Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61236 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION air concentrations well below the Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered AGENCY applicable National Ambient Air damage due to flooding during the last week Quality Standards. These amendments of June 2006. The Docket Center is 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 also revise certain provisions regarding continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to [EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0018; FRL–8227–2] monitoring network descriptions and periodic assessments, quality assurance, Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, RIN 2060–AJ25 and data certifications. A number of the and hours of operation for people who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to view amendments relate specifically to PM2.5, documents. Consult EPA’s Federal Register Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring revising the requirements for reference Regulations notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the and equivalent method determinations EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ AGENCY: Environmental Protection (including specifications and test epahome/dockets.htm for current Agency (EPA). procedures) for fine particle monitors. information on docket status, locations, and DATES: telephone numbers. ACTION: Final rule. This final rule is effective on December 18, 2006. SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing final ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For amendments to the ambient air docket for this action under Docket ID general questions concerning the final monitoring requirements for criteria No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0018. All amendments, please contact Mr. Lewis pollutants. The purpose of the documents in the docket are listed in Weinstock, U.S. EPA, Office of Air amendments is to enhance ambient air the http://www.regulations.gov index. Quality Planning and Standards, Air quality monitoring to better serve Although listed in the index, some Quality Assessment Division, Ambient current and future air quality information is not publicly available, Air Monitoring Group (C304–06), management and research needs. The e.g., confidential business information Research Triangle Park, North Carolina final amendments establish limited or other information whose disclosure is 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– ambient air monitoring requirements for restricted by statute. Certain other 3661; fax number: (919) 541–1903; e- thoracic coarse particles in the size material, such as copyrighted material, mail address: [email protected]. range of PM10¥2.5 to support continued will be publicly available only in hard For technical questions, please contact research into these particles’ copy. Publicly available docket Mr. Tim Hanley, U.S. EPA, Office of Air distribution, sources, and health effects. materials are available either Quality Planning and Standards, Air The ambient air monitoring electronically in http:// Quality Assessment Division, Ambient amendments also require each State to www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Air Monitoring Group (C304–06), operate one to three monitoring stations the Revisions to the Ambient Air Research Triangle Park, North Carolina that take an integrated, multipollutant Monitoring Regulations Docket, EPA/ 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– approach to ambient air monitoring. In DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 4417; fax number: (919) 541–1903; e- addition, the final amendments modify Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, mail address: [email protected]. the general monitoring network design DC. The Public Reading Room is open SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirements for minimum numbers of from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday ambient air monitors to focus on through Friday, excluding legal I. General Information populated areas with air quality holidays. The telephone number for the A. Does this action apply to me? problems and to reduce significantly the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, requirements for criteria pollutant and the telephone number for the Air Categories and entities potentially monitors that have measured ambient Docket is (202) 566–1742. regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities

Industry ...... 334513, 541380 Manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or vendor of ambient air monitoring in- struments; analytical laboratories or other monitoring organizations that elect to submit an application for a reference or equivalent method de- termination under 40 CFR part 53. Federal government ...... 924110 Federal agencies (that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that con- ducted by States under 40 CFR part 58 and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State data) or that elect to sub- mit an application for a reference or equivalent method determination under 40 CFR part 53. State/territorial/local/tribal government ...... 924110 State, territorial, and local, air quality management programs that are re- sponsible for ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58 or that elect to submit an application for a reference or equivalent method deter- mination under 40 CFR part 53 or for an approved regional method ap- proved under 40 CFR part 58 appendix C. The proposal also may af- fect Tribes that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that con- ducted by States and that wish EPA to use their monitoring data in the same manner as State monitoring data. 1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be aware could potentially be regulated by territorial agency is regulated by this exhaustive, but rather provides a guide this action. Other types of entities not action, you should carefully examine for readers regarding entities likely to be listed in the table could also be the requirements for reference or regulated by this action. This table lists regulated. To determine whether your equivalent method determinations in 40 the types of entities that EPA is now facility or Federal, State, local, or CFR part 53, subpart A (General

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61237

Provisions) and the applicability criteria established by the final amendments I. General Information in 40 CFR 51.1 of EPA’s requirements may not be challenged separately in any A. Does this action apply to me? for State implementation plans. If you civil or criminal proceedings brought by B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action? have questions regarding the EPA to enforce these requirements. C. Public Comments on Proposed Amendments applicability of this action to a E. Peer Review D. Judicial Review particular entity, consult the person E. Peer Review listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER The EPA sought expert scientific F. How is this document organized? INFORMATION CONTACT section. review of the proposed methods, II. Authority technologies, and approach for ambient III. Overview B. Where can I obtain a copy of this air monitoring by the Clean Air A. Summary of Concurrent Final Action on action? Scientific Advisory Committee Revisions to the National Ambient Air In addition to being available in the (CASAC). The CASAC is a Federal Quality Standards for Particulate Matter docket, an electronic copy of this final advisory committee established to B. Summary of Changes to Ambient Air action will also be available on the review scientific and technical Monitoring Regulations Worldwide Web (WWW) through the information and make recommendations C. Significant Dates for States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Other Technology Transfer Network (TTN). to the EPA Administrator on issues Stakeholders Following the Administrator’s signature, related to the air quality criteria and D. Implementation of the Revised a copy of the final amendments will be corresponding NAAQS. CASAC formed Monitoring Requirements placed on the TTN’s policy and a National Ambient Air Monitoring E. Federal Funding for Ambient Air guidance page for newly proposed or Strategy (NAAMS) Subcommittee in Monitoring promulgated rules at http:// 2003 to provide advice for a strategy for IV. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions and www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN the national ambient air monitoring Major Comments on Proposed provides information and technology programs. This subcommittee, which Amendments to 40 CFR Part 53 exchange in various areas of air operated over a 1-year period, and a A. Overview of Part 53 Regulatory Requirements pollution control. new subcommittee on Ambient Air B. Requirements for Candidate Reference Monitoring and Methods (AAMM), C. Public Comments on Proposed Methods for PM10¥2.5 formed in 2004, provided the input for Amendments C. Requirements for Candidate Equivalent CASAC on its consultations, advisories, Methods PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 EPA received approximately 20,000 and peer-reviewed recommendations to D. Other Changes public comments on the proposed the EPA Administrator. V. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions and amendments to the ambient air In July 2003, the CASAC NAAMS Major Comments on Proposed monitoring regulations during the 90- Subcommittee held a public meeting to Amendments to 40 CFR Part 58 day comment period. These comments review EPA’s draft National Ambient A. Overview of Part 58 Regulatory were submitted to the rulemaking Air Monitoring Strategy document Requirements docket and also during public hearings (dated September 6, 2002), which B. General Monitoring Requirements 1. Definitions and Terminology held in Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, contained technical information 2. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Pennsylvania; and San Francisco, underlying planned changes to the Periodic Network Assessment California (71 FR 8228, February 16, ambient air monitoring networks. The 3. Operating Schedules 2006). Public comments on the EPA continued to consult with the 4. Monitoring Network Completion for proposed amendments were submitted CASAC AAMM Subcommittee PM10¥2.5 and NCore Sites by States, local governments, Tribes, throughout the development of the 5. System Modifications and related associations; energy, proposed amendments. Public meetings 6. Annual Air Monitoring Data mining, ranching, and agricultural were held in July 2004, December 2004, Certification interests and related associations; and September 2005 to discuss the 7. Data Submittal 8. Special Purpose Monitors vendors, laboratories, and technical CASAC review of nearly 20 documents 9. Special Considerations for Data consultants; health, environmental, and concerning methods and technology for Comparisons to the National Ambient public interest organizations; and measurement of particulate matter (PM); Air Quality Standards private citizens. The EPA has carefully data quality objectives for PM C. Appendix A—Quality Assurance considered these comments in monitoring networks and related Requirements for State and Local Air developing the final amendments. performance-based standards for Monitoring Stations and Prevention of Summaries of these comments and approval of equivalent continuous PM Significant Deterioration Air Monitoring EPA’s detailed responses are contained monitors; configuration of ambient air 1. General Quality Assurance in the Response to Comments document monitoring stations; 1 and other Requirements 2. Specific Requirements for PM ¥ , included in the docket. technical aspects of the proposed 10 2.5 PM2.5, PM10, and Total Suspended D. Judicial Review amendments. These documents, along Particulates with CASAC review comments and 3. Particulate Matter Performance Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean other information are available at: Evaluation Program and National Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ Performance Audit Programs final amendments is available only by casacinf.html. 4. Revisions to Precision and Bias Statistics filing a petition for review in the U.S. 5. Other Program Updates Court of Appeals for the District of F. How is this document organized? D. Appendix C—Ambient Air Quality Columbia Circuit by December 18, 2006. The information presented in this Monitoring Methodology Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, preamble is organized as follows: 1. Applicability of Federal Reference only an objection to the final Methods and Federal Equivalent 1 Methods amendments that was raised with ‘‘Station’’ and ‘‘site’’ are used somewhat 2. Approved Regional Methods for PM reasonable specificity during the period interchangeably in this notice of final rulemaking. 2.5 When there is a difference (which will be apparent E. Appendix D—Network Design Criteria for public comment can be raised during from context), ‘‘site’’ generally refers to the location for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring judicial review. Moreover, under section of a monitor, while ‘‘station’’ refers to a suite of 1. Requirements for Operation of 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements measurements at a particular site. Multipollutant NCore Stations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61238 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

