD APPLY UNDER ANY NEW PM2.5 AND PM10 2.5 NAAQS?

VIII. STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS I. WHAT ACTIONS RELATED TO THE PM NAAQS HAVE RECENTLY BEEN PROPOSED OR WILL SOON BE PROPOSED WHICH RELATE TO THIS NOTICE?

This ANPR is intended to solicit input into key issues 9 related to the transition to any new or revised NAAQS for PM. The EPA has proposed two rulemakings, the NAAQS for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule ( 71 FR 2620, January 17,

2006) and the Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations ( 71 FR 2710, January 17, 2006), and will be proposing another rulemaking, Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events ( anticipated to be published by March 1, 2006). These proposals are summarized here to provide background for the issues and questions raised in this document. The EPA is not taking comment on these actions here. Rather, if you have comments, you should submit them to the docket for the proposed rulemaking to which they are applicable, following the procedures described in each proposal.

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter On December 20, 2005, the Administrator signed a notice proposing revisions to the primary and secondary NAAQS for PM, which was published on January 17, 2006 ( 71 FR 2620).

The proposal can be found at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ particlepollution/ actions. html. For the primary standards for fine particles ( particles generally less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ( µ m) in diameter, or PM2.5), EPA proposed to revise the level of the 10 24 hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ( µ g/ m3) to 35 µ g/ m3, providing increased protection against health effects associated with short term exposure ( including premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits) and to retain the level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 µ g/ m3, continuing protection against health effects associated with long term exposure ( including premature mortality and development of chronic respiratory disease). The EPA also proposed to revise the criteria for spatial averaging of monitors for purposes of the annual PM2.5 standard.

In addition, for the primary standards for coarse particles generally less than or equal to 10 µ m in diameter ( PM10), EPA proposed to revise the 24 hour PM10 standard in part by establishing a new indicator for thoracic coarse particles ( particles generally between 2.5 and 10 µ m in diameter, PM10 2.5), qualified so as to include any ambient mix of PM10 2.5 that is dominated by resuspended dust from high density traffic on paved roads and PM generated by industrial sources and construction sources, and exclude any ambient mix of PM10 2.5 that is dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining sources. The EPA also proposed that agricultural sources,

mining sources and other similar sources of crustal material 11 shall not be subject to control in meeting the proposed standard. The EPA proposed to set the new PM10 2.5 standard at a level of 70 µ g/ m3, continuing to provide a generally equivalent level of protection against health effects associated with short term exposure ( including hospital admissions for cardiopulmonary diseases, increased respiratory symptoms and possibly premature mortality).

In addition, EPA proposed to revoke the annual PM10 standard everywhere, and the 24 hour PM10 standard everywhere except in areas where there is at least one monitor that is located in an urbanized area1 with a minimum population of 100,000 people and that violates the 24 hour PM10 standard based on the most recent 3 years of data. This revocation of the PM10 standards would become effective upon promulgation of the PM10 2.5 NAAQS ( expected to be November 2006). In the January 17, 2006, notice, the Agency provided a specific list of areas where the 24 hour PM10 standard would not be revoked under the proposal based on the most recent 3 years of data. EPA proposed to revoke the 24 hour PM10 standard in all other areas. In addition, EPA requested 1 As defined by the U. S. Bureau of the Census, an urbanized area has " a minimum residential population of at least 50,000 people" and generally includes " core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile." The Census Bureau notes that " under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA." See 12 comment on whether the 24 hour PM10 standard should be retained in additional areas that are either urbanized areas with populations less than 100,000 people or non urbanized areas ( i. e., populations less than 50,000) but where the majority of the ambient mix of PM10 2.5 is generated by high density traffic on paved roads, industrial sources, and construction sources, and which have at least one monitor that violated the 24 hour PM10 standard.

For the secondary PM standards, EPA proposed to revise the current standards by making them identical to the suite of proposed primary standards for fine and coarse particles.

B. Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations At the same time EPA proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS, EPA also proposed Revisions to the Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations ( 71 FR 2710, January 17, 2006) for criteria pollutants to support the proposed revisions to the NAAQS. The proposal can be found at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ particlepollution/ actions. html.

Included among the proposed PM related changes are new provisions for addition to 40 CFR parts 53 and 58 which address approval of monitoring methods and PM10 2.5 monitoring requirements. The added provisions in part 53 would address approval of PM10 2.5 filter based Federal Reference Method http:// www. census. gov/ geo/ www/ ua/ ua_ 2k. html. 13 ( FRM) samplers and both filter based and continuous Federal Equivalent Method ( FEM) monitors. Provisions in part 58 would provide the monitoring requirements for a PM10 2.5 network, including the minimum number of monitors a State must deploy. In addition, the proposal adds provisions for the conditions under which a PM10 2.5 monitor may be compared to the PM10 2.5 NAAQS.

The proposal also amends a number of existing provisions for PM2.5 monitoring, including changing the criteria for FEM equivalency determinations for continuous PM2.5 monitors. This should allow States to operate continuous monitors at more required monitoring sites,

thereby providing more robust data for the PM2.5 air quality program.

C. Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events The EPA will be proposing a rule to govern the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events. Section 319 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA)

defines an event as an exceptional event if the event affects air quality; is not reasonably controllable or preventable; is a natural event, or an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location;

and is determined by the Administrator to be an exceptional event. Exceptional events are non routine events for which 14 the normal planning and regulatory process encompassed by the CAA states through the SIP process is not appropriate.

The EPA will be proposing procedures and criteria related to the identification, evaluation, interpretation and use of air quality monitoring data related to the NAAQS where State air quality agencies petition EPA to exclude, in whole or in part, air quality data that are directly affected by exceptional events. Section 319 of the CAA, as amended by section 6013 of the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient

Transportation Equity Act ( SAFE TEA) of 2005, requires EPA to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register, no later than March 1, 2006.

II. WHAT IS EPA =

S STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING PM?

Our overall strategy for achieving the PM primary and secondary standards is based on the structure outlined in the CAA. The CAA outlines important roles for State and Tribal governments and for EPA in implementing NAAQS.

States have primary responsibility for developing and implementing SIPs that contain local and in State measures needed to achieve the air quality standards in each area.

We assist States and Tribes by providing technical tools,

assistance and guidance, including information on potential control measures. In addition, we set national emissions standards/ limits for some sources, such as new motor 15 vehicles, certain categories of major new sources, and existing stationary sources of toxic air pollutants, all of which may obtain reductions in PM. Where upwind sources ( such as coal fired power plants) contribute to downwind problems in other States or tribal areas, we can also ensure that the upwind States address these contributing emissions,

or we can put in place Federal regulations in situations where the upwind States fail to address these sources. We intend to work closely with States and Tribes to use an appropriate combination of national, regional, and local pollution reduction measures to enable areas to meet the revised PM standards as expeditiously as practicable, as required by the CAA.

