rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective on [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register].

References

Baldauf, R, Watkins N, Heist D, Bailey C, Rowley P, Shores R. (2009).
Near-road air quality monitoring: Factors affecting network design and
interpretation of data. Air Qual. Atmos. Health.  2:1-9.

Barck, C, Sandström T, Lundahl J, Halldén G, Svartengren M, Strand V,
Rak S, Bylin G.   (2002).  Ambient level of NO2 augments the
inflammatory response to inhaled allergen in asthmatics.  Respir Med.
96:907-917.

Barck, C, Lundahl J, Halldén G, Bylin G. (2005).  Brief exposures to
NO2 augment the allergic inflammation in asthmatics.  Environ Res.
97:58-66.

Beckerman, B,  Jerrett M, Brook JR, Verma DK, Arain MA, Finkelstein MM.
(2008). Correlation of nitrogen dioxide with other traffic pollutants
near a major expressway.  Atmos Environ.  42:275-290.

Brauer, M, Hoek G, Smit HA, De Jongste JC, Gerritsen J, Postma DS,
Kerkhof M, Brunekreef B. (2007). Air pollution and development of
asthma, allergy and infections in a birth cohort. Eur. Respir. J.
29:879-888.

Chauhan, AJ, Inskip HM, Linaker CH, Smith S, Schreiber J, Johnston SL,
Holgate ST (2003). Personal exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the
severity of virus-induced asthma in children. Lancet 361:1939-1944.

Clements, A, Yuling J, Fraser MP, Yifang Z, Pudota J, DenBleyker A,
Michel E, Collins DR, McDonald-Buller E, Allen DT. (2008).  Air
Pollutant Concentrations near Texas Roadways: Chemical Transformation of
Pollutants. Proceedings of the 101st Air & Waste Management Annual
Conference, Portland, OR.

Clougherty, JE, Levy JI, Kubzansky LD, Ryan PB, Suglia SF, Canner MJ,
and Wright RJ. (2007). Synergistic effects of traffic-related air
pollution and exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ.
Health Perspect. 115:1140-1146.

Delfino, RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH, McLaren CE. (2002).
Association of asthma symptoms with peak particulate air pollution and
effect modification by anti-inflammatory medication use.  Environ.
Health Perspect. 110:A607-A617.

EPA.  (1993).  Air Quality Criteria Document for the Oxides of Nitrogen.
 National Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park,
NC.  EPA-600/8-91/049F.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=40179"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=40179 .

EPA.  (1995).  Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Nitrogen Dioxide: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information.
OAQPS Staff Paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC.  EPA-452/R-95-005. September 1995.

EPA (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pd
f"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf
.

EPA.  (2007a).  Plan for Review of the Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_pd.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_pd.html .

EPA.  (2007b).  Nitrogen Dioxide Health Assessment Plan: Scope and
Methods for Exposure and Risk Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_pd.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_pd.html .

EPA (2007d).  Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Pb: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS
Staff paper.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC.  EPA-452/R-07-013.  Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/data/20071101_pb_staff.pdf
HYPERLINK "http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html"   .

EPA.  (2007e).  Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff
paper.  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC.  EPA-452/R-07-007a.  Available at:   HYPERLINK
"http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html"
http://epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html .

EPA.  (2008a).  ISA for Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria.  National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645.

EPA	(2008b). Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the
NO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Fehsenfeld, FC, Dickerson RR, Hübler G, Luke WT, Nunnermacker LJ,
Williams EJ, Roberts JM, Calvert JG, Curran CM, Delany AC, Eubank CS,
Fahey DW, Fried A, Gandrud BW, Langford AO, Murphy PC, Norton RB,
Pickering KE, Ridley BA. (1987) A ground-based intercomparison of NO,
NOx, and NOy measurement techniques. J. Geophys. Res. [Atmos.] 92:
14,710-14,722.

Folinsbee, LJ.  (1992).  Does nitrogen dioxide exposure increase airways
responsiveness? Toxicol Ind Health.  8:273-283.

Frampton, MW, Boscia J, Roberts NJ, Azadniv M, Torres A, Cox C, Morrow
PE, Nichols J, Chalupa D, Frasier LM, Gibb FR, Speers DM, Tsai Y, Utell
MJ. (2002)  Nitrogen dioxide exposure: effects on airway and blood
cells. Am. J. Physiol.  282:L155-L165.

Fuhlbrigge, AL, Adams RJ, Guilbert TW, Grant E, Lozano P, Janson SL,
Martinez F, Weiss KB, Weiss ST. (2002).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12379546?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSy
stem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubme
d_RVDocSum"  The burden of asthma in the United States: level and
distribution are dependent on interpretation of the national asthma
education and prevention program guidelines .  Am J Respir Crit Care
Med.  166:1044-1049.

Gauderman, W J, Avol E, Gilliland F, Vora H, Thomas D, Berhane K,
McConnell R, Kuenzli N, Lurmann F, Rappaport E, Margolis H, Bates D,
Peters J. (2004). The effect of air pollution on lung development from
10 to 18 years of age. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:1057-1067.

Gauderman, WJ, Avol E, Lurmann F, Kuenzli N, Gilliland F, Peters J,
McConnell R. (2005). Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and
nitrogen dioxide. Epidemiology 16:737-743.

Gilbert, NL, Woodhouse S, Stieb DM, Brook JR.  (2003).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12873397?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSy
stem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubme
d_RVDocSum"  Ambient nitrogen dioxide and distance from a major highway.
  Sci. Total Environ.  312:43-6.

Hagler, GSW, Baldauf RW, Thoma ED, Long TR, Snow RF, Kinsey JS, Oudejans
L, Gullett BK. (2009).  Ultrafine particles near a major roadway in
Raleigh, North Carolina: Downwind attenuation and correlation with
traffic-related pollutants. Atmos. Environ.  43:1229-1234.

Henderson, R. (2008).  Letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson:
“Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Comments and
Recommendations Concerning the Proposed Rule for the Revision of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NO2.”
EPA-CASAC-08-016, July 18.

Ito, K, Thurston, GD, Silverman, RA. (2007).  Characterization of PM2.5,
gaseous pollutants, and meteorological interactions in the context of
time-series health effects models. J. of Expos. Science and Environ.
Epidemiology.  17:S45-S60.

Jaffe, DH, Singer ME, Rimm AA. (2003).  Air pollution and emergency
department visits for asthma among Ohio Medicaid recipients, 1991-1996.
Environ. Res. 91:21-28.

Janssen, NAH., van Vliet PHN, Asrts F, Harssema H, Brunekreef B.
(2001).  Assessment of exposure to traffic related air pollution of
children attending schools near motorways.  Atmos. Environ.
35:3875-3884.

Kalthoff, N, Baumer D, Corsmeier U, Kohler M, Vogel B.  (2005).
Vehicle-induced turbulence near a motorway, Atmospheric Environment
39:5737–5749.

Kim, S-Y, O'Neill M, Lee J-T, Cho Y, Kim J, and Kim H. (2007).  Air
pollution, socioeconomic position, and emergency hospital visits for
asthma in Seoul, Korea. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 80:701-710.

Linn, WS, Szlachcic Y, Gong H, Kinney PL, Berhane KT. (2000).  Air
pollution and daily hospital admissions in metropolitan Los Angeles.
Environ. Health Perspect. 108:427-434.

McClenny, WA, Williams EJ, Cohen RC, Stutz J. (2002).  Preparing to
measure the effects of the NOX SIP Call—methods for ambient air
monitoring of NO, NO2, NOY, and individual NOZ species. J. Air Waste
Manage. Assoc. 52:542-562.

McCurdy, TR.  (1994).  Analysis of high 1 hour NO2 values and associated
annual averages using 1988-1992 data.  Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.  Available in Docket A-93-06.