2. Requirements for Operation of PM10¥2.5 III. Overview provisions (notably those which would Stations have prescribed which monitors could A. Summary of Concurrent Final Action 3. Requirements for Operation of PM2.5 have been used for comparison with on Revisions to the National Ambient Stations that proposed NAAQS) proposed as Air Quality Standards for Particulate 4. Requirements for Operation of PM10 amendments to 40 CFR part 58. The Matter Stations EPA is, however, finalizing the 5. Requirements for Operation of Carbon Elsewhere in this Federal Register, proposed FRM for PM10¥2.5 (see Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen EPA is finalizing revisions to the appendix O to 40 CFR part 50). This Dioxide, and Lead Monitoring Sites National Ambient Air Quality Standards FRM is based on paired filter-based 6. Requirements for Operation of Ozone (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM). samplers for PM2.5 and PM10 and it will Stations These revisions were proposed on serve as the standard of reference for 7. Requirements for Operation of January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2620). For a measurements of PM10¥2.5 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring detailed explanation of these revisions, concentrations in ambient air. This Stations see that preamble elsewhere in this should provide a basis for approving F. Appendix E—Probe and Monitoring Federal Register. Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) and Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air The EPA is finalizing the PM2.5 Monitoring promote the gathering of scientific data NAAQS revisions as proposed. With to support future reviews of the PM 1. Vertical Placement of PM ¥ Samplers 10 2.5 regard to the primary standards for fine NAAQS. Because it is a filter based 2. Ozone Monitor Setback Requirement particles (generally referring to particles from Roads system, this method can itself be used less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers to provide speciated data. The reference G. Sample Retention Requirements (µm) in diameter, PM ), EPA is revising H. Deletion of Appendices B and F 2.5 measurement from the PM10¥2.5 FRM is the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard also important in the development of VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews µ to 35 micrograms per cubic meter ( g/ alternative PM10¥2.5 speciation samplers A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 3 Planning and Review m ), providing increased protection such as dichotomous samplers. The EPA B. Paperwork Reduction Act against health effects associated with will be issuing guidance to ensure the C. Regulatory Flexibility Act short-term exposure (including use of a consistent national approach for D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act premature mortality and increased speciated coarse particle monitors as E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism hospital admissions and emergency soon as possible. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation room visits). The EPA is retaining the In conjunction with the above and Coordination With Indian Tribal level of the annual PM2.5 standard at 15 NAAQS revisions and FRM provisions, Governments µg/m3, continuing protection against as part of this final monitoring rule, as G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of health effects associated with long-term described below EPA is finalizing Children From Environmental Health exposure (including premature certain provisions which support and Safety Risks mortality and development of chronic collection of additional high quality H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions respiratory disease). The EPA is also data on ambient concentrations of to Address Environmental Justice in finalizing the proposed revisions in the PM10¥2.5. These data should be useful in Minority Populations and Low-Income conditions under which spatial improving the understanding of Populations averaging of the annual primary PM2.5 PM10¥2.5 air quality and in conducting I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That NAAQS is permitted, and placing these future reviews of the PM NAAQS. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, conditions in appendix N of 40 CFR part As explained in the preamble to the Distribution, or Use 50 rather than in appendix D of 40 CFR NAAQS revisions, EPA is revoking the J. National Technology Transfer part 58. annual NAAQS for particles generally Advancement Act With regard to secondary PM less than or equal to 10 µm in diameter K. Congressional Review Act standards, EPA is revising the current (PM10). However, EPA is retaining the II. Authority 24-hour PM2.5 secondary standard by 24-hour PM10 NAAQS as a standard for making it identical to the revised 24- short-term exposure to thoracic coarse The EPA rules for ambient air hour PM2.5 primary standard, retaining particles, rather than revoking that monitoring are authorized under the annual PM2.5 and 24-hour PM10 standard in all but 15 areas as proposed. sections 110, 301(a), and 319 of the secondary standards, and revoking the This change from the NAAQS revision Clean Air Act (CAA). Section annual PM10 secondary standard. This proposal necessitates that the final 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires that suite of secondary PM standards is monitoring rule restore certain PM10 each State implementation plan (SIP) intended to provide protection against monitoring provisions that were provide for the establishment and PM-related public welfare effects, proposed for removal. operation of devices, methods, systems, including visibility impairment, effects B. Summary of Changes to Ambient Air and procedures needed to monitor, on vegetation and ecosystems, and Monitoring Regulations compile, and analyze data on ambient materials damage and soiling. air quality and for the reporting of air The EPA is finalizing the proposed This rule, in most respects, finalizes quality data to EPA. Section 103 Federal reference method (FRM) for the proposals put forth in the January authorizes, among others, research and PM2.5. This action in essence codifies 17, 2006, notice of proposed rulemaking investigations relating to the causes, certain desirable features that have (71 FR 2710). This final rule will effects, extent, prevention and control of already been in widespread use as facilitate monitoring program changes air pollution. Section 301(a) of the CAA elements of approved equivalent envisioned in the draft National authorizes EPA to develop regulations methods or national user modifications. Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy which needed to carry out EPA’s mission and The EPA is not finalizing the was fully described in the proposal. establishes rulemaking requirements. proposed NAAQS for PM10¥2.5, for These final changes, which apply to the Uniform criteria to be followed when reasons explained in the accompanying monitoring program for all of the criteria measuring air quality and provisions for preamble to the revisions to the pollutants, will reduce the required daily air pollution index reporting are NAAQS. As a result, EPA is not scale of monitoring for pollutants for required by CAA section 319. finalizing a number of related which most areas have reached