A. The State Implementation Plan ( SIP) System A SIP is the compilation of regulations and programs that a State uses to carry out its responsibilities under the CAA, including the attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. States use the SIP process to identify the emissions sources that contribute to the nonattainment problem in a particular area, and to select the emissions reductions measures most appropriate for that area, considering technical and economic feasibility, and a variety of local factors such as population exposure,

enforceability, and economic impact. Under the CAA, SIPs 16 must ensure that areas reach attainment as expeditiously as practicable. These plans take into consideration emissions reductions resulting from national programs ( such as mobile source regulations, the acid rain program, or maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards for air toxics), as well as from State or local programs not directly mandated under the CAA.

The SIP system for nonattainment areas is an important component of the CAA's overall strategy for meeting the NAAQS, but it is not the only component. As noted below,

the CAA also includes requirements for national rules or programs that will reduce emissions and help achieve cleaner air.

B. National Rules For the States to be successful in developing local plans showing attainment of standards, we must do our part to develop standards and programs to reduce emissions from sources that are more effectively and efficiently addressed at the national level. We and the States also have the responsibility to ensure that interstate transport is addressed through SIPs or other means. As outlined below,

we have issued regulations that will achieve important emissions reductions from power plants, onroad and nonroad engine sources, and other sources that may enable some areas 17 to meet the PM standards in the near term and make it easier for others to attain when these national rules are supplemented with local control measures.

As described in a recent EPA report, The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 20032, State and Federal programs have made substantial progress in reducing ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5. For example, PM10 concentrations have decreased 31 percent nationally since 1988. Regionally,

PM10 concentrations decreased most in areas with historically higher concentrations   the Northwest ( 39 percent decline), the Southwest ( 33 percent decline), and southern California ( 35 percent decline). Direct emissions of PM10 have decreased approximately 25 percent nationally since 1988.

Programs aimed at reducing direct emissions of particles have played an important role in reducing PM10 concentrations, particularly in western areas. Some examples of PM10 controls include paving unpaved roads and using best management practices for agricultural sources of resuspended soil. Of the 87 areas that were designated 2 Environmental Protection Agency( 2004). The Particle Pollution Report: Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Research Triangle 18 nonattainment for PM10 in the early 1990' s, 64 now meet those standards. In cities that have not attained the PM10 standards, the number of times the standards is exceeded is down significantly.

National programs that affect regional emissions have contributed to lower sulfate concentrations and,

consequently, to lower PM2.5 concentrations, particularly in the Industrial Midwest and Southeast. National ozonereduction programs designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) and nitrogen oxides ( NOx) also have helped reduce carbon and nitrate particles, both of which are components of PM2.5. Nationally, SO2 emissions have declined 9 percent, NOx emissions have declined 9 percent,

and VOC emissions have declined by 12 percent from 1999 to 2003. In eastern States affected by the Acid Rain Program,

sulfates decreased 7 percent over the same period.

Over the next 10 to 20 years, national and regional regulations will make major reductions in ambient PM2.5 levels. The Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) and the NOx SIP Call will reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from electric generating units and industrial boilers across the eastern half of the U. S., regulations to implement the current ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 will likely result in ark, NC 27711; report no. EPA 454 R 04 002. December 2004. 19 direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor controls in nonattainment areas, and new national mobile source regulations affecting off highway diesel engines, highway gasoline and diesel vehicles, and other mobile sources will reduce emissions of NOx, direct PM2.5, SO2, and VOCs. The EPA estimates that these Federal regulations for stationary and mobile sources will cut SO2 emissions by 6 million tons annually in 2015 from 2001 levels. Emissions of NOx will be cut by 9 million tons annually in 2015 from 2001 levels. Emissions of VOCs will drop by 3 million tons, and direct PM2.5 emissions will be cut by 200,000 tons in 2015, compared to 2001 levels.

III. HOW SHOULD EPA IMPLEMENT THE TRANSITION FROM THE 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS TO ANY NEW 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS?

A. What is the Status of Areas Designated Under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS?

Nationally, PM2.5 concentrations have declined by 10 percent from 1999 to 2003. Generally, PM2.5 concentrations have also declined the most in regions with the highest concentrations   the Southeast ( 20 percent decline),

southern California ( 16 percent decline), and the industrial Midwest ( 9 percent decline). With the exception of the Northeast, the remaining regions posted modest declines in PM2.5 concentrations from 1999 to 2003. Direct emissions of PM2.5 have decreased by 5 percent nationally over the past 5 20 years.

Modeling done by EPA indicates that by 2010, 18 of the 39 areas currently not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards should come into attainment of those standards just based on regulatory programs already in place, including CAIR, the Clean Diesel Rules, and other Federal measures. Four more PM2.5 areas are projected to attain the standards by 2015 based on the implementation of these programs. All areas in the eastern U. S. will have lower PM2.5 concentrations in 2015 relative to present day conditions. In most cases, the predicted improvement in PM2.5 ranges from 10 percent to 20 percent.

B. How Might EPA Implement the Transition from the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to Any New 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS?

The EPA has evaluated several options for the transition from the 1997 PM2.5 standards to any new 2006 PM2.5 standards, and is elaborating on two potential options.

Should the Agency decide to revise the current PM2.5 standards then either of the following two options would continue the momentum and continuity of the existing implementation program as areas look to reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations to meet the current and revised PM2.5 NAAQS.

Any suggested alternatives to these approaches should demonstrate how it will continue the momentum and continuity 21 of the implementation program.

1. PM2.5 NAAQS Option 1 Option 1 recognizes that the only proposed change to the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard is a change in the application of spatial averaging ( 71 FR 2620). Because the EPA believes that the proposed change, if adopted, would not be significant enough to require new designations under section 107( d), we are soliciting comment on whether it would be appropriate to view this revision as minor as to not require a designation process. The premise for such an option would be that, even though section 107( d) calls for EPA to commence the designation process for " any new or revised NAAQS," exceptions could be made for revisions to a NAAQS of a de minimis or insignificant nature such that they should not lead to the initiation of the designation process and consequent establishment of new SIP submission and attainment deadlines. Option 1 would be considered only if EPA finalized a revision to the annual PM2.5 standard that was of such a minor nature as the proposed revision. It would not be available if EPA revised the standard more substantially.

Following this path, EPA would propose not to revoke the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, and would propose to revoke the 1997 24 hour PM2.5 standard 1 year after designations are 22 finalized under any new 2006 PM2.5 standard. Under this path, new nonattainment designations would only be made for the areas which do not meet any new 2006 24 hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, areas which are designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard would continue to develop and implement their SIPs based on the proposed implementation rule ( 70 FR 65984, November 1, 2005)

Areas which are newly designated nonattainment under any new 24 hour PM2.5 standard would submit a SIP by April 2013 following the proposed schedule in part IV. C below. This approach would maintain the momentum in the PM2.5 SIP development and implementation program. It would also not require the development and implementation of an antibacksliding rule to maintain progress in the program, as no areas are in nonattainment based solely on the 24 hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore control measures would still be in place under the approved PM2.5 SIPs.