Mortimer, KM, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Redline S, Tager IB.  (2002).  The
effect of air pollution on inner-city children with asthma.  Eur Respir
J.  19:699-705.

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). (2007) Expert panel
report 3: guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma.
Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Institutes of Health, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program;
NIH Publication No. 07-4051.

New York Department of Health.  (2006).  A study of ambient air
contaminants and asthma in New York City, Final Report Part B: Air
contaminants and emergency department visits for asthma in the Bronx and
Manhattan.  Prepared for: The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry.

Nunnermacker, LJ, Imre D, Daum PH, Kleinman L, Lee YN, Lee JH,
Springston SR, Newman L, Weinstein-Lloyd J, Luke WT, Banta R, Alvarez R,
Senff C, Sillman S, Holdren M, Keigley GW, Zhou X. (1998).
Characterization of the Nashville urban plume on July 3 and July 18,
1995. J. Geophys. Res. [Atmos.] 103:28,129-28,148.

Oftedal, B, Brunekreef B, Nystad W, Madsen C, Walker SE, Nafstad P.
(2008).  Residential outdoor air pollution and lung function in
schoolchildren. Epidemiology 19:129-137.

Ostro, B, Lipsett M, Mann J, Braxton-Owens H, White M. (2001).  Air
pollution and exacerbation of asthma in African-American children in Los
Angeles. Epidemiology 12:200-208.

Parrish, DD, Fehsenfeld FC. (2000).  Methods for gas-phase measurements
of ozone, ozone precursors and aerosol precursors. Atmos. Environ.
34:1921-1957.

Peacock, M. (2008).  Letter to CASAC chair Rogene Henderson. September
8.

Peacock, M. (2006).  Letter to EPA Assistant Administrator Dr. George
Gray:  “Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.”  December 7.

Peel, JL, Tolbert PE, Klein M, Metzger KB, Flanders WD, Knox T,
Mulholland JA, Ryan PB, Frumkin H.  (2005).  Ambient air pollution and
respiratory emergency department visits.  Epidemiology.  16:164-174.

Pilotto, LS, Douglas RM, Attewell RG, Wilson SR (1997) Respiratory
effects associated with indoor nitrogen dioxide exposure in children.
Int. J. Epidemiol. 26: 788-796.

Pilotto, LS, Nitschke M, Smith BJ, Pisaniello D, Ruffin RE, McElroy HJ,
Martin J, Hiller JE.  (2004).  Randomized controlled trial of unflued
gas heater replacement on respiratory health of asthmatic
schoolchildren.  Int J Epidemiol.  33:208-214.

Rizzo (2008).  Investigation of how distributions of hourly nitrogen
dioxide concentrations have changed over time in six cities.  Nitrogen
Dioxide NAAQS Review Docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0922 ). Available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_rea.html

Rodes, CE and Holland DM.  (1981).  Variations of NO, NO2, and O3
concentrations downwind of a Los Angeles Freeway.  Atmos. Environ.
15:243-250.

Roorda-Knape, MC, Janssen NAH, De Hartog JJ, Van Vliet PHN, Harssema H,
Brunekreef B. (1998).  Air pollution from traffic in city districts near
major motorways.  Atmos. Environ. 32:1921-1930.

Rojas-Martinez, R, Perez-Padilla R, Olaiz-Fernandez G, Mendoza-Alvarado
L, Moreno-Macias H, Fortoul T, McDonnell W, Loomis D, Romieu I. (2007a)
Lung function growth in children with long-term exposure to air
pollutants in Mexico City. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 176:377-384.

Rojas-Martinez, R, Perez-Padilla R, Olaiz-Fernandez G, Mendoza-Alvarado
L, Moreno-Macias H, Fortoul T, McDonnell W, Loomis D, Romieu I. (2007b)
Lung function growth in children with long-term exposure to air
pollutants in Mexico City. Online data supplement. Available:
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/data/176/4/377/DC1/1 [3 October,
2007].

Ryerson, TB, Williams EJ, Fehsenfeld FC.  (2000).  An efficient
photolysis system for fast-response NO2 measurements. J. Geophys. Res.
[Atmos.] 105:26,447-26,461.

Samet, J. (2008a).  Letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson:
“Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s (CASAC) Peer Review of
EPA’s Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the NO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Second Draft.”
EPA-CASAC-08-021, September 24.

Samet, J. (2008b).  Letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson:
“Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s (CASAC) Review Comments
on EPA’s Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the NO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard.” EPA-CASAC-09-003,
December 16.

Samet, J. (2009).  Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson:
“Comments and Recommendations Concerning EPA's Proposed Rule for the
Revision of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
Nitrogen Dioxide.” EPA-CASAC-09-014, September 9.

Schildcrout, JS, Sheppard L, Lumley T, Slaughter JC, Koenig JQ, Shapiro
GG.  (2006).   Ambient air pollution and asthma exacerbations in
children: an eight-city analysis.  Am J Epidemiol.  164:505-517.

Schwartz, J, Dockery DW, Neas LM, Wypij D, Ware JH, Spengler JD,
Koutrakis P, Speizer FE, Ferris BG, Jr.  (1994).  Acute effects of
summer air pollution on respiratory symptom reporting in children.  Am J
Respir Crit Care Med.  150:1234-1242.

Singer, B, Hodgson A, Hotchi T, Kim J. (2004).  Passive measurement of
nitrogen oxides to assess traffic-related pollutant exposure for the
East Bay Children's Respiratory Health Study.  Atmos Environ.
38:393-403.

Stout, JW, Visness CM, Enright P, Lamm, C, Shapiro G, Gan, VN, Adams K,
Mitchell HE. (2006). Classification of asthma severity in children. Arch
Pediatr Adolesc Med. 160:844-850.

Strand, V, Rak S, Svartengren M, Bylin G.  (1997).  Nitrogen dioxide
exposure enhances asthmatic reaction to inhaled allergen in subjects
with asthma.  Am J Respir Crit Care Med.  155:881-887.

Strand, V, Svartengren M, Rak S, Barck C, Bylin G.  (1998).  Repeated
exposure to an ambient level of NO2 enhances asthmatic response to
nonsymptomatic allergen dose.  Eur Respir J.  12:6-12.

Thompson, R. (2008). Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Descriptive Statistics
Tables. Memo to the NO2 NAAQS docket. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_rea.html

Tolbert, PE, Klein M, Peel JL, Sarnat SE, Sarnat JA. (2007).
Multipollutant modeling issues in a study of ambient air quality and
emergency department visits in Atlanta. J. Exposure Sci. Environ.
Epidemiol. 17(Suppl. 2s): S29-S35.

Venkatram, A, Isakov V, Thoma E, Baldauf RW.  (2007).  Analysis of air
quality data near roadways using a dispersion model. Atmos. Environ.
41:9481-9497.

Watkins, N. and Thompson, R. (2008). NOX Network Review and Background.
Memo to the NO2 NAAQS docket.

Wolff, GT.  (1995).  Letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner: “CASAC
Review of the Staff Paper for the Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide: Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information.”  EPA-SAB-CASAC-LTR-95-004, August 22.

Zhou, Y and Levy JI.  (2007).  Factors influencing the spatial extent of
mobile source air pollution impacts: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health.
 7:89.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 50

	Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 58

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements

Dated: January 22, 2010.

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 50-NATIONAL PRIMARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

1.  The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A—General Provisions

2.  Section 50.11 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as
paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively, and amending the other provisions
as follows--

§ 50.11   National primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for oxides of nitrogen (nitrogen dioxide)

(a) The level of the national primary annual ambient air quality
standard for oxides of nitrogen is 53 parts per billion (ppb, which is 1
part in 1,000,000,000), annual average concentration, measured in the
ambient air as nitrogen dioxide.