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61239

attainment. The changes are intended to Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas emission source types, and that many better focus monitoring resources on will be required to operate two or three but not all will be in well populated current air quality challenges. The NCore stations. For these States, the locations. changes will also allow States and local selection between two or three stations The EPA is not adopting the proposed monitoring agencies more flexibility to will be part of the development and population-based and population design their monitoring programs to approval of the NCore monitoring plan density-based siting requirements for reflect local conditions. that is due by July 1, 2009. The EPA also PM10¥2.5 monitors, or any part of the In amendments to 40 CFR part 53 plans to negotiate with a number of proposed five-part suitability test for (Reference and Equivalent Methods), States, local agencies, and/or Tribes to PM10¥2.5 monitoring sites, which as this final rule incorporates the proposed operate additional NCore stations on a proposed would have controlled criteria for approval of Federal voluntary basis, bringing the total whether PM10¥2.5 data from a equivalent methods (FEM) for PM2.5, number of stations to about 75. By monitoring site could be compared to with some modifications to the method approving some required stations to be the proposed PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. These testing requirements and approval in rural areas and by negotiating for proposed requirements were tied to the criteria in response to persuasive public additional voluntary sites in rural areas, establishment of a PM10¥2.5 NAAQS comments. The modifications will EPA expects that about 55 NCore sites with a qualified PM10¥2.5 indicator require a more robust set of testing will be in urbanized areas and about 20 based on a determination of whether conditions and closer performance in rural areas. The rural sites are ambient mixes of coarse particles are or matching of candidate FEMs to FRMs. intended to be sited away from any large are not dominated by coarse particle The EPA is also finalizing the rule with local emission sources, so that they emissions from enumerated types of some strengthening revisions to the represent ambient concentrations over sources. Since EPA is not adopting this proposed criteria for approved regional an extensive area. The NCore stations part of the proposal, these issues are methods (ARMs) for PM2.5. The new must perform the types of pollutant now moot. In the absence of a PM10¥2.5 criteria for PM2.5 FEMs and ARMs will measurements that were proposed, with NAAQS, our goal nevertheless will be to ¥ facilitate the commercialization and three exceptions. PM10¥2.5 locate PM10 2.5 monitors in a manner EPA approval of continuous PM2.5 mass measurements may be made on a 1-in- that satisfies an objective of the monitors, allowing them to be 3 day schedule rather than the proposed proposed rule, which was to focus most 2 substituted for many of the currently every day schedule, NOy monitoring resources on population operating filter-based FRMs, which will measurements may be waived by the centers. support additional monitoring EPA Administrator based on certain This final rule contains a requirement objectives and reduce annual criteria, and as explained later in this for PM10¥2.5 speciation to be conducted at NCore multipollutant monitoring monitoring costs. section, PM ¥ chemical speciation In other amendments to 40 CFR part 10 2.5 stations. The EPA had proposed a will be required in addition to PM10¥2.5 53, EPA is adopting FEM approval mass concentration measurements. requirement for PM10¥2.5 speciation in criteria for PM10¥2.5, with some The EPA estimated that the proposed 25 areas, with the areas required to have revisions from the proposal that will rule would have required States to this monitoring selected based on provide for approval and use of methods having a Metropolitan Statistical Area operate about 225 PM10¥2.5 monitors that can meet multiple monitoring based on the population and estimated (MSA) population over 500,000 and objectives. The new FEM performance having an estimated design value of PM10¥2.5 concentrations of metropolitan criteria for PM10¥2.5 will facilitate statistical areas (MSAs) with greater than 80 percent of the proposed approval of filter-based methods for populations of 100,000 or more. In PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. This would have direct sampling of PM10¥2.5 concentrated the PM10¥2.5 speciation addition, PM10¥2.5 monitors were concentrations that can be chemically proposed to be required at NCore monitoring in areas that have high speciated using post-sampling stations; some monitors likely would populations and high exposures to laboratory analysis. The FEM criteria are have satisfied both of these PM10¥2.5. Since EPA is requiring also expected to encourage requirements. Because EPA is not PM10¥2.5 monitoring at NCore primarily commercialization of highly time- for scientific purposes, it is more adopting a NAAQS for PM ¥ , the resolved continuous methods. The EPA 10 2.5 appropriate to have monitoring in a final monitoring rule does not include is hopeful that the PM and PM ¥ variety of urban and rural locations to 2.5 10 2.5 the proposed requirement for the broad FEM criteria together will result in the increase the diversity of areas for which network of PM ¥ monitoring stations approval and commercialization of 10 2.5 chemical species data will be available in MSAs over 100,000 population. methods that provide equivalent to use in scientific studies. The EPA had However, the final monitoring rule does measurements of PM2.5, PM10, and already proposed to require chemical require PM10¥2.5 monitors at the PM ¥ from a single instrument. speciation for PM at NCore stations. 10 2.5 required NCore multipollutant 2.5 In amendments to 40 CFR part 58 The collocation of both PM ¥ and monitoring stations. The data gathered 10 2.5 (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance), this PM speciation monitoring at NCore from these stations should be useful in 2.5 final rule, as proposed, requires States stations is consistent with the ¥ to establish and operate a network of improving understanding of PM10 2.5 multipollutant objectives of the NCore NCore multipollutant monitoring air quality and in conducting future network and will support further stations. The EPA intends the NCore reviews of the PM NAAQS. The EPA research in understanding the chemical network to consist of approximately 75 anticipates that due to natural variations composition and sources of PM , among the cities and rural areas where 10 stations, of which the rule requires PM10¥2.5, and PM2.5 at a variety of urban between 62 and 71 such stations. These the NCore stations will be sited, the and rural locations. The EPA will work NCore PM10¥2.5 monitors will represent stations must be operational by 2011. with States to ensure that PM10¥2.5 Most States, as well as the District of a range of concentrations and nearby speciation monitors employ the latest in Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin speciation technology to advance the 2 NOy refers to a broad class of nitrogen- Islands, will be required to operate a containing reactive compounds in ambient air, science so that future regulation will single station. California, Florida, explained in more detail in sections V.E.1 and V.E.7 provide more targeted protection against Illinois, Michigan, New York, North of this preamble. the effects only of those coarse particles

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61240 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

and related source emissions that prove sampling less frequently will be PM10¥2.5 in this final rule differs from to be of concern to public health. required to change to daily sampling. the proposed system in that it aims to Because the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is As proposed, minimum monitoring quantify data quality at the national being retained in all parts of the requirements for carbon monoxide (CO), level of aggregation rather than at the country, this final rule retains the sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen level of individual monitoring existing minimum monitoring network dioxide (NO2) are eliminated in this organizations as had been proposed. design requirements for PM10. These final rule. Minimum requirements for Another change from the proposal is longstanding requirements are based on lead (Pb) monitoring stations and that a provision has been added the population of a MSA and its Photochemical Assessment Monitoring allowing the EPA Regional historical PM10 air quality. For any Stations (PAMS) are reduced to those Administrator to waive the usual quality given combination of these two that were proposed. For all five criteria system requirements for special purpose parameters, a range of required monitors pollutants, however, existing monitors when those requirements are is prescribed, with the required number monitoring sites (except those already logistically infeasible due to unusual to be determined as part of the annual designated as special purpose monitors) site conditions and are not essential to monitoring plan. The EPA estimates that cannot be discontinued without EPA the monitoring objectives. once States and Regional Administrators Administrator (for PAMS or NCore The EPA is finalizing the proposed have considered how current stations) or Regional Administrator (for provisions regarding when data from population data and recent PM10 air all other types of monitoring) approval. special purpose monitors (SPMs) can be quality affect the required number of Regional Administrator approval is also compared to a NAAQS, with minor PM10 monitors in each area, between required for discontinuation of O3, clarifications. In summary, the final rule 200 and 500 FRM/FEM monitors will be PM2.5, and PM10 sites even if they are in provides that if an ozone or PM2.5 SPM required, compared to about 1,200 in excess of minimum network design operates for only two years or less, EPA operation now. While States may of requirements. While the rule requires will not use data from that monitor to course choose to continue to operate EPA approval, such approvals should be make attainment/nonattainment monitors in excess of the minimum facilitated where appropriate by rule determinations. This limitation is requirements, EPA notes that many provisions which clearly establish inherent in the form of these NAAQS, PM10 monitors have been recording certain criteria under which which require three years of data for a concentrations well below the PM10 discontinuation will be approved. These determination to be made. For the other NAAQS and are candidates for criteria are the same as those proposed NAAQS pollutants, as a policy matter, discontinuation at a State’s initiative. with four minor changes explained in EPA will not use only two years of data States may choose to retain PM10 detail in section V.B.5, System from a SPM to voluntarily redesignate monitors that are recording Modifications. These criteria are not an area to nonattainment. This concentrations below the PM10 NAAQS exclusive, and monitors not meeting any limitation is possible because as level to support monitoring objectives of the listed criteria may still be established in Section 107(d)(1) of the other than attainment/nonattainment approved for discontinuation on a case- Act, the only time EPA is obligated to determinations, such as baseline by-case basis if discontinuation does not redesignate areas as attainment or monitoring for prevention of significant compromise data collection needed for nonattainment is after it promulgates or deterioration permitting or public implementation of a NAAQS. Specific revises a NAAQS. Under an existing information. monitoring for these pollutants may standard, voluntary redesignations are This final rule changes the currently be required in individual SIPs; at the Administrator’s discretion: EPA requirements for the minimum number this monitoring rule does not affect any has no legal obligation to redesignate an of monitors for PM2.5 and ozone (O3) SIP requirements for such specific area even if a monitor should register a monitoring networks. In response to monitoring. violation of that standard (see CAA comments, the final requirements Appendix A to this final rule includes Section 107(d)(3)). In particular, in the require more O3 and PM2.5 monitoring most of the proposed revisions to the case of PM10, EPA stated in section VII.B in more polluted areas and more quality system for ambient air of the preamble to the NAAQS rule monitors in CSAs than was proposed. monitoring. In particular, the proposed (printed in today’s Federal Register) While this final rule requires fewer requirement for States to ensure a that because EPA is retaining the monitors than are now operating for O3 program of adequate and independent current 24-hour PM10 standards, new and PM2.5, as did the pre-existing audits of their monitoring stations is nonattainment designations for PM10 monitoring rule, EPA does not intend to included in this final rule. One way, but will not be required under the encourage net reductions in the number not the only way, a State can satisfy this provisions of the Clean Air Act. The of O3 and PM2.5 monitoring sites in the requirement is to agree that EPA will same is true for CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb. U.S. as a whole. The surplus in the conduct these audits using funds that However, all valid data from a SPM will existing networks relative to minimum otherwise would have been awarded to be considered in determining if a requirements gives States more the State as part of its annual air quality previously designated nonattainment flexibility to choose where to apply management grant. A small number of area has subsequently attained the monitoring resources for O3 and PM2.5. changes to the proposed quality system NAAQS. See also section V.B.8 below. For PM2.5, this final rule requires that requirements reflect public comments This final rule advances, to May 1, the sampling be conducted on a daily basis on details of the proposed revisions. date each year by which monitoring for monitors that have recently been Also, because the objective of PM10¥2.5 organizations must certify that their recording the highest concentrations in monitoring is to better understand submitted data is accurate to the best of their area and have been recording PM10¥2.5 air quality and to support their knowledge. However, this concentrations very near the 24-hour health effects studies, rather than to requirement will take effect one year NAAQS, to avoid a bias in attainment/ provide data for use in nonattainment later than proposed, in 2010 for data nonattainment designations that can designations, and because there collected in 2009. occur with less frequent sampling. consequently will be a much smaller This final rule retains the current Pursuant to this provision, EPA network of required PM10¥2.5 monitors requirement for an annual monitoring estimates that about 50 sites now than proposed, the quality system for plan and finalizes most of the new