2. PM2.5 NAAQS Option 2 Option 2 would vary from Option 1 in that EPA would revoke the 1997 annual and 24 hour PM2.5 standards 1 year after designations under any new 2006 PM2.5 standards. This approach is similar to that promulgated under the ozone program ( 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004) for the revocation of the 1 hour ozone standard one year after designations under 23 the 8 hour ozone standard. Following this path, EPA would develop and implement an " anti backsliding" rule to ensure that SIP control measures developed and adopted under the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS remained in place until SIPs could be submitted and approved to meet any new 2006 PM2.5 standards.

In the anti backsliding rule, EPA would address issues similar to those addressed in the anti backsliding rule adopted as part of the transition from implementation of the 1 hour ozone standard to the 8 hour ozone standard including:( 1) which planning control requirements should remain in effect; ( 2) effect of the revised standards on the New Source Review ( NSR) program; and ( 3) how the transition would affect general and transportation conformity programs.

In addressing some of these issues, EPA is inclined to follow the precedent set by the ozone program which required areas in nonattainment with both the 1 hour and 8 hour ozone NAAQS to maintain mandatory control measures already in place, and allowed such areas to revise or remove discretionary control measures following a section 110( l)

demonstration. In addition, such areas would implement growth control measures such as NSR and conformity based on their designations for the revised standard only, for the reasons explained in the ozone anti backsliding rule ( 69 FR 23954, April 30, 2004). The EPA invites comment on these 24 two options, and solicits comments on any additional options which would ensure a smooth transition and continued improvement in air quality.

IV. WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY NEW 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS?

A. How Would the Implementation Schedules of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and Any New 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Fit Together if the Revised PM2.5 Standards Are More Stringent Than the Current Standards?

Section 109( d)( 1) of the CAA requires a thorough review of the NAAQS, and revisions if appropriate, at 5 year intervals. Current requirements of the CAA thus anticipate an overlap in review and implemention of standards. The EPA believes that for planning purposes, when EPA revises a standard as it has proposed to do, it is beneficial for States to understand control strategies that may be useful in attaining any new 2006 PM2.5 standards when developing control strategies for the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

B. What is EPA's Preferred Schedule for the Any New 2006 PM2.5 Designation Process?

Under the terms of the consent decree governing the review of the 1997 PM NAAQS, EPA agreed that no later than September 27, 2006, it would sign for publication a notice 25 of final rulemaking concerning its review of the PM NAAQS.

The EPA expects that any new 2006 PM2.5 standards would be published in the Federal Register within 6 8 weeks, and become effective 60 days later probably in January 2007.

Timeframes below are outlined based on this assumption.

Section 107( d)( 1) lays out a schedule allowing States up to 1 year in which to make recommendations to EPA for areas that might be designated as nonattainment for any new PM2.5 standards. State designation recommendations would then be due by January 2008. Tribes would also be encouraged, but not required, to submit designation recommendations to EPA for their reservations or other areas under their jurisdiction by January 2008.

These recommendations would be based on 3 years of the most recent monitoring data ( e. g., 2005 2007). The EPA= s evaluation of the existing PM2.5 monitoring network indicates that it is adequate for designations under both the revised annual and revised 24 hour standards. Depending on which revocation process is selected for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,

designations may be for the revised 24 hour standard alone or both the annual and 24 hour standards.

Following submittal of designation recommendations by the States, EPA would evaluate the recommendations and make possible modifications. Consistent with section 107, States 26 would be notified of these changes, and would be allowed to make additional comments on the proposed designations. The EPA would issue final PM2.5 designations under any new PM2.5 NAAQS no later than January 2010. The CAA provides EPA with up to 3 years to designate nonattainment areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The EPA anticipates that this full time period may be necessary for a variety of reasons as it has been in the past, such as for the 8 hour ozone designations, including evaluating more recent data in order to determine appropriate designation boundaries. This timeline would allow States to look at 2006 2008 monitoring data and update their recommendations to EPA if they choose to do so based on the more recent data. Based on this approach we would anticipate final designation to occur in April or May 2010. Table 1 at the end of part IV( D)

provides a timeline showing the dates that would result from such a designation process. The EPA would like thoughts on this timeframe and other potential approaches.

C. What is a Schedule for Attainment Demonstrations and SIP Submittals for Any New 2006 PM2.5 Standards?

Part D of title I of the CAA sets forth the requirements for SIPs needed to attain the NAAQS. Part D includes a general subpart 1 which applies to all NAAQS for which a specific subpart does not exist. These provisions 27 apply to the PM2.5 standards and would apply to any revised PM2.5 standards. The EPA has currently proposed implementation rules for PM2.5 ( 70 FR 65984) which when finalized will govern any revised standards.

Section 172( b) of the CAA requires that at the time the Agency promulgates nonattainment area designations, EPA must also establish a schedule for States to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 172( c) and section 110( a)( 2) of the CAA. Section 172( b) requires that such schedule allow a State to submit its attainment demonstration and SIP revision within no more than 3 years of nonattainment designation. Following the above, timeline ( outlined in IV. B), if nonattainment area designations become effective in April 2010, and EPA allows the maximum time for SIP submissions, then attainment demonstrations and SIP revisions would be due by April or May 2013.

D. What are Attainment Dates for Any New 2006 PM2.5 Standards?

Section 172( a)( 2)( A) states that the attainment date for a nonattainment area must be Aas expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of designation for the area.@ If any new 2006 PM2.5 designations are made in January 2010 and have an effective date of April or May 2010, the initial attainment date for 28 any new PM2.5 standard would be no later than April or May 2015. For an area with a maximum 5 year attainment date,

EPA would determine whether it had attained the standard by evaluating air quality data from the three previous calendar years ( 2012 2014).

Section 172 also states that if EPA deems it appropriate, the Agency may extend the attainment date for an area for a period not greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment, taking into account the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area, and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.

For any area that is granted the full 5 year attainment date extension, the attainment date would be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than April or May 2020. For such areas, EPA would determine whether the area attained the standard by evaluating air quality data from 2017, 2018, and 2019. Table 1 is an overview of the proposed timeline for implementing any new 2006 PM2.5 standards.

Table 1. Proposed Timeline for Any New 2006 PM2.5 Standards Effective date of standard January 2007 Monitoring data used for State recommendations 2005 2007 State recommendations to EPA January 2008 Final designations signature January 2010 Effective date of designations April or May 2010 SIPs due April or May 2013 Attainment date Up to April or May 2015 29 ( based on 2012 2014 data) Attainment date with a 5 year extension Up to April Or May 2020 ( based on 2017 2019 data)

The EPA is soliciting comments on which relevant factors should influence EPA's decision on any potential timeline.

V. WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL TIMELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY NEW PM10 2.5 NAAQS?

A. What is a Potential Schedule for Any New PM10 2.5 Designation Process?

Section 107( d)( 1)( B) gives the Agency the authority to promulgate designations for all areas as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3 years from the date of promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

Currently, a PM10 2.5 monitoring network does not exist.