(b) The level of the national primary 1-hour ambient air quality
standard for oxides of nitrogen is 100 ppb, 1-hour average
concentration, measured in the ambient air as nitrogen dioxide.

(c) The level of the national secondary ambient air quality standard for
nitrogen dioxide is 0.053 parts per million (100 micrograms per cubic
meter), annual arithmetic mean concentration.

(d) The levels of the standards shall be measured by:

(1) a reference method based on appendix F to this part, or

(2) by a Federal equivalent method (FEM) designated in accordance with
part 53 of this chapter.

(e) The annual primary standard is met when the annual average
concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to 53 ppb, as
determined in accordance with Appendix S for the annual standard.

(f) The 1-hour primary standard is met when the three-year average of
the annual 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average
concentration is less than or equal to 100 ppb, as determined in
accordance with Appendix S for the 1-hour standard.

 (g) The secondary standard is attained when the annual arithmetic mean
concentration in a calendar year is less than or equal to 0.053 ppm,
rounded to three decimal places (fractional parts equal to or greater
than 0.0005 ppm must be rounded up). To demonstrate attainment, an
annual mean must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent
complete or upon data derived from manual methods that are at least 75
percent complete for the scheduled sampling days in each calendar
quarter.

3.  Section 50.14 is amended by adding an entry to the end of table of
paragraph (c)(2)(vi) to read as follows:

§50.14 Treatment of air quality monitoring data influenced by
exceptional events.

* * * * *

(c) ***

(2) ***

(vi) ***

Table 1.  Schedule for Exceptional Event Flagging and Documentation
Submission for Data to be Used in Designations Decisions for New or
Revised NAAQS

NAAQS Pollutant/

Standard/(Level)/

Promulgation Date	Air Quality Data Collected for Calendar Year	Event
Flagging & Initial Description Deadline	Detailed Documentation
Submission Deadline

*******

NO2/1-Hour Standard(100 PPB)	2008	July 1, 2010a	January 22, 2011

	2009	July 1, 2010 	January 22, 2011

	2010	 April 1, 2011a	July 1, 2011a

aIndicates change from general schedule in 40 CFR 50.14.

Note:  EPA notes that the table of revised deadlines only applies to
data EPA will use to establish the final initial designations for new or
revised NAAQS.  The general schedule applies for all other purposes,
most notably, for data used by EPA for redesignations to attainment.

 *****

4. Appendix S is added to read as follows:

Appendix S to Part 50—Interpretation of the Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen (Nitrogen Dioxide)

 1. General.

(a) This appendix explains the data handling conventions and
computations necessary for determining when the primary national ambient
air quality standards for oxides of nitrogen as measured by nitrogen
dioxide (“NO2 NAAQS”) specified in § 50.11 are met.  Nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) is measured in the ambient air by a Federal reference
method (FRM) based on appendix F to this part or by a Federal equivalent
method (FEM) designated in accordance with part 53 of this chapter. Data
handling and computation procedures to be used in making comparisons
between reported NO2 concentrations and the levels of the NO2 NAAQS are
specified in the following sections.

(b) Whether to exclude, retain, or make adjustments to the data affected
by exceptional events, including natural events, is determined by the
requirements and process deadlines specified in §§ 50.1, 50.14 and
51.930 of this chapter.

(c) The terms used in this appendix are defined as follows:

Annual mean refers to the annual average of all of the 1-hour
concentration values as defined in section 5.1 of this appendix.

Daily maximum 1-hour values for NO2 refers to the maximum 1-hour NO2
concentration values measured from midnight to midnight (local standard
time) that are used in NAAQS computations.

Design values are the metrics (i.e., statistics) that are compared to
the NAAQS levels to determine compliance, calculated as specified in
section 5 of this appendix.  The design values for the primary NAAQS
are:

 (1) The annual mean value for a monitoring site for one year (referred
to as the “annual primary standard design value”).

(2) The 3-year average of annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
values for a monitoring site (referred to as the “1-hour primary
standard design value”).

98th percentile daily maximum 1-hour value  is the value below which
nominally 98 percent of all daily maximum 1-hour concentration values
fall, using the ranking and selection method specified in section 5.2 of
this appendix.

Quarter refers to a calendar quarter.

Year refers to a calendar year.

2. Requirements for Data Used for Comparisons with the NO2 NAAQS and
Data

Reporting Considerations.

(a) All valid FRM/FEM NO2 hourly data required to be submitted to
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), or otherwise available to EPA, meeting
the requirements of part 58 of this chapter including appendices A, C,
and E shall be used in design value calculations.  Multi-hour average
concentration values collected by wet chemistry methods shall not be
used.

(b) When two or more NO2 monitors are operated at a site, the state may
in advance designate one of them as the primary monitor.  If the state
has not made this designation, the Administrator will make the
designation, either in advance or retrospectively.  Design values will
be developed using only the data from the primary monitor, if this
results in a valid design value.  If data from the primary monitor do
not allow the development of a valid design value, data solely from the
other monitor(s) will be used in turn to develop a valid design value,
if this results in a valid design value.  If there are three or more
monitors, the order for such comparison of the other monitors will be
determined by the Administrator.  The Administrator may combine data
from different monitors in different years for the purpose of developing
a valid 1-hour primary standard design value, if a valid design value
cannot be developed solely with the data from a single monitor.
However, data from two or more monitors in the same year at the same
site will not be combined in an attempt to meet data completeness
requirements, except if one monitor has physically replaced another
instrument permanently, in which case the two instruments will be
considered to be the same monitor, or if the state has switched the
designation of the primary monitor from one instrument to another during
the year.

(c) Hourly NO2 measurement data shall be reported to AQS in units of
parts per billion (ppb), to at most one place after the decimal, with
additional digits to the right being truncated with no further rounding.

3. Comparisons with the NO2 NAAQS.

3.1 The Annual Primary NO2 NAAQS.

(a) The annual primary NO2 NAAQS is met at a site when the valid annual
primary standard design value is less than or equal to 53 parts per
billion (ppb).

(b) An annual primary standard design value is valid when at least 75
percent of the hours in the year are reported.

(c) An annual primary standard design value based on data that do not
meet the completeness criteria stated in section 3.1(b) may also be
considered valid with the approval of, or at the initiative of, the
Administrator, who may consider factors such as monitoring site
closures/moves, monitoring diligence, the consistency and levels of the
valid concentration measurements that are available, and nearby
concentrations in determining whether to use such data.

(d) The procedures for calculating the annual primary standard design
values are given in section 5.1 of this appendix.

3.2 The 1-hour Primary NO2 NAAQS.

(a) The 1-hour primary NO2 NAAQS is met at a site when the valid 1-hour
primary standard design value is less than or equal to 100 parts per
billion (ppb).

(b) An NO2 1-hour primary standard design value is valid if it
encompasses three consecutive calendar years of complete data.  A year
meets data completeness requirements when all 4 quarters are complete.
A quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days for
each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete data if 75
percent of the hourly concentration values are reported.

 (c) In the case of one, two, or three years that do not meet the
completeness requirements of section 3.2(b) of this appendix and thus
would normally not be useable for the calculation of a valid 3-year
1-hour primary standard design value, the 3-year 1-hour primary standard
design value shall nevertheless be considered valid if one of the
following conditions is true.

(i) At least 75 percent of the days in each quarter of each of three
consecutive years have at least one reported hourly value, and the
design value calculated according to the procedures specified in section
5.2 is above the level of the primary 1-hour standard.