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61241

substantive and procedural State, local, and Tribal monitoring quality data to the Administrator, via requirements that were proposed for agencies may seek approval of their the Air Quality System (AQS). However these plans. One change is that some PM2.5 continuous monitor as ARMs the rule now explicitly requires that required new elements proposed for the beginning today, either independently associated quality assurance data be annual plan have instead been shifted to or in cooperation with instrument submitted along with ambient the 5-year network assessment, to manufactures. concentration data. The first submission reduce the annual plan preparation • The revised quality system affected will be the one due on June 30, burden and to allow these elements to requirements, except that full quality 2007 for data collected in January be prepared more carefully. The first 5- assurance practices, if not waived, are through March of 2007. year network assessment has been not required until January 1, 2009 for As presently is the case, States must postponed by one year, to July 1, 2010. SPMs which use FRM, FEM, or ARM submit an annual network plan by July The proposed requirements regarding monitors. 1 of each year. The next plan is due July • probe heights for PM10¥2.5 monitors, The new minimum requirements 1, 2007. increased O3 monitor distance from (or absence of minimum requirements) States whose PM2.5, PM10, or O3 roadways (for newly established O3 for the number of monitors for specific networks do not meet the revised stations), data elements to be reported, NAAQS pollutants and for PAMS requirements of this final rule regarding and PM filter retention are included in stations, if the new minimum allows a the number of monitors in a given MSA this final rule. State to discontinue a previously or CSA are required to submit a plan for This final rule also removes and required monitor. See below for the adding the necessary additional reserves the pre-existing appendix B, compliance date of the new minimum monitors by July 1, 2007 and to begin Quality Assurance Requirements for requirements in situations in which the operating the new monitors by January Prevention of Significant Deterioration final requirement is greater than the 1, 2008. The EPA believes that this will (PSD) Air Monitoring, and appendix F, currently operating network. only affect O3 and PM2.5 monitoring in • Annual SLAMS Air Quality The criteria for EPA Regional fewer than ten locations each. The EPA Information, of 40 CFR part 58 because Administrator approval for removal of will notify these States directly. they are no longer needed. monitors that are in excess of minimum A plan for the implementation of the required, if a State seeks such removal. required NCore multipollutant C. Significant Dates for States, Local • The criteria for use of data from monitoring stations, including site Governments, Tribes, and Other SPMs in determinations of attainment/ selection, is due by July 1, 2009. States Stakeholders nonattainment. must implement the required NCore • Only State governments, and those The elimination of the requirement multipollutant stations by January 1, local governments that have been for reporting of certain PM2.5 monitor 2011, including PM10¥2.5 monitoring. operating parameters. States will be required to submit assigned responsibility for ambient air • monitoring by their States, are subject to The revised requirement for earlier certification letters regarding the the mandatory requirements of 40 CFR separation between roadways and O3 completeness and accuracy of the part 58.3 The following summary of monitors, for new O3 monitors whose ambient concentration and quality applicable requirements is presented in placement has not already been assurance data they have submitted to chronological order, as an aid for States approved as of December 18, 2006. the Air Quality System (AQS) operated • The new specification for probe in planning their activities to comply by EPA, starting May 1, 2010 for data heights for PM10¥2.5 monitors. collected during 2009. Until then, States with the rule. States are required to The new requirement to archive all comply with pre-existing requirements are required to submit these letters by PM10c and PM10¥2.5 filters for 1 year July 1 of each year. in 40 CFR part 58, until the compliance begins with filters collected on or after date for each new requirement is Network assessments are required January 1, 2007. However, EPA expects from States every 5 years starting July 1, reached. few if any monitoring agencies to be The following provisions in 40 CFR 2010. operating PM or PM ¥ filters this part 53 and part 58 are effective on 10c 10 2.5 Under the Tribal Authority Rule early, so most will be affected later.4 (TAR) (40 CFR part 49), which December 18, 2006: The requirement to submit mass data • The criteria and process for EPA implements section 301(d) of the CAA, on blank PM2.5 filters begins on January Tribes may elect to be treated in the Administrator approval of FRMs, FEMs, 1, 2007. and ARMs or where applicable Regional same manner as a State in implementing The required date to begin daily PM2.5 Administrator approval of ARMs. sections of the CAA. However, EPA sampling at certain PM2.5 monitoring Manufacturers of continuous PM2.5 and determined in the TAR that it was sites is January 1, 2007. The EPA inappropriate to treat Tribes in a PM10¥2.5 instruments may apply for believes this will affect about 50 PM2.5 manner similar to a State with regard to designation of their instruments as monitoring sites. The EPA will notify FRMs or FEMs starting today. The EPA specific plan submittal and the affected States directly. implementation deadlines for NAAQS- is eager to receive such applications as This final rule does not change the related requirements, including, but not soon as manufacturers can collect and schedule for reporting ambient air analyze the necessary supporting data. limited to, such deadlines in CAA sections 110(a)(1), 172(a)(2), 182, 187, 4 As explained in section IV.B of this preamble, 3 Throughout this preamble, ‘‘States’’ is meant to the term ‘‘PM10c’’ refers to a PM10 Federal reference and 191. See 40 CFR 49.4(a). For also refer to local governments that have been method (FRM) that is designated as a PM10c FRM example, an Indian Tribe may choose, assigned responsibility for ambient air monitoring under the final NAAQS rule appearing elsewhere in but is not required, to submit within their respective jurisdiction by their States. today’s Federal Register. In essence, it would be a implementation plans for NAAQS- This preamble also uses ‘‘monitoring organization’’ PM2.5 FRM with the inertial fractionator used to to refer to States, local agencies, and/or Tribes separate out particles larger than 2.5 microns related requirements, nor is any Tribe conducting monitoring under or guided by the removed so that all PM10 is collected. Unlike other required to monitor ambient air. If a provisions of 40 CFR part 58. This final rule applies PM10 instruments, a PM10c instrument must control Tribe elects to do an implementation the same requirements to the District of Columbia, flow to a specified flow rate of 16.67 liters/minute Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as apply to the at local conditions of temperature and pressure. A plan, the plan can contain program 50 States. Other U.S. territories are not subject to PM10¥2.5 FRM consists of a PM2.5 FRM and a PM10c elements to address specific air quality this final rule. FRM of the same model. See also 71 FR 2720. problems in a partial program. The EPA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61242 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