The EPA's proposed monitoring regulations for PM10 2.5 ( 71 FR 2710) call for monitors to be deployed by January 2009. if this schedule is adopted, the first period when 3 years of data would be available for State designation recommendations would be mid 2012 based on air quality data for 2009 2011. As noted above, following the statutory timeline designations for PM10 2.5 would be required to occur no later than late 2009. Three years of PM10 2.5 monitoring data will not be available at that time. For EPA to meet 30 its statutory obligation, EPA would need to designate all areas as unclassifiable under section 107( d)( 1)( A)( iii), on the basis that no information is available to determine whether an area is meeting any new NAAQS for PM10 2.5. From a historical perspective this was the situation in 1997 when we established the PM2.5 NAAQS. Subsequent, to the establishment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in 1997, Congress passed legislation which modified the CAA for the purposes of PM2.5 designations. EPA is potentially confronting this issue again with respect to any new PM10 2.5 NAAQS. As a policy,

EPA does not think that designating all areas of the country as unclassifiable provides useful information to the public about the air they are breathing. EPA would prefer to not make designations until three years of monitoring data is available. The EPA is soliciting comments on the best way to address this issue.

B. What is EPA =

s Preferred Schedule for Designations For Any New PM10 2.5 Standards?

The first available 3 years of data from a monitoring network for PM10 2.5 will be 2009 2011. If EPA had not previously designated areas unclassifiable, EPA could then request recommendations from States for areas that might be designated nonattainment for PM10 2.5 by July 2012. This is approximately 6 months after a full 3 years of data would be 31 available for some areas; however, EPA believes this is adequate time for evaluating and quality assuring data to make recommendations on designations.

Following submittal of designation recommendations by the States, EPA will evaluate the recommendations and make modifications by December 2012. States will be notified of these changes, and allowed to make additional comments on the proposed modifications to designations. The EPA would then issue final modified PM10 2.5 designations by May 2013 which would be effective approximately July 2013.

If EPA had previously designated areas unclassifiable,

then, once EPA had sufficient monitoring data available, EPA would move forward in accordance with the provisions of section 107( d)( 3)( A) to notify States that it believed designations for areas should be revised. States would then have the opportunity to respond in accordance with section 107( d)( 3)( B), and EPA would take action regarding any revisions of the designations in accordance with section 107( d)( 3)( C).

The EPA prefers to not develop a classification system such as moderate or serious to describe the amount of time that an area may require to come into attainment for reasons similar to those outlined in the Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 32 Proposed Rule ( 70 FR page 66000, November 1, 2005).

Developing a classification system is only an option not a requirement under section 172( a)( 1), and for the reasons noted EPA does not believe it would be preferable to implement a classification scheme. The EPA would like comments on this potential designation timeline, and not developing a classification system, or options for various classification schemes.

C. What is EPA =

s Preferred Schedule for Attainment Demonstrations and SIP Submittals for Any New PM10 2.5 Standards?

Section 172( b) of the CAA requires EPA to establish a schedule for a State to submit its attainment demonstration and SIP revision within 3 years of nonattainment designation. Following the schedule outlined in part V( B)

above, if nonattainment designations for any new PM10 2.5 standards were effective in July 2013, then attainment demonstrations and SIP revisions would be due by July 2016.

The EPA would like comments on this proposed timeline.

D. What is EPA =

s Preferred Schedule for Attaining Any New PM10 2.5 Standards?

Section 172( a)( 2)( A) states that the attainment date for a nonattainment area must be Aas expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date of 33 designation for the area.@ If new PM10 2.5 designations are made in May 2013 and are effective in July 2013, the initial attainment date for PM10 2.5 would be as expeditiously as practicable but no later than July 2018. For an area with an attainment date of July 2018, EPA would determine whether it had attained the PM10 2.5 standards by evaluating air quality data from the 3 previous calendar years ( i. e., 2015, 2016 and 2017).

Section 172 also states that if EPA deems it appropriate, the Agency may extend the attainment date for an area for a period not greater than 10 years from the date of designation, taking into account the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area, and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. For any area that is granted the full 5 year attainment date extension,

the attainment date would be no later than July 2023. For such areas, EPA would determine whether they have attained the standard by evaluating air quality data from 2020, 2021 and 2022. Table 2 is an overview of this proposed timeline for designation, SIP submittal and attainment dates under this proposed schedule.

Table 2. Proposed Timeline for a Possible 2006 PM10 2.5 Standards Effective date of standard January 2007 Monitoring data used for 2009 2011 34 State recommendations State recommendations to EPA July 2012 Final designations signature May 2013 Effective date of designations July 2013 SIPs due July 2016 Attainment date Up toJuly 2018 ( based on 2015 2017 data) Attainment date with extension Up to July 2023 The EPA would like to take comment on this potential timeline for attaining any new PM10 2.5 standards, and what factors should influence our decision.

VI. HOW SHOULD EPA IMPLEMENT THE TRANSITION FROM THE PM10 STANDARDS TO POSSIBLE PM10 2.5 STANDARDS?

A. What is EPA's Proposal for Revocation of the PM10 Standards?

Before areas are designated under any new PM10 2.5 standards, we intend to address how to transition from implementation of the PM10 standards to any new PM10 2.5 standards. As part of the NAAQS proposal ( 71 FR 2620), EPA proposed to revoke the annual PM10 standard everywhere, and the 24 hour PM10 standard everywhere except in areas where there is at least one monitor that is located in an urbanized area with a minimum population of 100,000 people and that violates the 24 hour PM10 standard based on the most recent 3 years of data. This revocation would be effective upon promulgation of the PM NAAQS in November 2006. The EPA 35 also provided a list of places where the 24 hour PM10 standard would not be revoked under the proposal. In addition, EPA requested comment on whether the 24 hour PM10 standard should be retained in areas that are either urbanized areas with populations less than 100,000 people or non urbanized areas ( i. e., population less than 50,000) but where the majority of the ambient mix of PM10 2.5 is generated by high density traffic on paved roads, industrial sources,

and construction activities, and which have at least one monitor that violated the 24 hour PM10 standard. Comments on these revocation scenarios should be submitted under that notice ( 71 FR 2620).

This raises a number of issues for those areas where the 24 hour PM10 standard would still apply including: when and how should the 24 hour PM10 standard be revoked for these areas; should anti backsliding provisions apply; how to address NSR and maintenance issues; and other implementation issues. Our principal objective for the transition is to ensure that there will be no degradation of air quality in areas where the potential new PM10 2.5 NAAQS would apply, and that areas continue to make progress toward attainment of the PM standards. For areas where the 24 hour PM10 standard has been revoked, EPA expects that no requirements would remain in place. 36 B. What Should the Timing be for Revocation of the 24 hour PM10 Standard for Those Areas Where the 24 hour PM10 Standard is Retained?