(ii) (A) A 1-hour primary standard design value that is below the level
of the NAAQS can be validated if the substitution test in section
3.2(c)(ii)(B) results in a “test design value” that is below the
level of the NAAQS.  The test substitutes actual ‘‘high’’
reported daily maximum 1-hour values from the same site at about the
same time of the year (specifically, in the same calendar quarter) for
unknown values that were not successfully measured.  Note that the test
is merely diagnostic in nature, intended to confirm that there is a very
high likelihood that the original design value (the one with less than
75 percent data capture of hours by day and of days by quarter) reflects
the true under-NAAQS-level status for that 3-year period; the result of
this data substitution test (the ‘‘test design value”, as defined
in section 3.2(c)(ii)(B)) is not considered the actual design value. For
this test, substitution is permitted only if there are at least 200 days
across the three matching quarters of the three years under
consideration (which is about 75 percent of all possible daily values in
those three quarters) for which 75 percent of the hours in the day have
reported concentrations. However, maximum 1-hour values from days with
less than 75 percent of the hours reported shall also be considered in
identifying the high value to be used for substitution.

(B) The substitution test is as follows: Data substitution will be
performed in all quarter periods that have less than 75 percent data
capture but at least 50 percent data capture; if any quarter has less
than 50 percent data capture then this substitution test cannot be used.
 Identify for each quarter (e.g., January-March) the highest reported
daily maximum 1-hour value for that quarter, looking across those three
months of all three years under consideration.  All daily maximum 1-hour
values from all days in the quarter period shall be considered when
identifying this highest value, including days with less than 75 percent
data capture. If after substituting the highest reported daily maximum
1-hour value for a quarter for as much of the missing daily data in the
matching deficient quarter(s) as is needed to make them 100 percent
complete, the procedure in section 5.2 yields a recalculated 3-year
1-hour standard “test design value” below the level of the standard,
then the 1-hour primary standard design value is deemed to have passed
the diagnostic test and is valid, and the level of the standard is
deemed to have been met in that 3-year period. As noted in section
3.2(c)(i), in such a case, the 3-year design value based on the data
actually reported, not the ‘‘test design value’’, shall be used
as the valid design value.

(iii) (A) A 1-hour primary standard design value that is above the level
of the NAAQS can be validated if the substitution test in section
3.2(c)(iii)(B) results in a “test design value” that is above the
level of the NAAQS.  The test substitutes actual ‘‘low” reported
daily maximum 1-hour values from the same site at about the same time of
the year (specifically, in the same three months of the calendar) for
unknown values that were not successfully measured.  Note that the test
is merely diagnostic in nature, intended to confirm that there is a very
high likelihood that the original design value (the one with less than
75 percent data capture of hours by day and of days by quarter) reflects
the true above-NAAQS-level status for that 3-year period; the result of
this data substitution test (the ‘‘test design value”, as defined
in section 3.2(c)(iii)(B)) is not considered the actual design value.
For this test, substitution is permitted only if there are a minimum
number of available daily data points from which to identify the low
quarter-specific daily maximum 1-hour values, specifically if there are
at least 200 days across the three matching quarters of the three years
under consideration (which is about 75 percent of all possible daily
values in those three quarters) for which 75 percent of the hours in the
day have reported concentrations. Only days with at least 75 percent of
the hours reported shall be considered in identifying the low value to
be used for substitution.

(B) The substitution test is as follows: Data substitution will be
performed in all quarter periods that have less than 75 percent data
capture.  Identify for each quarter (e.g., January-March) the lowest
reported daily maximum 1-hour value for that quarter, looking across
those three months of all three years under consideration.  All daily
maximum 1-hour values from all days with at least 75 percent capture in
the quarter period shall be considered when identifying this lowest
value. If after substituting the lowest reported daily maximum 1-hour
value for a quarter for as much of the missing daily data in the
matching deficient quarter(s) as is needed to make them 75 percent
complete, the procedure in section 5.2 yields a recalculated 3-year
1-hour standard “test design value” above the level of the standard,
then the 1-hour primary standard design value is deemed to have passed
the diagnostic test and is valid, and the level of the standard is
deemed to have been exceeded in that 3-year period. As noted in section
3.2(c)(i), in such a case, the 3-year design value based on the data
actually reported, not the ‘‘test design value’’, shall be used
as the valid design value.

 (d) A 1-hour primary standard design value based on data that do not
meet the completeness criteria stated in 3.2(b) and also do not satisfy
section 3.2(c), may also be considered valid with the approval of, or at
the initiative of, the Administrator, who may consider factors such as
monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring diligence, the consistency
and levels of the valid concentration measurements that are available,
and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such data.

(e) The procedures for calculating the 1-hour primary standard design
values are given in section 5.2 of this appendix.

4. Rounding Conventions.

4.1 Rounding Conventions for the Annual Primary NO2 NAAQS.

(a) Hourly NO2 measurement data shall be reported to AQS in units of
parts per billion (ppb), to at most one place after the decimal, with
additional digits to the right being truncated with no further rounding.

(b) The annual primary standard design value is calculated pursuant to
section 5.1 and then rounded to the nearest whole number or 1 ppb
(decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number,
and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the nearest whole
number).

4.2 Rounding Conventions for the 1-hour Primary NO2 NAAQS.

(a) Hourly NO2 measurement data shall be reported to AQS in units of
parts per billion (ppb), to at most one place after the decimal, with
additional digits to the right being truncated with no further rounding.

(b) Daily maximum 1-hour values are not rounded.

 (c) The 1-hour primary standard design value is calculated pursuant to
section 5.2 and then  rounded to the nearest whole number or 1 ppb
(decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number,
and any decimal lower than 0.5 is rounded down to the nearest whole
number).

5. Calculation Procedures for the Primary NO2 NAAQS.

5.1 Procedures for the Annual Primary NO2 NAAQS.

(a) When the data for a site and year meet the data completeness
requirements in section 3.1(b) of this appendix, or if the Administrator
exercises the discretionary authority in section 3.1(c), the annual mean
is simply the arithmetic average of all of the reported 1-hour values.

(b) The annual primary standard design value for a site is the valid
annual mean rounded according to the conventions in section 4.1.

5.2 Calculation Procedures for the 1-hour Primary NO2 NAAQS.

(a) Procedure for identifying annual 98th percentile values. When the
data for a particular site and year meet the data completeness
requirements in section 3.2(b), or if one of the conditions of section
3.2(c) is met, or if the Administrator exercises the discretionary
authority in section 3.2(d), identification of annual 98th percentile
value is accomplished as follows.

(i) The annual 98th percentile value for a year is the higher of the two
values resulting from the following two procedures.

(1) Procedure 1.  For the year, determine the number of days with at
least 75 percent of the hourly values reported.

(A) For the year, from only the days with at least 75 percent of the
hourly values reported, select from each day the maximum hourly value.

(B) Sort all these daily maximum hourly values from a particular site
and year by descending value. (For example: (x[1], x[2], x[3],
 *  *  *, x[n]). In this case, x[1] is the largest number and x[n]
is the smallest value.) The 98th percentile is determined from this
sorted series of daily values which is ordered from the highest to the
lowest number. Using the left column of Table 1, determine the
appropriate range (i.e., row) for the annual number of days with valid
data for year y (cny). The corresponding “n” value in the right
column identifies the rank of the annual 98th percentile value in the
descending sorted list of daily site values for year y. Thus, P0.98, y=
the nth largest value.

(2) Procedure 2.  For the year, determine the number of days with at
least one hourly value reported.

(A) For the year, from all the days with at least one hourly value
reported, select from each day the maximum hourly value.

(B) Sort all these daily maximum values from a particular site and year
by descending value. (For example: (x[1], x[2], x[3],  *  *  *,
x[n]). In this case, x[1] is the largest number and x[n] is the smallest
value.) The 98th percentile is determined from this sorted series of
daily values which is ordered from the highest to the lowest number.
Using the left column of Table 1, determine the appropriate range (i.e.,
row) for the annual number of days with valid data for year y (cny). The
corresponding “n” value in the right column identifies the rank of
the annual 98th percentile value in the descending sorted list of daily
site values for year y. Thus, P0.98, y= the nth largest value.