will work with the Tribe to develop an inaddition to those required by this final via grantees, such as the Institute for appropriate schedule for making any rule. The EPA also plans to work with Tribal Environmental Professionals and appropriate monitoring system changes the States, and possibly with some the Tribal Air Monitoring Support which meet the needs of each Tribe. Tribes, to establish and operate sites Center. Indian Tribes have the same rights that will measure only PM10¥2.5 The EPA will also continue to support and responsibilities as States under the concentrations in rural and less the National Park Service’s operation of CAA to implement elements of air urbanized locations, in addition to the the IMPROVE monitoring network, quality programs as they deem PM10¥2.5 monitors required at NCore which provides important data for necessary. Tribes can choose to engage sites. implementing both regional haze and 6 in ambient air monitoring activities. In An important element of PM2.5 attainment programs. The many cases, Indian Tribes will be implementing the new requirements number of sites in the IMPROVE required by EPA regions to institute will be EPA’s role in encouraging the program may vary, depending on EPA’s quality assurance programs that comply development and application of FEMs, enacted budget and the data needs of with 40 CFR part 58 appendix A, utilize and the development of a sampler or the regional haze and PM2.5 attainment FRM, FEM, or ARM monitors when samplers that can provide a direct programs. comparing their data to the NAAQS, measurement of PM10¥2.5 for collection The EPA will also continue to operate and to insure that the data collected is of filters used in chemical speciation the Clean Air Status and Trends representative of their respective and for continuous methods that Network (CASTNET), which monitors airsheds. For FRM, FEM, or ARM measure both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. The for O3, PM, and chemical components of monitors used for NAAQS attainment or EPA has determined that continuous PM in rural areas across the nation.7 nonattainment determinations, quality monitoring of PM2.5 has many EPA is in the process of revising assurance requirements of 40 CFR part advantages over the filter-based FRM. CASTNET to upgrade its monitoring 58 must be followed and would be This final rule makes it more practical capabilities to allow it to provide even viewed by EPA as an indivisible for manufacturers and users of more useful data to multiple data users. element of a regulatory air quality continuous PM2.5 instruments to obtain The EPA expects that about 20 monitoring program. designation for them as FEMs or ARMs. CASTNET sites will have new To ensure objectivity and a sound capabilities similar to some of the D. Implementation of the Revised scientific basis for decisions, EPA’s capabilities required at NCore Monitoring Requirements Office of Research and Development multipollutant sites. After promulgation, EPA will assist will review applications for FEM and This final rule includes a requirement States in implementing the amended ARM designations based on the criteria that States must ensure a program of requirements using several mechanisms. in this final rule and will recommend adequate and independent audits of The EPA will work with each State to approval or disapproval to the their monitoring stations. One way, but develop approvable monitoring plans Administrator. For agencies seeking use not the only way, a State can satisfy this for its new NCore multipollutant of an ARM already approved in another requirement is to agree that EPA will monitoring stations, including PM10¥2.5 monitoring network, the applicable conduct these audits using funds that monitoring. For example, EPA will Regional Office will conduct a review, otherwise would have been awarded to negotiate the selection of required new most often as part of the EPA approval the State as part of its annual air quality monitoring sites (or new capabilities at of an annual monitoring plan, based on management grant. In anticipation of the existing sites) and their schedules for the criteria in this final monitoring rule. possible inclusion of this requirement in start up as well as plans to discontinue The EPA will also provide technical this final rule, EPA has been working sites that are no longer needed. The EPA guidance documents and training with monitoring organizations to will negotiate with each State its annual opportunities for State, local, and Tribal determine which of these organizations grant for air quality management monitoring staff to help them select, prefer this approach. The EPA expects activities, including ambient monitoring operate, and use the data from new that, for 2007, nearly all monitoring work. Once States have established a types of monitoring equipment. The organizations will request that EPA new monitoring infrastructure to meet EPA has already distributed a technical conduct these audits. For those that the new requirements, EPA will review assistance document on the precursor chose another acceptable approach, EPA State monitoring activities, submitted gas monitors 5 that will be part of the will conduct limited cross-checks of data, and plans for further changes on NCore multipollutant sites and EPA has equipment, calibration standards, an annual basis. conducted multiple training workshops auditor preparation, and audit The EPA’s support for and on these monitors. Additional guidance procedures to ensure that their audit participation in enhancing the national will be developed and provided on programs are adequate. ambient air monitoring system to serve some other types of monitors with The EPA recognizes that current and future air quality which many State monitoring staff are characterizing and managing some air management and research needs will currently unfamiliar, and on network quality problems requires ambient extend beyond ensuring that States meet design, site selection, discontinuation of concentration and deposition data that the minimum requirements of this final sites, quality assurance, network cannot be provided by the types of monitoring rule. The EPA will work assessment, and other topics. While monitoring required by the monitoring with each State or local air monitoring Tribes are not subject to the monitoring activities addressed in today’s final rule. agency to determine what affordable requirements of this final rule, these These problems include near-roadway monitoring activities above minimum technical resources will also be exposures to emissions from motor requirements would best meet the available to them directly from EPA and diverse needs of the individual air 6 Additional information on EPA/National Park quality management program as well as 5 Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for Service IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of the needs of other data users. The EPA Precursor Gas Measurments in the NCore Protected Visual Environments) Visibility Program Multipollutant Monitoring Network. Version 4. U.S. is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ may also work with the States, and Environmental Protection Agency. EPA–454/R–05– visdata.html. possibly with some Tribes, to establish 003. September 2005. Available at: http:// 7 Additional information on CASTNET is and operate PM10¥2.5 speciation sites www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pretecdoc.html. available at: http://www.epa.gov/castnet/.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61243

vehicles and mercury deposition. The monitoring, have been awarded under Several commenters stated that EPA EPA is actively researching these issues section 103 with the overall amount for should not use STAG funds for the and developing concepts for monitoring these funds established by the enacted improvement or operation of Federal programs to address them, but these budget. monitoring networks such as CASTNET. issues are outside the scope of this final During the public comment period for The EPA does not intend to use STAG rule. this rulemaking EPA received a large funds from fiscal year 2007 or beyond The Air Quality System (AQS) is the number of comments addressing in this way. data system EPA uses to receive ambient funding issues. Most of these comments IV. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions air monitoring data from State, local, expressed opposition to the and Major Comments on Proposed Tribal, and other types of monitoring Administration’s proposed EPA budget organizations and to make those data for fiscal year 2007, which included a Amendments to 40 CFR Part 53 available to all interested users. AQS is proposal to provide PM monitoring based on a particular data structure and 2.5 A. Overview of Part 53 Regulatory support through section 105 grant Requirements uses particular data input formats funding, as is done for all other criteria including data elements and defined pollutants. (As of today, the Congress Various appendices to 40 CFR part 50 values for categorical data. The existing has not enacted a 2007 budget for EPA.) define certain ambient air monitoring AQS data structure and input formats Commenters stated that if funding for methods as Federal reference methods are for the most part consistent with a monitoring were reduced as proposed, which may be used to determine number of changes made in this final State and local agencies would have less attainment of the National Ambient Air rule to pre-existing terminology and flexibility than desired in designing and requirements, but some changes will be Quality Standards (NAAQS), and which operating their monitoring programs, needed in AQS to re-establish full form the benchmark for determining and that the proposed requirements for consistency with requirements in the equivalency of other methods which new PM ¥ and NCore networks and monitoring rule. The changes to AQS 10 2.5 may also be used to determine will likely, in turn, require some for adequate and independent audits of attainment. Under 40 CFR part 53, EPA modifications to data preparation tools monitoring stations would be designates specific commercial and practices at monitoring agencies. burdensome. Some commenters instruments or other versions of The EPA will prepare and implement a requested that the proposed new methods as Federal reference methods plan for making these changes, and will requirements not be included in this (FRMs). To be so designated, a advise AQS users of the ramifications final rule for this reason. particular FRM must be shown, while doing so. Generally, the The EPA understands these concerns. according to the procedures and compliance deadlines in the rule are However, the CAA requirements from requirements of part 53, to meet all such that monitoring agencies are not which this final rule derives 8 are not specifications of both the applicable required to immediately comply with contingent on EPA providing funding to appendix of part 50 as well as any changes in rule provisions that States to assist in meeting those applicable specifications and would affect data transfer formats and requirements. Accordingly, the requirements of part 53. procedures. Monitoring agencies, for the comments regarding funding are not To foster development of improved present, should continue to follow pre- directly relevant to the content of this existing AQS formats and procedures final rule. Nevertheless, EPA recognizes alternative air monitoring methods, EPA until notified. that resources always have been and also designates—as Federal equivalent will remain a practical consideration for methods (FEMs)—alternative methods E. Federal Funding for Ambient Air establishing and operating monitoring that are shown to have measurement Monitoring programs. The EPA will continue to performance comparable to the EPA has historically funded part of work with States in this regard, in corresponding FRM. Part 53 contains the cost to State, local, and Tribal particular as EPA determines how to explicit performance tests, performance governments of installation and allocate enacted funding among States standards, and other requirements for operation of monitors to meet Federal and among types of monitoring so as to designation of both FRMs and FEMs for monitoring requirements. Sections 105 achieve the best possible environmental each of the criteria pollutants. In and 103 of the CAA allow EPA to outcomes. Several provisions of this addition, States’ air surveillance provide grant funding for programs for final rule reduce minimum monitoring networks are required, preventing and controlling air pollution requirements, which will provide under 40 CFR part 58, appendix C, to and for some research and development flexibility for States to reduce some of use only EPA-designated FRMs, FEMs, efforts respectively. Eligible entities their pre-existing costs. or ARMs at SLAMS sites. A list of all must apply for section 103 grants. methods that EPA has designated as Eligible entities must provide 8 Section 103(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act [42 either FRMs or FEMs for all criteria nonfederal matching funds for section U.S.C.A. 7403(c)] provides that the Administrator pollutants is available at http:// 105 grants. The EPA’s enacted budget shall conduct a program for sampling air pollution www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html. specifies overall how much State and that includes the establishment of a national network to monitor air quality and to ensure the Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, Tribal Air Grant (STAG) funding is comparability of air quality data collected in EPA is promulgating a new Federal available for these grants. different states. Section 110(a)(2)(B) [42 U.S.C.A In recent years, EPA has received 7410(a)] provides that each State implementation reference method for measurement of special authority through appropriations plan shall provide for establishment and operation mass concentrations of thoracic coarse acts to use section 103 grant funding for of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and particles (PM10¥2.5) in the atmosphere, procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and to be codified as appendix O to 40 CFR establishing and operating PM2.5-related analyze data on ambient air quality and upon monitoring stations. Funding for other request make such data available to the part 50. Although, as explained earlier, types of monitoring has been included Administrator. Section 182(c)(1) [42 U.S.C.A. EPA is not at this time adopting any 7511a(c)(1)] states that the Administrator will NAAQS for PM10¥2.5, EPA believes an in the grants awarded under section promulgate rules for enhanced monitoring for FRM for PM ¥ is still highly 105. Grants to Tribes for air quality ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic 10 2.5 management work, including ambient compounds in serious ozone areas. desirable to aid in a variety of needed