The EPA contemplates that the 24 hour PM10 standard would be revoked one year after attainment/ nonattainment designations are final for a 24 hour PM10 2.5 standard.

Because attainment/ nonattainment designations would not occur until July 2013, it is reasonable to expect that some areas where the 24 hour PM10 standard has not been revoked would come into attainment with the PM10 standard prior to July 2013. We invite comment on how these areas should be treated.

C. What Transition Issues are Created by Revocation of the 24 hour PM10 Standard in Areas Where the 24 hour PM10 Standard is Retained and How Might They be Addressed?

1. Control Measures One of EPA= s primary concerns is that there be no degradation of air quality as we move from one version of the NAAQS to another. What protections should remain in place to ensure that, once the 24 hour PM10 standard is revoked, air quality will not degrade and that progress will continue as areas transition from implementing the 24 hour PM10 standard to implementing the 24 hour PM10 2.5 standard?

a. What requirements based on an area= s classification for 37 the PM10 standard should continue to apply?

The EPA believes an approach similar to what was done under the ozone transition from the 1 hour to the 8 hour ( 69 FR 23951) would be appropriate here. Such an approach would mean that moderate nonattainment areas should continue to require reasonably available control measures ( RACM)( as described in section 189( a)( 1)( C) of the CAA). Serious nonattainment areas should also continue to require best available control measures ( BACM) ( section 189( b)( 1)( B) of the CAA). All nonattainment areas should have an EPAapproved part D SIP in place, and continue to implement the nonattainment requirements and control measures identified in the SIP. Any effort to change SIP approved measures would be subject to section 110( l) demonstration of no interference with applicable requirements.

The EPA is also proposing that those nonattainment areas where the 24 hour PM10 standard has not been revoked,

and that do not have a fully approved PM10 SIP in place should submit a plan which demonstrates attainment and maintenance of the 24 hour PM10 standard.

b. How should EPA address maintenance?

Those PM10 nonattainment areas where the 24 hour PM10 standard has not been revoked which come into attainment with the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS prior to designations under the 38 24 hour PM10 2.5 standard, may request to be redesignated as attainment for PM10 under section 107( d). As such they would need to submit a maintenance plan under section 175A.

Maintenance areas do not have any outstanding obligation to adopt further mandatory control obligations. We would anticipate an approach to maintenance requirements similar to what was provided in the ozone rule ( 69 FR 23955). The EPA requests comments on how to address maintenance areas.

2. Transportation conformity Transportation conformity is required under section 176( c) of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. ' 7506( c)) to ensure that federally supported highway and transit project activities are consistent with ( Aconform to@) the purpose of a SIP.

Conformity to the purpose of a SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.

Transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas. The EPA= s transportation conformity rule,

40 CFR part 93, establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform to the State air quality plan. It also establishes criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation activities conform in areas where no SIP containing motor vehicle emissions budgets yet exists. 39 Transportation conformity rulemakings, as well as other relevant conformity materials such as guidance documents,

policy memoranda, the complete text of the conformity rule,

and conformity research can be found at EPA= s transportation conformity website, at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ transp. htm ( once at the site, click on ATransportation Conformity.@)

Until areas are designated nonattainment,

transportation conformity will not apply for the new PM10 2.5 standard. Based on the timeline outlined above,

designations for any new PM10 2.5 NAAQS could occur in July 2013, and for all nonattainment areas transportation conformity would then apply 1 year later. Prior to the designation date, EPA would propose to update the transportation conformity rule to address the PM10 2.5 standard. This rulemaking would address the possible use of existing PM10 motor vehicle emissions budgets where applicable in conformity determinations made prior to PM10 2.5 motor vehicle emissions budgets being found adequate or approved, and the inclusion of road and construction dust in PM10 2.5 conformity determinations.

The EPA will solicit public comment on these and other issues associated with determining conformity in PM10 2.5 nonattainment areas when it proposes to revise the conformity rule to address the new standard. Once we revoke 40 the PM10 standard and the associated designations, conformity will no longer apply under the terms of the statute for that standard.

3. General conformity Section 176( c) of the CAA requires that before a Federal entity takes an action, it must make a determination that the proposed action will not interfere with the SIP or the State= s ability to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In November 1993, EPA promulgated two sets of regulations to implement section 176( c). One set, known as the general conformity regulations, deals with all other Federal activities besides funding of highway and mass transit projects. These activities include funding and approval of airport projects, expansion of military bases, and permitting of projects to deepen waterways.

Federal agencies take thousands of actions every day and requiring determinations on every action would not be possible. Therefore, EPA established a number of exemptions to the rule requirements including a de minimis emission level generally based upon the size of a major stationary source in the nonattainment or maintenance area.

Following are a series of questions related to implementation of general conformity on which EPA is soliciting input: 41   What de minimis levels, if any, should EPA establish for direct and precursor emissions for any new PM10 2.5 standards?

  In transitioning to a new standard, how should EPA treat previous conformity evaluations and determinations based on the PM10 standard?

  Are there any categories of actions that should be exempt from the conformity requirements for any new PM10 2.5 standards? If so, how could such exemptions be devised?

4. New Source Review program The NSR program is a preconstruction permitting program that applies when a new source is constructed or an existing one is modified. The major NSR program applies to major stationary sources and is comprised of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) program that applies in attainment areas and a nonattainment NSR program that applies to pollutants for which an area is designated nonattainment.

There are many major NSR program implementation issues that EPA will address for a new PM10 2.5 NAAQS, including revocation of the existing PM10 NAAQS. In this ANPR, EPA is highlighting some of the key issues and providing EPA's preliminary thinking on approaches for addressing them. We 42 recognize that there may be other implementation issues not identified here, and we invite you to identify them. When submitting comments, please support your comments with adequate data and/ or practical scenarios or illustrations.

a. Does PM10 continue to be a regulated NSR pollutant for PSD in areas where the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS would be revoked?

The PSD program applies when a major stationary source of any " regulated NSR pollutant", that is located in an area designated as attainment or unclassifiable for any criteria pollutant, is constructed or undergoes a major modification ( 40 CFR 52.21( a)( 2); 40 CFR 51.166( a)( 7)). EPA defines a " regulated NSR pollutant" to include ( 1) any pollutant for which a NAAQS has been promulgated ( otherwise known as a " criteria" pollutant); ( 2) any pollutant subject to a New Source Performance Standard promulgated under section 111 of the CAA; and ( 3) any pollutant that is otherwise regulated under the Act, except for hazardous air pollutants regulated under section 112 of the Act3 ( 40 CFR 52.21( b) ( 50); 40 CFR 51.166( b)( 49)). Thus, in addition to applying to criteria pollutants for which EPA has promulgated a NAAQS, the PSD program also applies to any non criteria pollutant that is covered by the additional prongs of the definition of a 3 This definition also covers any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated under or established by Title VI of the Act, but this is not relevant to particulate matter. 43 " regulated NSR pollutant" described above. However, not all of the PSD program requirements outlined below are applicable to non criteria pollutants that are subject to the PSD program.