(b) The 1-hour primary standard design value for a site is mean of the
three annual 98th percentile values, rounded according to the
conventions in section 4.

Table 1

Annual number of days with valid data for year “y” (cny)	P0.98, y is
the nth maximum value of the year, where n is the listed number

1–50	1

51-100	2

101-150	3

151-200	4

201-250.	5

251-300	6

301-350	7

351-366	8

PART 58--AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE

The authority citation for part 58 continues to read as follows:

Authority:   42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, 7601(a), 7611, and 7619.

Subpart A [AMENDED]

Section 58.1, is amended by adding the following definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

AADT means the annual average daily traffic.

***

Near-road NO2 Monitor means any NO2 monitor meeting the specifications
in 4.3.2 of Appendix D and paragraphs 2, 4(b), 6.1, and 6.4 of Appendix
E of this part.

* * * * *

Subpart B [AMENDED]

Section 58.10, is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) and adding
paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows:

§ 58.10   Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network
assessment.

* * * * *

	(a) * * *

(5)  A plan for establishing NO2 monitoring sites in accordance with the
requirements of appendix D to this part shall be submitted to the
Administrator by July 1, 2012.  The plan shall provide for all required
stations to be operational by January 1, 2013.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(12)  The identification of required NO2 monitors as either near-road or
area-wide sites in accordance with Appendix D, Section 4.3 of this part.

* * * * *

Section 58.13 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 58.13 Monitoring network completion.

* * * * *

(c) The network of NO2 monitors must be physically established no later
than January 1, 2013, and at that time, must be operating under all of
the requirements of this part, including the requirements of appendices
A, C, D, and E to this part.

* * * * *

Section 58.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 58.16   Data submittal and archiving requirements.

* * * * *

(a) The State, or where appropriate, local agency, shall report to the
Administrator, via AQS all ambient air quality data and associated
quality assurance data for SO2; CO; O3; NO2; NO; NOY; NOX; Pb-TSP mass
concentration; Pb-PM10 mass concentration; PM10 mass concentration;
PM2.5mass concentration; for filter-based PM2.5FRM/FEM the field blank
mass, sampler-generated average daily temperature, and sampler-generated
average daily pressure; chemically speciated PM2.5 mass concentration
data; PM10–2.5 mass concentration; chemically speciated PM10–2.5
mass concentration data; meteorological data from NCore and PAMS sites;
average daily temperature and average daily pressure for Pb sites if not
already reported from sampler generated records; and metadata records
and information specified by the AQS Data Coding Manual
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/manuals.htm ). The State,
or where appropriate, local agency, may report site specific
meteorological measurements generated by onsite equipment
(meteorological instruments, or sampler generated) or measurements from
the nearest airport reporting ambient pressure and temperature.  Such
air quality data and information must be submitted directly to the AQS
via electronic transmission on the specified quarterly schedule
described in paragraph (b) of this section.

* * * * *

Appendix A to Part 58 is amended as by adding paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> to read
as follows:

Appendix A to Part 58—Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs
and PSD Air Monitoring

	<IP_ADDRESS> Measurement Uncertainty for NO2. The goal for acceptable
measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent
confidence limit for the coefficient of variation (CV) of 15 percent and
for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias
of 15 percent.

* * * * *

Appendix C to Part 58 is amended as by adding paragraph 2.1.1 to read as
follows:

Appendix C to Part 58—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methodology

* * * * *

2.1.1 Any NO2 FRM or FEM used for making primary NAAQS decisions must be
capable of providing hourly averaged concentration data.

* * * * *

Appendix D to Part 58 is amended as by replacing paragraph 4.3 to read
as follows:

Appendix D to Part 58—Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring

* * * * *

4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Design Criteria.

4.3.1 General Requirement s. (a) State and, where appropriate, local
agencies must operate a minimum number of required NO2 monitoring sites
as described below.

4.3.2 Requirement for Near-road NO2 Monitors. (a)  Within the NO2
network, there must be one microscale near-road NO2 monitoring station
in each CBSA with a population of 350,000 or more persons to monitor a
location of expected maximum hourly concentrations sited near a major
road with high AADT counts as specified in paragraph 4.3.2(a)(1) of this
appendix. An additional near-road NO2 monitoring station is required for
any CBSA with a population of 2,500,000 persons or more, or in any CBSA
with a population of 350,000 or more persons that has one or more
roadway segments with 250,000 or greater AADT counts to monitor a second
location of expected maximum hourly concentrations.  CBSA populations
shall be based on the latest available census figures.

(1) The near-road NO2 monitoring stations shall be selected by ranking
all road segments within a CBSA by AADT and then identifying a location
or locations adjacent to those highest ranked road segments, considering
fleet mix, roadway design, congestion patterns, terrain, and
meteorology, where maximum hourly NO2 concentrations are expected to be
highest and siting criteria can be met in accordance with appendix E of
this part. Where a state or local air monitoring agency identifies
multiple acceptable candidate sites where maximum hourly NO2
concentrations are expected to occur, the monitoring agency shall
consider the potential for population exposure in the criteria utilized
to select the final site location. Where one CBSA is required to have
two near-road NO2 monitoring stations, the sites shall be differentiated
from each other by one or more of the following factors: fleet mix;
congestion patterns; terrain; geographic area within the CBSA; or
different route, interstate, or freeway designation.

 (b) Measurements at required near-road NO2 monitor sites utilizing
chemiluminescent FRMs must include at a minimum: NO, NO2, and NOX..

4.3.3 Requirement for Area-wide NO2 Monitoring. (a) Within the NO2
network, there must be one monitoring station in each CBSA with a
population of 1,000,000 or more persons to monitor a location of
expected highest NO2 concentrations representing the neighborhood or
larger spatial scales. PAMS sites collecting NO2 data that are situated
in an area of expected high NO2 concentrations at the neighborhood or
larger spatial scale may be used to satisfy this minimum monitoring
requirement when the NO2 monitor is operated year round.  Emission
inventories and meteorological analysis should be used to identify the
appropriate locations within a CBSA for locating required area-wide NO2
monitoring stations. CBSA populations shall be based on the latest
available census figures.

  4.3.4 Regional Administrator Required Monitoring. (a) The Regional
Administrator may require additional NO2 monitoring stations above the
minimum requirements to monitor in locations away from roads, or sites
that do not meet near-road NO2 monitor siting criteria noted in appendix
E of this part, where required near-road monitors do not represent a
location or locations where the expected maximum hourly NO2
concentrations exist in a CBSA.  The Regional Administrator may also
require additional near-road NO2 monitoring stations above the minimum
required in situations where the minimum monitoring requirements are not
sufficient to meet monitoring objectives, and may consider additional
locations of expected high NO2 concentrations and the variety of
exposure potential due to increased variety in amount or types of fleet
mix, congestion patterns, terrain, or geographic areas within a CBSA.
The Regional Administrator and the responsible State or local air
monitoring agency should work together to design and/or maintain the
most appropriate NO2 network to service the variety of data needs for an
area.

(b) The Regional Administrator may require additional NO2 monitoring
stations for area-wide NO2 monitors at the neighborhood and larger
spatial scales above the minimum monitoring requirements where the
minimum monitoring requirements are not sufficient to meet monitoring
objectives for an area, such as supporting photochemical pollutant
assessment, air quality forecasting, PM precursor analysis, and
characterizing impacts of NO2 sources on certain communities. The
Regional Administrator and the responsible State or local air monitoring
agency should work together to design and/or maintain the most
appropriate NO2 network to service the variety of data needs for an
area.