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61244 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

research studies.9 This new FRM is service requirements, and eliminate off- sampler must meet all requirements for defined as the standard of reference for site sample filter support services, as a PM2.5 reference method in 40 CFR part measurement of PM10¥2.5 well as to provide measurement 50, appendix L, as well as additional concentrations in ambient air. It will be resolution of 1 hour or less and near requirements in part 53. However, the an acceptable and readily available real-time reporting of monitoring data. PM10 sampler required by the method is PM10¥2.5 measurement method for new Therefore, EPA is interested in not a conventional PM10 sampler as NCore multipollutant monitoring sites encouraging the development of described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix to be located at approximately 75 urban alternative monitoring methods for J; rather, it is a sampler specified to be and rural locations. Availability of an PM10¥2.5 by focusing on the explicit test identical to the PM2.5 sampler of the approved FRM for PM10¥2.5 will also and qualification requirements pair, except that the PM2.5 particle size help provide consistency among necessary for designation of such types separator is removed. This special PM10 PM10¥2.5 measurements used in future of methods as FEMs for PM10¥2.5. In sampler is identified as a ‘‘PM10c’’ health studies of the adverse health fact, EPA anticipates that alternative sampler to differentiate it from effects associated with exposure to FEMs will eventually provide most of conventional PM10 samplers that meet thoracic coarse particles. Lastly, the the PM10¥2.5 monitoring data obtained the less exacting requirements of 40 CFR PM10¥2.5 reference method will provide in the States’ monitoring networks. part 50, appendix J. In view of the the basis for development of speciation Further, EPA recognizes that the similarity of the PM10¥2.5 FRM samplers capable of providing an potential benefits of automated/ requirements to those of the PM2.5 FRM, improved understanding of the continuous monitoring methods apply the new requirements will allow a compositions of different ambient mixes as well to FEMs for PM2.5. Accordingly, PM10¥2.5 sampler pair consisting of of thoracic coarse particles, so that this as proposed, EPA is also establishing samplers that have already been shown composition can be related to both new requirements in part 53 for to meet the PM2.5 FRM requirements health effects and to particle sources. designation of continuous FEMs for (except for the PM2.5 particle size Associated with this new reference PM2.5. See 71 FR 2721. The PM2.5 and separator in the case of the PM10c method, EPA is also establishing related PM10¥2.5 FEM provisions parallel each sampler) to be designated as a PM10¥2.5 amendments to 40 CFR part 53 to other in many respects so inclusion now reference method without further extend the designation provisions of is both appropriate and conforming. testing. FRMs and FEMs to methods for The new requirements for approval of C. Requirements for Candidate PM10¥2.5. These amendments set forth automated/continuous FEMs can Equivalent Methods for PM2.5 and explicit tests, performance standards, accommodate a wide range of potential ¥ PM10 2.5 and other requirements for designation PM10¥2.5 or PM2.5 continuous of specific commercial samplers, measurement technologies. Ambient air As pointed out in the preamble to the sampler configurations, or analyzers as testing of a candidate technology at proposed rule (71 FR 2721), EPA either FRMs or FEMs for PM10¥2.5, as diverse monitoring sites is required in believes very strongly that provisions to appropriate. order to demonstrate that the level of allow designation of Federal equivalent As noted in section VI.A of the comparability to collocated Federal methods provide an important incentive preamble to the NAAQS revisions reference method measurements is to encourage the commercial published elsewhere in this Federal adequate to meet established data development of innovative new and Register, EPA recognizes that the FRM, quality objectives (DQOs). advantageous alternative methods for while providing a good standard of This final rule also modifies monitoring air pollutants. However, it is performance for comparison to other somewhat certain existing requirements also important to show conclusively methods, is not itself optimal for routine for designation of alternative, non- that any new candidate method will use in PM10¥2.5 monitoring networks. continuous methods for PM2.5. As produce measurements comparable to Alternative methods are needed that explained in section IV.B of this those of the FRM and will have provide a more direct measurement of preamble, the modified requirements performance characteristics that are ambient PM10¥2.5 concentrations. will be fully consistent with the more adequate to meet DQOs. At the same Methods are also needed that collect advanced new requirements for both time, the testing that is necessary to samples of PM10¥2.5 that are more continuous and non-continuous FEMs show comparable and adequate physically separated for analysis of for PM10¥2.5. performance must not be so burdensome that it undermines incentives for new chemical species. Also, automated, B. Requirements for Candidate method development. continuous-type methods provide many Reference Methods for PM10¥2.5 operational advantages to ease Because of the complex nature of monitoring burdens, reduce on-site No comments were received related particulate matter, it is also complex to specifically to the PM10¥2.5 FRM test the performance of PM monitoring 9 Henderson, R. Clean Air Scientific Advisory designation requirements. These methods. For methods for PM2.5, EPA Committee (CASAC) Review of the EPA Staff provisions are adopted as proposed. defined three classes of candidate FEMs Recommendations Concerning a Potential Thoracic Because of the nearly complete (Classes I, II, and III) based on the extent Coarse PM Standard in the Review of the National similarity between the specifications for to which the method differs from the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and the new PM10¥2.5 reference method and FRM, so that the nature and extent of Technical Information (Final PM OAQPS Staff for the existing PM2.5 reference method, the performance and comparability Paper, EPA–452/R–05–005). September 15, 2005. the designation requirements for testing necessary can be more closely http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/ PM10¥2.5 reference methods are matched to the nature of the candidate casacpmpanel.html. ¥ Henderson, R. Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, essentially the same as those for PM2.5 method. See 40 CFR 53.3(a)(2) (4). In Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to reference methods. As set forth in the this final rule, as proposed, EPA is the Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, new appendix O to 40 CFR part 50, the extending these same class definitions U.S. EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee PM10¥2.5 reference method specifies a and tiered testing requirements to apply Recommendations Concerning the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for pair of samplers consisting of a to PM10¥2.5 candidate FEMs as well. Particulate Matter. March 21, 2006. http:// conventional PM2.5 sampler and a Class I methods are limited to minor www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06-002.pdf. special PM10 sampler. The PM2.5 deviations from the FRM; Class II covers