The PSD requirements include but are not limited to:

C Installation of Best Available Control Technology ( BACT),

C Air quality monitoring and modeling analyses to ensure that a project= s emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or maximum allowable pollutant increase ( PSD increment),

C Notification of Federal Land Manager when a proposed source or modification may affect nearby Class I areas, and C Public comment on the permit.

For any criteria pollutant subject to PSD, all PSD requirements including the PSD increments analyses apply.

However, since there are no NAAQS for non criteria pollutants, only some requirements, including BACT, apply to these pollutants ( See 42 U. S. C. 7475( a)( 4); 40 CFR 52.21( j)); 40 CFR 52.166( j))

The proposed revocation of the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS in certain areas raises issues about whether existing PSD regulations would continue to apply to PM10 in any respect 44 after the revocation of the NAAQS in these areas. The extent to which all or some of the PSD requirements apply depends on whether PM10 continues to be a regulated NSR pollutant in these areas, either as a criteria or a noncriteria pollutant, under EPA's regulations and the CAA. We seek comment on the following options to address these issues:

Option 1 Since the 24 hour PM10 standard would remain in effect at least in some areas, we could conclude that PM10 continues to be a regulated NSR pollutant for the PSD program. Thus, even in those areas in which the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS is revoked ( 24 hour revoked areas), PM10 would be regarded as a regulated NSR pollutant only by virtue of being otherwise subject to regulation under the CAA ( 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 50)( iv)) because a 24 hour PM10 NAAQS continues to apply in other areas. Under this approach, PSD for PM10 would continue to apply in all areas. However, as stated earlier, only a few PSD requirements, including BACT, would apply in 24 hour revoked areas since PM10 would be regarded as a non criteria pollutant in those areas. In those areas where the 24 hour PM10 NAAQS is not revoked, all PSD program elements would continue to apply for PM10 because it remains a criteria pollutant in these areas. 45 Option 2 Alternatively, we could interpret all prongs of the " regulated NSR pollutant" definition to be area specific.

Thus, in 24 hour revoked areas, PM10 would no longer be a criteria pollutant, and none of the other prongs of the definition of " regulated NSR pollutant" would apply to PM10 in these areas. Therefore, none of the PSD requirements would apply to PM10 in such areas. We request comment on whether there is any other basis for retaining PM10 as a regulated NSR pollutant, even if it is no longer a criteria pollutant.

b. Does the CAA require continued obligation for some form of PM increment?

Section 163 of the CAA states that each SIP should contain measures assuring that maximum allowable increases over baseline concentration ( increments) for PM shall not be exceeded in attainment areas. Section 163 contains specific numerical increments ( expressed as ug/ m3) for PM, which EPA initially implemented using the total suspended particulate indicator. After EPA transitioned to PM10 as the indicator for PM in 1987, the Agency substituted PM10 increments for the PM increments in section 163 based on the authority of section 166( f) of the Act ( 58 FR 31622, June 3, 1993).

Section 166( f), which was enacted in the 1990 amendments to 46 the CAA, authorized EPA to substitute PM10 increments " of equal stringency in effect" as the section 163 PM increments, but also required that the PM increments remain in effect until the new PM10 increments were promulgated.

For pollutants other than PM and sulfur dioxide4,

Section 166( a) of the CAA directs the Administrator to conduct a study and promulgate regulations, which may include increments, to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. EPA promulgated increments for nitrogen oxides under this authority ( 70 FR 59582, Oct. 12, 2005, and 53 FR 40656, Oct. 17, 1988). Section 166( a) also directs the Administrator to promulgate pollutant specific PSD regulations for pollutants for which NAAQS are promulgated after 1977. The proposed revocation of the PM10 NAAQS raises two issues with respect to EPA's PSD regulations for PM.

The first is whether EPA has continuing obligation under section 163 or 166( f) of the CAA to implement some form of a PM increment. The second question concerns the methodology that EPA should use to establish PSD regulations for PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 to replace the increments for PM10. We seek comment on the following options to address these issues:

Option 1 Once the PM10 NAAQS is revoked, one approach would be to 4 Section 163 also contains increments for sulfur dioxide. 47 conclude that section 166( f), requiring equivalent PM10 increments, is no longer applicable in the absence of a PM10 NAAQS. Furthermore, since section 166( f) effectively superseded section 163, we would not construe the latter provision to require that EPA maintain a PM increment after the revocation of the PM10 NAAQS. Thus, we could conclude that neither the section 163 increment requirement for PM nor the section 166( f) increment requirement for PM10 remains effective after revocation of the PM10 standard.

Accordingly, we would need to develop new increments5 for PM2.5 and PM10 2.5. In the interest of simplicity and ease of implementation, we could develop new increments for PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 pursuant to section 166 of the CAA. This approach would include among other things, establishing new baseline dates and trigger dates for PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 on the theory that these are separate, new pollutants, at least for NSR purposes. Otherwise the alternative approach, described below, of trying to continue the implementation of the section 163 increments for PM ( using the new indicators)

would involve retroactively estimating PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 emissions in 1978 ( based on the original PSD requirements 42 U. S. C. section 7473 5 Alternatively, if we promulgate such regulations under section 166, EPA could develop equivalent PSD regulations for PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 thatinclude other measures instead of increments. 48 for PM), and would be extremely difficult in most cases.

Option 2 Another approach would be to interpret sections 163 and 166( f) to require some form of PM increments on a continuous basis. However, we would recognize the Congressional intent reflected in section 166( f) that EPA update the PM increments as it modifies the NAAQS for PM. Under this option, we could substitute PM10 increments with two new increments ( PM2.5 and PM10 2.5 ) " of equal stringency in effect" based on section 166( f) of the CAA by using the methodology reflected in our 1993 PM10 increments regulation This approach would provide continuity with the existing PM10 increments system and would most likely involve retaining the existing baseline areas and dates.

c. How should permitting authorities implement the PM2.5 program upon revocation of the PM10 NAAQS?

When EPA first promulgated the NAAQS for PM2.5 in 1997,

we encountered a number of technical difficulties with implementing the PSD program for PM2.5 upon the effective date of the NAAQS for PM2.5. To address these difficulties, EPA established a policy that enabled permitting authorities to use the implementation of the PSD program for PM10 as a surrogate for a PM2.5 PSD program until the necessary tools were in place to measure PM2.5 and implement PSD permitting 49 programs for PM2.5. See Memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, Interim Implementation of New Source Review for PM2.5 ( Oct. 23, 1997) at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ Region7/ programs/ artd/ air/ nsr/ nsrmemos/ pm 25. pdf ). The EPA extended this PM10 surrogate policy to implementation of the NSR program in nonattainment areas,

once PM2.5 nonattainment designations became effective on April 5, 2005. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Directors, Interim Implementation of New Source Review for PM2.5 in Nonattainment Areas ( April 5, 2005) at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ Region7/ programs/ artd/ air/ nsr/ nsrmemos/ pm 25guid. pdf). These policies remain in effect today pending the promulgation of EPA's PM2.5 implementation rules for NSR and approval of SIPs containing PSD programs for PM2.5.