4.3.5 NO2 Monitoring Spatial Scales. (a) The most important spatial
scale for near-road NO2 monitoring stations to effectively characterize
the maximum expected hourly NO2 concentration due to mobile source
emissions on major roadways is the microscale. The most important
spatial scales for other monitoring stations characterizing maximum
expected hourly NO2 concentrations are the microscale and middle scale.
The most important spatial scale for area-wide monitoring of high NO2
concentrations is the neighborhood scale.

(1) Microscale —This scale would typify areas in close proximity to
major roadways or point and area sources. Emissions from roadways result
in high ground level NO2 concentrations at the microscale, where
concentration gradients generally exhibit a marked decrease with
increasing downwind distance from major roads.  As noted in appendix E
of this part, near-road NO2 monitoring stations are required to be
within 50 meters of target road segments in order to measure expected
peak concentrations.  Emissions from stationary point and area sources,
and non-road sources may, under certain plume conditions, result in high
ground level concentrations at the microscale. The microscale typically
represents an area impacted by the plume with dimensions extending up to
approximately 100 meters.

(2) Middle scale —This scale generally represents air quality levels
in areas up to several city blocks in size with dimensions on the order
of approximately 100 meters to 500 meters. The middle scale may include
locations of expected maximum hourly concentrations due to proximity to
major NO2 point, area, and/or non-road sources.

 (3) Neighborhood scale —The neighborhood scale would characterize air
quality conditions throughout some relatively uniform land use areas
with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometer range. Emissions from
stationary point and area sources may, under certain plume conditions,
result in high NO2 concentrations at the neighborhood scale. Where a
neighborhood site is located away from immediate NO2 sources, the site
may be useful in representing typical air quality values for a larger
residential area, and therefore suitable for population exposure and
trends analyses.

(4) Urban scale – Measurements in this scale would be used to estimate
concentrations over large portions of an urban area with dimensions from
4 to 50 kilometers. Such measurements would be useful for assessing
trends in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness of large
scale air pollution control strategies.  Urban scale sites may also
support other monitoring objectives of the NO2 monitoring network
identified in paragraph 4.3.4 above.

4.3.6 NOy Monitoring. (a) NO/ NOy measurements are included within the
NCore multipollutant site requirements and the PAMS program.  These NO/
NOy measurements will produce conservative estimates for NO2 that can be
used to ensure tracking continued compliance with the NO2 NAAQS.  NO/
NOy monitors are used at these sites because it is important to collect
data on total reactive nitrogen species for understanding O3
photochemistry.

* * * * *

Appendix E to Part 58 is amended by revising paragraph 2, 4(b), 6.1,
adding paragraph 6.4 and revising paragraph 9(c) and Table E-4 to read
as follows:

Appendix E to Part 58—Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

* * * * *

2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement

The probe or at least 80 percent of the monitoring path must be located
between 2 and 15 meters above ground level for all ozone and sulfur
dioxide monitoring sites, and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale
Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5, PM2.5, NO2 and carbon monoxide sites. Middle scale
PM10-2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7
meters above ground level. Microscale Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5 and PM2.5 sites
are required to have sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground
level. Microscale near-road NO2 monitoring sites are required to have
sampler inlets between 2 and 7 meters above ground level. The inlet
probes for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to
measure concentrations near roadways must be 3+ ½ meters above ground
level. The probe or at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be
at least 1 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting
structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or
dirty areas. If the probe or a significant portion of the monitoring
path is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be
located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing
wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for
the pollutant being measured.

* * * * *

4. Spacing from Obstructions

(a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c) * * *

(d) For near-road NO2 monitoring stations, the monitor probe shall have
an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the
height of the monitor probe, between the monitor probe and the outside
nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

* * * * *

6. Spacing from Roadways

6.1 Spacing for Ozone Probes and Monitoring Paths. In siting an O3
analyzer, it is important to minimize destructive interferences form
sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O3. Table E-1 of this
appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a
roadway and a probe or, where applicable, at least 90 percent of a
monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling
site having a point analyzer probe located closer to a roadway than
allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as microscale
or middle scale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the
measurements from such a site would more closely represent the middle
scale. If an open path analyzer is used at a site, the monitoring
path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic
count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For those situations where a
monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per
day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the
monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference from
automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the
length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the
monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum
separation distance, as determined from the Table E-1 of this appendix.
The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the
total monitoring path length.

* * * * *

	6.4 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Probes and Monitoring Paths (a)
In siting near-road NO2 monitors as required in paragraph 4.3.2 of
appendix D of this part, the monitor probe shall be as near as
practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the
target road segment; but shall not be located at a distance greater than
50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the
traffic lanes of the target road segment.

(b) In siting NO2 monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring,
it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E-1 of this
appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a
roadway and a probe or, where applicable, at least 90 percent of a
monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling
site having a point analyzer probe located closer to a roadway than
allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as microscale
or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale.  If an open
path analyzer is used at a site, the monitoring path(s) must not cross
over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles
per day or more. For those situations where a monitoring path crosses a
roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies
must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of
potential atmospheric interference form automobile emissions. Therefore,
this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the
roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area
between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined form
the Table E-1 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be
greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

* * * * *

	9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample Residence Time

(a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c) No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material is initially,
after a period of use reactive particulate matter is deposited on the
probe walls.  Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the
probe inlet to the sampling device is also critical.  Ozone in the
presence of nitrogen oxide (NO) will show significant losses even in the
most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds.26
Other studies 27-28 indicate that a 10 second or less residence time is
easily achievable.  Therefore, sampling probes for reactive gas monitors
at NCore and at NO2 sites must have a sample residence time less than 20
seconds.

* * * * *

	11. Summary

Table E-4 of this appendix presents a summary of the general
requirements for probe and monitoring path siting criteria with respect
to distances and heights. It is apparent from Table E-4 that different
elevation distances above the ground are shown for the various
pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants
describes reasons for elevating the monitor, probe, or monitoring path.
The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the
vertical concentration gradients. For CO and near-road NO2 monitors, the
gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale,
so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is
specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of
a single manifold or monitoring path for monitoring more than one
pollutant.

Table E-4 of Appendix E to Part 58.  Summary of Probe and Monitoring
Path Siting Criteria

Pollutant

	Scale (maximum monitoring path length, meters)	Height from ground to
probe, inlet or 80% of monitoring path1	Horizontal and vertical distance
from supporting structures2 to probe, inlet or 90% of monitoring path1
(meters)	Distance from trees to probe, inlet or 90% of monitoring path1
(meters)	Distance from roadways to probe, inlet or monitoring path1
(meters)

SO2 3,4,5,6

	Middle

(300 m)

Neighborhood

Urban, and

Regional

(1 km)	2-15 	> 1 	> 10 	N/A

CO 4,5,7

	Micro, middle

3½: 2-15 	> 1 	> 10 	2-10; see Table E-2 of this appendix for middle
and neighborhood scales.

O3 3,4,5

		Middle (300 m)

Neighborhood,  Urban, and Regional (1 km) 	2-15	> 1 	> 10 	See Table E-1
of this appendix for all scales.

NO2 3,4,5 	Micro (Near-road [50-300])

Middle(300m)

Neighborhood, Urban, and Regional (1 km)	2-7 (micro);

2-15(all other scales)

	> 1	> 10	< 50 meters for near-road microscale;

See Table E-1 of this appendix for all other scales

Ozone precursors (for PAMS)3,4,5	Neighborhood and Urban (1 km)	2-15

	> 1 	> 10 	See Table E-4 of this appendix for all scales.

PM,Pb 3,4,5,6,8	Micro: Middle,

Neighborhood,

Urban and

Regional	2-7 (micro);

2-7 (middle PM10-2.5);

2-15 (all other scales)	> 2 (all scales, horizontal distance only)

	> 10 (all scales)	2-10 (micro); see Figure E-1 of this appendix for all
other scales.