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61245

integrated-sample, filter-based, Scientific Advisory Committee. The Of particular note to instrument gravimetric methods deviating more salient Class III FEM requirements were manufacturers, this final rule allows significantly from the FRM; and Class III summarized in the proposal preamble applications for Class II candidate FEMs methods (originally) included all other (71 FR 2722–2724). Not unexpectedly, a for both PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 to methods not categorized as Class I or II. considerable number of comments were optionally substitute the more extensive The three classes are described in more received in connection with the Class III comparability field tests in detail in the proposal preamble (71 FR specifics of the proposed Class II and subpart C for some or all of the rather 2721). As proposed, the definition of Class III requirements. The more extensive and arduous laboratory wind Class III FEMs is narrowed to include significant of these comments are tunnel tests, loading test, and volatility only continuous or semi-continuous addressed below, after a summary of the test of subpart F to which a Class II analyzer methods having 1-hour or less proposal regarding requirements for candidate FEM sampler may otherwise measurement resolution, which are the Class II and Class III methods. be subject. Such a substitution of test Class III methods that by far hold the Remaining comments are addressed in results may be particularly important most potential for monitoring the Response to Comments document. when the special facilities necessary for applications and FEM designation. The Class II candidate FEMs, although not the wind tunnel tests or other tests are EPA has thus avoided the restrictions offering the operational advantages of not available. Concurrent testing of and complexity that would be necessary continuous Class III methods, are multiple methods under the Class III to accommodate the wide variety of nevertheless important as well. Class II requirements may also help to reduce other types of non-Class I or II methods methods encompass the dichotomous overall testing costs. that are unlikely to be economically and and virtual impactor types of methods In regard to the proposed testing commercially practical. Also, the that can provide a more direct, requirements for Class III (continuous) continuous operational nature of such gravimetric, filter-based measurement of FEMs for PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5, EPA Class III methods gives rise to a PM10¥2.5 than available with the FRM. specifically solicited comments related statistical advantage that allows more These methods are also most likely to to the adequacy of the number and tolerant limits of adequate fulfill the substantial need for collecting location of the test sites required for the comparability, relative to a method that PM10¥2.5 samples that are physically field tests to determine comparability of is not operated continuously, to achieve separated from other particle sizes, or a candidate method to the respective a similar limit of uncertainty in the nearly so, for chemical species analysis. FRM. See 71 FR 2722. By definition, a monitoring data. New requirements for Class II FEMs for designated FEM is generally qualified Class III continuous methods appear PM10¥2.5 are being established in this for use at any monitoring site in the U.S. to offer many potential benefits for use final rule, and some of the previously (with the possible exception of some in routine field monitoring networks. established requirements for Class II areas with extreme conditions), so the These automated analyzers eliminate FEMs for PM2.5 are being changed test requirements for comparability need most, if not all, of the pre- and post- somewhat to make them more to represent a wide variety of possible weighing of sample filters, require less consistent with the corresponding new site conditions. The EPA proposed that frequent on-site service, may be less requirements for PM10¥2.5 Class II FEMs candidate methods be tested within costly to operate, and offer near real- and to incorporate some minor technical three general geographical areas: (1) The time, electronic reporting of hourly (or improvements. Los Angeles area in winter and summer less) mass concentration measurements The proposed Class II FEM seasons, (2) eastern U.S. in winter and (similar to data reporting that is requirements, as outlined in the summer, and (3) western U.S. in winter common for gaseous pollutant proposal preamble (71 FR 2721–2725), only (for a total of five 30-day test monitors). The EPA is accordingly were based on daily sampling; therefore, campaigns). Each proposed test site area adopting the proposed Class III FEM Class II equivalent methods used for was selected for representing particular provisions for PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 in determining compliance with the PM2.5 and diverse typical site conditions. today’s rule, with some changes in NAAQS would generally have been In response to several comments response to comments. restricted to daily sampling. However, addressing this issue, a fourth test site— Continuous methods, by nature, tend in response to concerns about method in the U.S. Midwest, with tests required to have somewhat different performance performance in relatively clean areas, in the winter season only—has been characteristics from those of the EPA has strengthened the additive bias added to the requirements to further corresponding filter-based FRMs, so the (intercept) requirement. With this increase the geographical diversity. comparability and performance testing tighter performance criteria and However, the requirement for a winter requirements must be adequately considering that Class II methods are test campaign in the eastern U.S. has comprehensive and discriminating filter-based samplers, a minimum of a been withdrawn while the requirement without being excessively burdensome. one-in-three day sample frequency will for a summer test campaign in the The Class III FEM requirements being be appropriate to meet the network data eastern U.S. has been retained, so the promulgated today are based quality objectives. Class II methods are total number of required test campaigns predominantly on demonstrating an also expected to be used for collecting (five) is unchanged. Comparability adequate degree of comparability samples used in chemical species testing of a candidate method is costly, between candidate method analysis, which would not require daily rendering it impractical to test a measurements and concurrent, operation. The character of the test sites candidate method under all possible collocated Federal reference method specified for Classes II and III tests for combinations of site and seasonal measurements under a representative both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 are similar, so conditions that might be encountered in variety of site conditions. Many issues concurrent testing for PM2.5 and national PM monitoring networks. The and much technical input were PM10¥2.5 methods of both classes can be EPA considers the specified carefully considered during the carried out, substantially reducing the complement of five test campaigns in development of the requirements, testing burden for candidate FEMs that the four specified geographical areas including peer review by the Ambient measure both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 or for and two seasons to be reasonable to Air Monitoring and Methods testing multiple candidate methods conduct and adequately representative Subcommittee of the Clean Air simultaneously. of the diversity of site and seasonal PM

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61246 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring conditions across the U.S. a variety of applications, EPA has guidance (to be used by instrument As noted above, the two test site areas somewhat strengthened the range of operators as they believe appropriate) specified for testing candidate Class II allowable intercepts for those candidate rather than as a formal part of the FEM FEMs are compatible with the test sites FEMs. For Class III FEMs, new fixed provisions. Therefore, no changes were 3 for candidate Class III methods, which limits of ±2.0 µg/m for PM2.5 methods made to the proposed requirement that 3 will significantly reduce testing costs by and ±7.0 µg/m for PM10¥2.5 methods FEM applicants submit the 1-hour FEM allowing Class II and III candidate have been added. For Class II FEMs for test data, and there is no designation methods to be tested simultaneously at PM10¥2.5, the fixed intercept limit has requirement based on 1-hour precision the same test site. Also, the test sites been reduced from ±7.0 to ±3.5 µg/m3. or any other particular 1-hour based have been relabeled for ease of (The intercept requirements proposed performance statistic. referencing east and west sites. for candidate Class II PM2.5 methods The EPA also asked for comments on Some commenters expressed concern were re-examined and found to be the adequacy and appropriateness of the that the Class III comparability test appropriate as proposed.) The more proposed test requirements for Class II standards might be inadequate because restrictive intercept limits will reduce FEMs. See 71 FR 2724. Some a candidate method that had an the maximum allowable measurement commenters suggested that the proposed unacceptable seasonal bias (such as has bias and are represented by smaller Class II tests were inadequate because been noted for some continuous hexagonal acceptance areas, as specified there was more variation in the PM at methods) could be found acceptable, in 40 CFR part 53, subpart C revised different sites than could be represented because in pooling test data from Table C–4 and as illustrated in revised in the tests—particularly in regard to summer and winter seasons the biases Figures C–2 and C–3 of this final rule. chemical compositions—and suggested would compensate. The EPA finds that Nevertheless, EPA wishes to point out that continued FEM designation should the associated minimum correlation that, because of the design of the be conditioned on a mandatory periodic requirement of the regression test equivalent method comparability tests reassessment of local-agency should adequately avoid that situation. (which require no low-level test comparisons to FRM measurements. Further, in the revised test concentrations) and the nature of the The EPA recognizes that data produced requirements, summer and winter tests regression analysis, a seemingly high by all FEMs operated in monitoring at the same site, where the data are positive or negative intercept resulting networks under 40 CFR part 58 should pooled, are required at only one of the from the regression analysis of the test meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) four required tests sites. data is not necessarily indicative or of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section Another issue concerning the likely to be characteristic of the actual 2.3.1 on a continuing basis. The proposed testing requirements for Class measurement errors or bias of the operational requirements of appendix A III (continuous), as well as Class II candidate method relative to the FRM at will help ensure this. Moreover, EPA candidate equivalent methods for PM2.5 low or very low concentrations. This can invoke designation cancellation and PM10¥2.5, was the specific situation may be particularly true when procedures for the method designation acceptance criteria for the regression the concentration coefficient of under 40 CFR 53.11 (Cancellation of analysis statistics—particularly the variation (CCV) for the FEM test data reference or equivalent method additive bias (intercept) parameter—of (see 40 CFR 53.35(h)) is relatively low, designation) if EPA observes that DQOs the comparison between collocated resulting in greater uncertainty in the are not being maintained for a particular measurements obtained with the predicted additive bias (and in the designated Class II equivalent method candidate and FRM methods. As multiplicative bias (slope) as well). (or for any FEM or FRM). However, EPA proposed, the upper and lower limits for Class III FEMs will generally provide believes that designation cancellation the regression intercept were specified 1-hour concentration measurements (in should be initiated by EPA when as functions of the corresponding slope, addition to the required 24-hour necessary, rather than have designations with the acceptable combinations of measurements), and EPA asked for conditioned on specific periodic slope and intercept represented by the comments on whether the FEM reassessments as commenters suggested. area inside a trapezoid or a hexagon provisions should include any specific Other commenters suggested that the shape plotted on a slope-intercept requirements for 1-hour precision, and test sites be approved by both EPA and coordinate system (Figures C–2 and C– if so, whether a specific standard of the STAPPA/ALAPCO Monitoring 3 in proposed revised subpart C of part performance should be specified and Committee, but EPA believes that would 53 at 71 FR 2768–2769). These how it should affect FEM designation. be cumbersome and unnecessary. acceptance limits were based on See 71 FR 2723. Of the few comments statistical considerations related to the received on this issue, most agreed with D. Other Changes uncertainty allowable in making correct EPA that 1-hour precision is an EPA proposed several other relatively NAAQS attainment decisions for PM2.5 important descriptor associated with a minor changes to various provisions of (or similar comparisons of PM10¥2.5 Class III candidate method and that 1- subparts A, C, E, and F of part 53. See concentrations to non-regulatory hour FEM test data should be submitted 71 FR 2724–2725. Organizational benchmarks). Several commenters were in a Class III FEM application so that the changes in subpart C consolidate the concerned that the range of acceptable short-term precision can be determined, provisions for various types of methods, intercepts proposed for Class II and III but no specific standard should be set making them easier to understand. FEMs, although appropriate for DQOs for the precision parameter in Other changes clarify or simplify some related to attainment (or similar) connection with the FEM designation existing provisions for PM10 and PM2.5 decisions, may allow excessive qualifications. A few commenters Class I and II FEM testing and measurement bias for FEMs used for suggested that a precision performance implement minor technical other PM monitoring applications— parameter based on a running average of improvements to test protocols, with especially those applications that a few (e.g., 3 to 5) hours should be little, if any, impact on the nature or require measurements of concentrations established and regulated, however, to efficacy of the tests. Minor changes are well below the level of the NAAQS. preserve flexibility, EPA believes that made to subparts A, E, and F to In response to these comments and in precision estimates are better included incorporate the new PM10¥2.5 deference to potential use of FEMs for in method-specific quality assurance provisions and some new definitions,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61247