Because of the proposed revocation of the PM10 NAAQS,

there may not be a PM10 PSD program remaining in 24 hour revoked areas to rely upon as a surrogate for implementation of a PSD program for PM2.5. This raises the issue of how States may continue to satisfy the PSD program requirements for PM2.5 in the interim period. We seek comment on the following options to address this issue:

Option 1 50 One approach that we might use would be to continue using an analysis of PM10 air quality as a surrogate for the air quality analysis under the PM2.5 program with a change.

Permitting authorities may continue to analyze PM10 emissions and concentrations, but they would have to compare these concentrations with the PM2.5 NAAQS to show that the predicted PM10 concentrations would not exceed the PM2.5 NAAQS. This approach would overpredict actual PM2.5 concentrations in most cases, but it would represent a conservative screening mechanism that could demonstrate that a new source or major modification would not cause or contribute to a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. We believe that this would be a suitable interim approach until all the necessary implementation elements for carrying out an independent PM2.5 program have been finalized.

Option 2 An alternative approach would be to continue to apply the existing surrogate policy for implementing the PM2.5 program, even after the PM10 standard has been revoked. In other words, the impacts of the PM10 emissions would continue to be compared with the former PM10 NAAQS. Again this would serve as an interim policy, until all the PM2.5 implementation elements for carrying out an independent PM2.5 program have been finalized. 51 d. How should EPA implement the PSD program for PM10 2.5 upon the effective date of the promulgation of the PM10 2.5 NAAQS?

The EPA has interpreted various provisions in title I,

part C of the CAA to require immediate implementation of the PSD program in all areas for each pollutant upon the effective date of a NAAQS for that pollutant. See Seitz Memorandum ( Oct. 27, 1997). As noted earlier, EPA's PSD regulations define a regulated NSR pollutant to include,

among other things, any pollutant for which a NAAQS is promulgated ( 40 CFR 51.166( b)( 49); 52.21( b)( 50)). In contrast, under part D of the CAA, the nonattainment NSR program is not required to be implemented for a particular pollutant subject to a NAAQS until nonattainment areas are designated pursuant to section 107 of the CAA, and are in effect for that pollutant.

As described in detail in the earlier PM2.5 implementation discussion, EPA established a policy that enabled permitting authorities to use the implementation of a PSD program for PM10 as a surrogate for implementation of the PSD program for PM2.5 until the necessary tools were in place to measure PM2.5 and implement permitting programs for PM2.5. The EPA anticipates that it will encounter similar difficulties with implementing a PSD program for PM10 2.5 upon 52 the effective date of a NAAQS for PM10 2.5. However, as discussed above in the context of PM2.5, the revocation of the PM10 NAAQS may leave EPA without a PM10 program to rely upon as a surrogate for implementation of a PSD program for PM10 2.5. Thus, we are exploring other approaches that EPA might use to fulfill the PSD requirements in title I,

part C of the CAA upon the effective date of a NAAQS for PM10 2.5. We request comment on the following approaches and welcome suggestions for additional approaches we might use for a temporary, interim period to prevent significant deterioration of air quality from new and modified sources of PM10 2.5:

Option 1 One approach that we might use would be to continue using an analysis of PM10 air quality as a surrogate for the air quality analysis under a PM10 2.5 program. Permitting authorities may continue to analyze PM10 emissions and concentrations and compare that with the PM10 2.5 NAAQS to show that the predicted PM10 concentrations would not exceed the PM10 2.5 NAAQS. This approach would overpredict actual PM10 2.5 concentrations in most cases, but it would represent a conservative screening mechanism that could demonstrate that a new source or major modification would not cause or contribute to a violation of the PM10 2.5 NAAQS. 53 Option 2 Another approach might be to compare the PM10 analysis to the former PM10 NAAQS and thus use compliance with the former PM10 NAAQS as a surrogate for compliance with the new PM10 2.5 NAAQS for a temporary period. This latter approach might be used independently or as a secondary step in a tiered analysis if the first approach discussed above was found to be overly conservative.

Option 3 Another approach might be to use compliance with BACT for PM10 2.5 as a surrogate for the PM10 2.5 NAAQS compliance demonstration. In this approach, we might make a determination for an interim period that the first major sources that trigger PSD requirements for PM10 2.5 are not likely to cause or contribute to noncompliance with the PM10

2.5 NAAQS if they meet BACT for PM10 2.5. Thus, we might consider compliance with BACT to represent a surrogate for the PM10 2.5 NAAQS compliance demonstration for a limited period until we have the tools in place to assess PM10 2.5 concentrations.

e. How should ambient PM10 2.5 dominated by rural windblown dust and soils, and generated by agricultural and mining sources be treated in the NSR program for the proposed PM10

2.5 standard? 54 The proposed PM10 2.5 indicator is qualified so as to include any ambient mix of PM10 2.5 that is dominated by resuspended dust from high density traffic on paved roads and PM generated by industrial sources and construction sources, and excludes any ambient mix of PM10 2.5 that is dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and mining sources. This suggests that the NSR applicability test would exclude these sources from consideration. We request comment on how we would implement the NSR program if we promulgate a NAAQS with these characteristics.

VII. WHAT EMISSION INVENTORY REQUIREMENTS SHOULD APPLY UNDER ANY NEW PM2.5 AND PM10 2.5 NAAQS?

Emission inventories are critical for the efforts of State, local, Tribal and Federal agencies to attain and maintain the NAAQS that EPA has established for criteria pollutants including PM2.5 and a possible PM10 2.5. Pursuant to its authority under section 110 of Title I of the CAA, EPA has long required States to submit emission inventories containing information regarding the emissions of criteria pollutants and their precursors. The EPA codified these requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart Q in 1979 and amended them in 1987.

In June 2002, EPA promulgated the Consolidated 55 Emissions Reporting Rule ( CERR)( 67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002).

The CERR consolidates the various emissions reporting requirements into one place in the CFR. In January 2006,

EPA proposed the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements ( AERR)

( 71 FR 69, January 3, 2006) which proposes to modify some of the reporting requirements established by CERR. In addition, EPA has developed guidance AEmissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,@ EPA 454/ R 99 006 available at:

http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ eidocs/ eiguid/ index. html. The EPA developed this guidance document to complement the CERR and proposed AERR and to provide specific guidance to State and local agencies and Tribes on how to develop emissions inventories for 8 hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs.

While the CERR and AERR set forth requirements for data elements, EPA guidance complements these requirements and indicates how the data should be prepared for SIP submissions. The SIP inventory also must be approved by EPA as a SIP element and is therefore subject to public hearing requirements where the inventory required by the CERR is not. Because of the regulatory significance of the SIP inventory, EPA will need more documentation on how the SIP inventory was developed by 56 the State as opposed to the documentation required for the CERR inventory.