N/A--Not applicable.

1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle
or neighborhood scale CO monitoring, middle, neighborhood, urban, and
regional scale NO2 monitoring, and all applicable scales for monitoring
SO2,O3, and O3 precursors.

2 When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in
reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.

3 Should be >20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10
meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstruction.

4 Distance from sampler, probe, or 90% of monitoring path to obstacle,
such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle
protrudes above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path.  Sites not
meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text).

5 Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or
sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building or a
wall.

6 The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor
sources, such as furnace or incineration flues.  The separation distance
is dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as
a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel
(sulfur, ash, or lead content).  This criterion is designed to avoid
undue influences from minor sources.

7 For microscale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from
a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.

8 Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least
2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1
meter apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to
preclude airflow interference.

* * * * *

Appendix G to Part 58 is amended as by revising paragraph 9 and Table 2
to read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 58 - Uniform Air Quality Index (AQI) and Daily
Reporting

* * * * *

9. How Does the AQI Relate to Air Pollution Levels?

For each pollutant, the AQI transforms ambient concentrations to a scale
from 0 to 500. The AQI is keyed as appropriate to the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant. In most cases, the
index value of 100 is associated with the numerical level of the
short-term (i.e., averaging time of 24-hours or less) standard for each
pollutant. The index value of 50 is associated with one of the
following: the numerical level of the annual standard for a pollutant,
if there is one; one-half the level of the short-term standard for the
pollutant; or the level at which it is appropriate to begin to provide
guidance on cautionary language. Higher categories of the index are
based on increasingly serious health effects that affect increasing
proportions of the population. An index value is calculated each day for
each pollutant (as described in section 12 of this appendix), unless
that pollutant is specifically excluded (see section 8 of this
appendix). The pollutant with the highest index value for the day is the
“critical” pollutant, and must be included in the daily AQI report.
As a result, the AQI for any given day is equal to the index value of
the critical pollutant for that day. For the purposes of reporting the
AQI, the indexes for PM10 and PM2.5 are to be considered separately.

* * * * *

TABLE 2.—BREAKPOINTS FOR THE AQI

These breakpoints	Equal these AQI’s

O3 (ppm)

8-hour	O3 (ppm)

1-hour1	PM2.5

(µg/m3)	PM10

(µg/m3)	CO (ppm)	SO2 (ppm)	NO2 (ppm)

1-hour	AQI	Category

0.000-0.059	..................	0.0-15.4	0-54	0.0-4.4	0.000-0.034	0 –
(0.040 – 0.053)	0-50	Good.

0.060-0.075	..................	15.5-40.4	55-154	4.5-9.4	0.035-0.144
(0.041 – 0.054) – (0.080 – 0.100)	51-100	Moderate.

0.076-0.095	0.125-0.164	40.5-65.4	155-254	9.5-12.4	0.145-0.224	(0.081
– 0.101) – (0.360 –  0.370)	101-150	Unhealthy for Sensitive
Groups.

0.096-0.115	0.165-0.204	365.5-150.4	255-354	12.5-15.4	0.225-0.304	(0.361
– 0.371) – 0.64	151-200	Unhealthy.

0.116-0.374	0.205-0.404	3150.5-250.4	355-424	15.5-30.4	0.305-0.604	0.65
– 1.24	201-300	Very Unhealthy.

(2)...............	0.405-0.504	3250.5-350.4	425-504	30.5-40.4
0.605-0.804	1.25 – 1.64	301-400	Hazardous.

(2)...............	0.505-0.604	3350.5-500.4	505-604	40.5-50.4
0.805-1.004	1.65 – 2.04	401-500	Hazardous.

1 Areas are generally required to report the AQI based on 8-hour ozone
values.  However, there are a small number of areas where an AQI based
on 1-hour ozone values would be more precautionary.  In these cases, in
addition to calculating the 8-hour ozone index value, the 1-hour ozone
index value may be calculated, and the maximum of the two values
reported.

2 8-hour O3 values do not define higher AQI values (( 301).  AQI values
of 301 or greater are calculated with 1-hour O3 concentrations.

3 If a different SHL for PM2.5 is promulgated, these numbers will change
accordingly.

 The legislative history of section 109 indicates that a primary
standard is to be set at “the maximum permissible ambient air level .
. . which will protect the health of any [sensitive] group of the
population,” and that for this purpose “reference should be made to
a representative sample of persons comprising the sensitive group rather
than to a single person in such a group.” S. Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970)

 EPA is currently conducting a separate review of the secondary NO2
NAAQS jointly with a review of the secondary SO2 NAAQS.

 In this document, the terms “oxides of nitrogen” and “nitrogen
oxides” (NOX) refer to all forms of oxidized nitrogen (N) compounds,
including NO, NO2, and all other oxidized N-containing compounds formed
from NO and NO2.  This follows usage in the Clean Air Act Section
108(c): “Such criteria [for oxides of nitrogen] shall include a
discussion of nitric and nitrous acids, nitrites, nitrates,
nitrosamines, and other carcinogenic and potentially carcinogenic
derivatives of oxides of nitrogen.”  By contrast, within the air
pollution research and control communities, the terms “oxides of
nitrogen” and “nitrogen oxides” are restricted to refer only to
the sum of NO and NO2, and this sum is commonly abbreviated as NOX. The
category label used by this community for the sum of all forms of
oxidized nitrogen compounds including those listed in Section 108(c) is
NOY.

 The “form” of a standard defines the air quality statistic that is
to be compared to the level of the standard in determining whether an
area attains the standard.

 It should be noted that the ISA (section 2.4.1) references a different
number of active monitors in the NO2 network. The discrepancy between
the ISA numbers and the number presented here is due to differing
metrics used in pulling data from AQS. The ISA only references SLAMS,
NAMS, and PAMS sites with defined monitoring objectives, while Watkins
and Thompson (2008) considered all NO2 sites reporting data at any point
during the year. Based on this approach, Watkins and Thompson (2008)
also noted that the size of the NO2 monitoring network has remained
relatively stable since the early 1980s.

 The most current American Housing Survey (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html"
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html ) is from 2007 and
lists a higher fraction of housing units within the 300 foot boundary
than do prior surveys.  According to Table 1A-6 from that report
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/tab1a-6.pdf), out of
128,203,000 total housing units in the United States, 20,016,000 were
reported by the surveyed occupant or landlord as being within 300 feet
of a 4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or airport.  That constitutes
15.613% of the total housing units in the U.S.  Assuming equal
distributions, with a current population of 306,330,199, that means that
there would be 47.8 million people meeting the 300 foot criteria.

 The study by Tolbert et al. (2007) reported positive associations
between 1-hour ambient NO2 concentrations and respiratory-related
emergency department visits.  The meta-analysis was included in the ISA
and reported that short-term exposures to NO2 concentrations at or above
100 ppb increased airway responsiveness in most asthmatics.

  EPA considers the Goodman study to be a “new study” on which, as
discussed above in section 1.B, it would not be appropriate to base a
standard in the absence of thorough CASAC and public review of the study
and its methodology.  However, as discussed below, EPA has considered
the study in the context of responding to public comments on the
proposal and has concluded it does not provide a basis to materially
change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the health
effects of NO2 made in the air quality criteria.

 Once EPA determines whether to retain or revise the current standard,
the actual air quality levels in various areas of the country are
clearly relevant under the NAAQS implementation provisions for the Act,
such as the provision for designation of areas based on whether or not
they attain the required NAAQS.

 As discussed below, 98th and 99th percentile forms were evaluated in
the REA.  A 99th percentile form corresponds approximately to the 4th
highest 1-hour concentration in a year while a 98th percentile form
corresponds approximately to the 7th or 8th highest 1-hour concentration
in a year.  A 4th highest concentration form has been used previously in
the O3 NAAQS while a 98th percentile form has been used previously in
the PM2.5 NAAQS.