Therefore, the basis for EPA= s emission inventory program is specified in the CERR, the AERR notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM) and the related guidance document. The EPA is interested in receiving comments on whether or not additional emission inventory requirements or guidance are needed to implement the PM2.5 and a possible PM10

2.5 NAAQS. Following are a set of questions on which we would like input:

a. Are the data elements specified within the CERR and AERR sufficient to develop adequate SIPs for PM2.5 and PM10 2.5?

For example, should EPA expand the listing of reportable compounds to include elemental and organic carbon?

b. Fugitive emissions are a significant contributor to ambient levels of PM10 2.5. Should EPA require and/ or develop more precise methods for estimating fugitive particulate emissions, perhaps including wind blown dust?

c. The EPA believes that daily emissions will be important under both PM2.5 and PM10 2.5. Should EPA require any additional emission inventory data elements or temporal allocation techniques to more accurately estimate daily emissions and their variability?

d. Are there other inventory issues that EPA should define 57 through either regulation or guidance?

VIII. STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS Under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a " significant regulatory action" and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR part 51 Environmental protection, Particulate Matter.

Transition to New or Revised PM NAAQS   pg. 58 of 58 pgs.

_________________________ Dated:

____________________________

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74078-74079]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-492-000]

Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment for the Rover-Brightmark Receipt and Delivery
Meter Station Project

    On September 9, 2021, Rover Pipeline LLC (Rover) filed an
application in Docket No. CP21-492-000 requesting a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline
facilities in Michigan. The proposed project is known as the Rover-
Brightmark Receipt and Delivery Meter Station Project (Project), and
would allow Rover to construct a new interconnect on its existing
mainline system to receive up to 1,600 dekatherms per day of natural
gas from Brightmark SunRyz RNG LLC while also allowing Rover to deliver
up to 100 dekatherms per day of natural gas to Brightmark SunRyz RNG
LLC for its Brightmark Renewable Natural Gas Facility.
    On September 20, 2021 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
environmental document for the Project.
    This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule
for the completion of the environmental review.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 1501.10 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--February 22, 2022
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--May 24, 2022

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be

provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project would consist of Rover constructing and operating a new
interconnect and meter station on its existing Market Area Mainline at
about milepost 30.5 in Lenawee County, Michigan. The proposed meter
station would include hot taps, valves, 65 feet of interconnecting
pipe, two meter skids, a gas quality building, a measurement building,
and satellite communications. Construction of the proposed facilities
would impact about 2.0 acres.

Background

    On October 26, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Scoping
Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed
Rover-Brightmark Receipt and Delivery Meter Station Project and Notice
of Public Scoping Session (Notice of Scoping). The Notice of Scoping
was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. In response to the Notice of Scoping, the Commission
received comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency commented on identifying the
Project purpose and need; and assessing impacts on socioeconomics and
environmental justice communities, greenhouse gas emissions, climate
change, vegetation and wildlife, surface and groundwater quality, and
karst terrain. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the
Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service
provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP21-492), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at [email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: December 22, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-28294 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14887]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

March 16, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Temporary Variance from Article 401 of the
License.
    b. Project No.: 1494-293.
    c. Date Filed: March 15, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority.
    e. Name of Project: Pensacola.
    f. Location: The Project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in
Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert W. Sullivan, Jr., Assistant
General Manager, Grand River Dam Authority, P.O. Box 409, Vinita, OK
74301-0409. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Vedula Sarma at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: 10 days from the
date of issuance.
    k. Description of Filing: Because of the current drought situation
in the basin, as an emergency measure, Grand River Dam Authority
proposes to temporarily modify the rule curve set forth in Article 401
of the license by drawing Grand Lake below elevation 742 feet
(Pensacola Datum) to maintain a minimum elevation of 614 feet mean sea
level at Lake Hudson. Lake Hudson is a source for public water supply
to the towns of Locust Grove, Adair, Salina, and Rural Water District
No. 6.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also 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. 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,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies)
should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. A
copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4252 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4458-4459]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0433; Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-12]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rugby, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace for Rugby, ND.
Decommissioning of the Rugby non-directional beacon (NDB) at Rugby
Municipal Airport has made this action necessary to enhance the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 5, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 28, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Rugby, ND,
reconfiguring controlled airspace at Rugby Municipal Airport (76 FR
66870) Docket No. FAA-2011-0433. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for the Rugby, ND area. Decommissioning of the Rugby
NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Rugby Municipal Airport has
made reconfiguration of the airspace necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Rugby Municipal Airport, Rugby, ND.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Rugby, ND [Amended]

Rugby Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]23'25'' N., long. 100[deg]01'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Rugby Municipal Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 13-mile
radius of the Rugby Municipal Airport and within 8.1 miles north and
4.2 miles south of the 115[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 13-mile radius to 16.1 miles east of the airport, and
within 8.5 miles south and 3.8 miles north of the 314[deg] bearing
from the airport extending from the 13-mile radius to 16.1 miles
northwest of the airport, excluding that airspace within the Minot,
ND, and Rolla, ND, Class E airspace areas, and excluding all Federal
Airways.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 13, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-1786 Filed 1-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 17406]
[DOCID:fr06ap10-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-33-001]

Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 31, 2010.
    Take notice that on March 15, 2010, and March 17, 2010, Kinder
Morgan Border Pipeline, LLC (KM Border), filed revisions to its
Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) in compliance with the February
23, 2010 Letter Order and pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the
Commission's regulations. KM Border states that it made revisions to
the SOC's table of contents and a filed a statement of rates, as
required by the February 23rd Letter Order.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 9, 2010.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7707 Filed 4-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19279-19280]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-24-000]

Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review of the Saskatchewan Pipeline Project

    On December 8, 2017, Steel Reef Pipelines US LLC (Steel Reef) filed
an application in Docket No. CP18-24-000 requesting permission pursuant
to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and maintain
certain natural gas pipeline border crossing facilities to export
natural gas from the

United States to Canada. The proposed project is known as the
Saskatchewan Pipeline Project (Project) and is located at the Canadian
border in Burke County, North Dakota. Additionally, Steel Reef
requested a Presidential Permit for the Project's facilities.
    On November 20, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--June 8, 2018
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--September 6, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Steel Reef's proposed Project includes border crossing facilities
consisting of a 250-foot-long, 10.75-inch-diameter pipeline, a meter
station, and associated appurtenant aboveground facilities. The Project
would transport up to 30 million standard cubic feet per day of sour
natural gas gathered from existing oil wells owned and operated by
Petro Harvester Oil & Gas, LLC in Burke County, North Dakota.

Background

    On January 11, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the proposed Saskatchewan
Pipeline Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers.\1\ In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments
from the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs
regarding tribal consultation, and the North Dakota State Water
Commission regarding waterbody/wetland crossing permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Through an administrative error, the NOI was not mailed to
interested Indian Tribes. On April 9, 2018, we subsequently sent the
NOI to the Three Affiliated Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-24), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: April 26, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09247 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P