 In addition, the air quality analyses presented in the REA estimated
that on-road NO2 concentrations are about 80% higher on average than
concentrations away from the road (REA, section 7.3.2) and that NO2
monitors within 20 m of roads measure NO2 concentrations that are, on
average across locations, 40% higher than concentrations measured by
monitors at least 100 m from the road (REA, compare Tables 7-11 and
7-13).

 The 98th percentile concentrations in these study locations ranged from
85 to 94 ppb.

 For a standard of 100 ppb, area-wide concentrations would be expected
to range from approximately 50 ppb (assuming near-road concentrations
are 100% higher than area-wide concentrations) to 75 ppb (assuming
near-road concentrations are 30% higher than area-wide concentrations).

 This conclusion assumes that near-road NO2 concentrations are 65%
higher than area-wide concentrations, reflecting the mid-point in the
range of 30 to 100%.  Based on available information suggesting that
near-road concentrations can be 30 to 100% higher than area-wide
concentrations, a standard level of 80 ppb could limit area-wide
concentrations to between 40 and 60 ppb.

 CASAC members were also part of the CASAC Panel for the NO2 NAAQS
review (i.e., the Oxides of Nitrogen Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards Panel).  Therefore, references to the CASAC Panel
include both CASAC members and Panel members.

 To measure maximum concentrations, the Administrator proposed
monitoring provisions that would require monitors within 50 meters of
major roads and to allow the Regional Administrator to require
additional monitors in situations where maximum concentrations would be
expected to occur in locations other than near major roads (e.g., due to
the influence of multiple smaller roads and/or stationary sources).

 As discussed above, the Administrator has selected the 98th percentile
as the form for the new 1-hour NO2 standard.

 The most current American Housing Survey (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html"
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html ) is from 2007 and
lists a higher fraction of housing units within the 300 foot boundary.
According to Table 1A-6 from that report
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs07/tab1a-6.pdf), out of
128.2 million total housing units in the United States, about 20 million
were reported by the surveyed occupant or landlord as being within 300
feet of a 4-or-more lane highway, railroad, or airport.  That
constitutes 15.6% of the total housing units in the U.S.  Assuming equal
distributions, with a current population of 306.3 million, that means
that there would be 47.8 million people meeting the 300 foot criteria.

 Some of these studies also included susceptible and vulnerable
populations (e.g., children in Peel et al. (2005); poor and minority
populations in Ito et al., 2007).

  Since EPA is retaining the annual standard without revision, the
discussion in this section relates to implementation of the proposed
1-hour standard, rather than the annual standard.

  Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not listed below
because, as EPA interprets the CAA, SIPs incorporating any necessary
local nonattainment area controls would not be due within 3 years, but
rather are due at the time the nonattainment area planning requirements
are due.  These elements are: (1) Emission limits and other control
measures, section 110(a)(2)(A), and (2) Provisions for meeting part D,
section 110(a)(2)(I), which requires areas designated as nonattainment
to meet the applicable nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
title I of the CAA.

 The terms “major” and “minor” define the size of a stationary
source, for applicability purposes, in terms of an annual emissions rate
(tons per year, tpy) for a pollutant.  Generally, a minor source is any
source that is not “major.”  “Major” is defined by the
applicable regulations—PSD or nonattainment NSR.

 In addition, the PSD program applies to non-criteria pollutants subject
to regulation under the Act, except those pollutants regulated under
section 112 and pollutants subject to regulation only under section
211(o).

&

&

&

&

摧఺^

C

D

s

u

‘

¶

Â

$

&

&

&

„@

„0ý^„@

„@

^„@

h&

葠ː摧㩞Ü

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧㩞Ü

h

摧矡x

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

葠ː摧⟉-

h

hÎZ

hõ

 h;

h

8

9

~

Š

‹

h

“

”

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧㧍

 hw4

h

 h£T

 h

摧ᕺ}

 hø

 hw4

 hw4

 hw4

搒Ǡ摧䫐Æ

hvl

hvl

hvl

ha

hh

hvl

h.

搒Ǡ摧㹷1

hè

B

I

`

h

j

Nj

k

}

®

µ

½

À

ü

¹

Á

ã

ê

hã

 hÅ

 hÅ

଀Ä萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧♞<଀Ä萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧挣

 hÀ

 hÅ

h#c

 h)

h#c

h#c

h#c

h#c

h#c

 h)

h#c

h#c

h#c

h#c

h:

h#c

h#c

h#c

h#c

h#c

h#c

搒Ǡ摧筵³

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧⤗`଀%萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧⤗`଀Ä萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧
挣

h

h

h-

h®

h)9

h)9

葠ː摧ὲ©

h

h’<

h

h

 h

h

h

„

搒Ǡ摧フé

7

8

Z

\

t

‘

œ

ª

²

³

Å

0

2

6

8

?

´

Ò

Ô

/Ô

Û

Ü

ø

hj

ЀÑ摧眞p

옍)

옍)

옍)

 h

$

@

H* h

  hc

ä

&

摧㘡æ

搒ǠꐔÜ摧㘡æ

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧㘡æ

h¥]

h

ЀÑ摧碖ЀÏ摧碖

 hÛ

H* hÛ

 hÛ

 hÛ

  hÛ

H*^J

 hÛ

^J

 hÛ

H* hÛ

 h{

 h{

h{

 h{

h{

 h{

h{

 h{

 h{

 hÛ

H* hÛ

  hÛ

hÛ

  hÛ

hÛ

r

s

¾

¿

(

)

Ò

Ó

R

a

e

r

s

ƒ

„

½

¿

Ì

Ï

Ð

Ô

(

Ó

h

&Ó

 hÛ

hÛ

 hÙ

hÙ

hÙ

 hÙ

hÙ

  hÛ

hÛ

 hÛ

hÛ

  hÛ

hÛ

옍)

$

@

옍)

옍)

h

 h{

  hñ

Criteria pollutants are those pollutants for which EPA has established a
NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA.

 PAGE

 PAGE   189

 PAGE

 PAGE   209


[Federal Register: June 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 26671]
[DOCID:fr03jn09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-419-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

May 27, 2009.
    Take notice that on May 22, 2009, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
(Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed a prior
notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-413-000, for
authorization to abandon by sale to XTO Offshore Inc. (XTO) a 5.4 mile,
12-inch supply lateral, designated as Line No. 509A-3400, that extends
southeasterly from XTO's platform in West Cameron Block 485 and
terminates at Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.'s platform in West
Cameron Block 509, along with associated metering equipment, two
risers, and appurtenances, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Susan
T. Halbach, Senior Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 1001
Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas, 77002, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or (713)
420-1601 (facsimile) or Kathy Cash, Principal Analyst, Certificates &
Regulatory Compliance, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile).
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to part 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is
filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be
deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12863 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2973]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14866-000]

Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On December 22, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Preckle Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Duryea Borough
in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania and Ransom Township in Lackawanna
County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if
issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new
upper reservoir with a surface area of 300 acres and a storage capacity
of 4,500 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 1,356 feet
above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new
roller-compacted concrete or rock-fill dam; (2) a new lower reservoir
with a surface area of 200 acres and a storage capacity of 3,480 acre-
feet at a surface elevation of 550 feet msl; (3) two new 5,640-foot-
long, 16-foot-diameter penstocks connecting the upper and lower
reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 250-foot-wide, 50-foot-high
powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated
capacity of 450 megawatts; (5) a new 13,200-foot-long transmission line
connecting the powerhouse to the 230/69-kilovolt Stanton substation
owned by PPL Electric Utilities; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an annual generation of 27,594 megawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC,
5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14866-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14866) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: January 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01018 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P