make a few administrative adjustments, required monitors and their placement monitoring objectives, but which may and incorporate a few minor technical within a metropolitan or other area, not have been approved as FEM for changes. These changes are described appendix E addresses the details of nationwide use. more completely in the proposal monitoring station layout, and appendix The EPA proposed to adopt a new preamble (71 FR 2724), and they are G addresses AQI reporting. (Subpart B term, ‘‘Primary quality assurance being adopted as proposed, as no of the 1997 version was proposed to be organization’’ to clarify the working comments were received pertinent to removed. Subpart F was already definition of the term ‘‘Reporting these minor changes. reserved in the 1997 version. No organization’’ currently utilized in After considering all comments amendments were proposed to the part section 3.0.3. of 40 CFR part 58, carefully, EPA determined that no 58 requirements for reporting of the AQI appendix A, Quality Assurance further changes should be made to the and the associated appendix G.) Requirements, and to avoid confusion proposed new or revised FRM and FEM To aid in understanding the with the different way ‘‘reporting requirements. The EPA is thus adopting provisions of the final part 58 and their organization’’ has come to be used in a the proposed new or revised relationship to the 1997 and proposed related but distinct context (final requirements and provisions for Federal provisions, the following discussion for uploading of data to the Air Quality reference and Federal equivalent the most part follows the order of the System). See 71 FR 2778. methods for PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5, final part 58, addressing each affected The EPA also proposed additional modified to incorporate the changes numbered section and then the definitions to be consistent with described above. appendices. terminology used in 40 CFR part 50, appendix O, the FRM for PM10¥2.5. See V. Discussion of Regulatory Revisions B. General Monitoring Requirements 71 FR 2777. Modifications to the and Major Comments on Proposed 1. Definitions and Terminology definitions of key geographical terms Amendments to 40 CFR Part 58 were proposed, as needed, to reflect The EPA proposed to discontinue the changes in U.S. Census Bureau usage A. Overview of Part 58 Regulatory use of the term ‘‘National air monitoring Requirements since the last revision to monitoring stations (NAMS)’’. See 71 FR 2720. regulations. Part 58 of 40 CFR, Ambient Air Previously, this term was used to The EPA received some questions Quality Surveillance, contains designate Federal reference method seeking clarification of the new term requirements for ambient air monitoring (FRM) and Federal equivalent method ‘‘Primary quality assurance programs operated by States (or (FEM) monitors which were operated to organization,’’ which are addressed in designated local agencies). As proposed, meet set requirements for the number the Response to Comments document the structure of part 58 remains much (and, for some pollutants the type of available in the docket. No other the same as the 1997 version. Proposed location) of monitors and which adverse comments were received on subparts A through G, containing 40 required EPA Administrator approval these proposed definitions, and this CFR 50.1 through 50.61, provide for changes, as distinguished from final rule includes all of them. definitions of terms; require the ‘‘State and local air monitoring stations operation of certain numbers and types (SLAMS)’’ which referred to additional 2. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and of monitors by certain dates; require the FRM and FEM monitors for which Periodic Network Assessment use of certain monitoring methods, generally there was no minimum The EPA proposed to consolidate quality system practices, and sampling number, for which siting was more at current requirements for the SLAMS air schedules and frequencies; require the State’s discretion, and for which quality surveillance plan and NAMS annual plans describing a State’s changes were approved by the Regional network description into elements of the monitoring network and planned Administrator. annual monitoring network plan changes to it; provide criteria for EPA The EPA proposed a new definition described in 40 CFR 58.10 of the approval of planned changes; require for ‘‘National Core (NCore)’’ stations. proposed rule. See 71 FR 2725. The data submission and certification that The definition of ‘‘State or local air annual monitoring network plan would submitted data is accurate to the best of monitoring stations (SLAMS)’’ was provide a statement of purpose for each the knowledge of responsible State proposed to be modified to include monitor in a monitoring agency network official; address special rules regarding NCore, Photochemical Air Monitoring and provide evidence that siting and special purpose monitors; provide rules Systems (PAMS), and all other State or operation of each monitor meet the for comparing monitoring data to locally operated stations (such as PM2.5 requirements of appendices A, C, D, and applicable National Ambient Air speciation stations) that have not been E of part 58, as applicable. The EPA also Quality Standards (NAAQS); require designated as a special purpose monitor proposed the addition of some required reporting of the Air Quality Index (AQI) or monitoring station (SPM). This elements to the annual monitoring to the public in some areas; and provide change was proposed for convenience in network plan and proposed to add a for monitoring directly by EPA if a State referencing these types of monitors new requirement for a periodic network fails to operate required monitors. As together because some provisions in the assessment. proposed, part 58 also includes rule apply to all of them but not to The EPA received comments on a appendices A, C, D, E, and G which SPMs. See 71 FR 2720. Previously, number of specific elements within the were referenced by various numbered ‘‘SLAMS’’ referred only to FRM and annual monitoring network plan and sections in subparts A through G. These FEM monitors. with regard to the network assessment appendices contain many detailed The term, ‘‘Approved regional requirement. The comments that were requirements, as well as considerable methods’’ (ARMs), proposed at 71 FR the basis for modifications to the explanatory or background material and 2720, is added to refer to alternative proposed rule are discussed briefly here. non-binding advice. Appendix A PM2.5 methods that have been approved Detailed responses to all comments are addresses quality system requirements, by EPA for use specifically within a provided in the Response to Comments appendix C addresses monitoring State, local, or Tribal air monitoring document available in the docket. methods and equipment, appendix D network for purposes of comparison to Comments were received on the mostly addresses the number of the NAAQS and to meet other proposed requirement for a 30-day

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61248 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

public inspection period before State needed to develop guidance to discontinue sites, EPA notes that States submittal of a draft annual monitoring standardize the development of are already required to make their network plan to the Regional financial information and for States to annual network monitoring plans Administrator as well as on the collect and summarize the information available for public inspection and that proposed requirement for Regional for submittal. Without such process provides the basic framework Administrator approval of annual standardization, cost information would for disseminating information about monitoring network plans seeking be difficult to interpret. In view of these anticipated site discontinuations. The SLAMS network modifications comments, EPA has deleted this EPA recognizes that there are many including new monitoring sites. Some element from the list of required potential users of air quality information commenters requested clarification information to be contained in the and that States cannot be aware of all regarding what methods would be annual monitoring network plan. such users. However, to the extent that considered acceptable for making The EPA proposed a new requirement information about site shutdowns can documents available for public that the annual monitoring network be disseminated more widely, there are inspection. Commenters also expressed plan consider the ability of existing and benefits to be gained by protecting key concern that the 120 days proposed for proposed sites to support air quality monitors that (for example) support Regional Administrator review and characterization for areas with relatively ongoing health studies or that are the approval/disapproval would result in high populations of susceptible basis for long-term trend analyses, or unnecessary delays. individuals (e.g., children with asthma), otherwise provide information that is The EPA notes the general support in and, for any sites that are being used by stakeholders other than the the comments for the public inspection proposed for discontinuance, the effect operating agency. As such, EPA has requirement. Commenters also on data users other than the agency retained this provision in this final rule. supported the flexibility in the proposed itself, such as nearby States and Tribes The EPA will work with States and rule which would allow monitoring or health effects studies. See 71 FR health organizations to explore options agencies to design and implement 2780. Several commenters noted that for tracking the status of key air quality appropriate ways of allowing this this requirement would be challenging sites. inspection. The EPA supports use of to implement and involves knowledge The EPA received many comments in monitoring agency Web sites for such of public health that may not be readily response to the proposed requirement postings, along with other means of available to monitoring organizations. In for a network assessment to be providing public notice including hard- addition, it was noted that, absent the completed every 5 years and to be copy posting in libraries and public availability of a centralized information submitted with the required annual offices. Although the public inspection clearinghouse, it would be difficult for network monitoring plan. Commenters requirement does not specifically States to be aware of all possible users acknowledged the overall value of a require States to obtain and respond to of data for health studies or other types more complete evaluation of monitoring received comments, such a process is of research. programs but expressed concern about encouraged with the subsequent This new element of the annual the resource burden in meeting the transmission of comments to the monitoring network plan highlights the requirement. appropriate EPA Regional Office for importance that EPA places on the Network assessments are a key tool to review. Therefore, EPA has modified consideration of sensitive populations help ensure that the right parameters are this final rule from the proposal to when evaluating the relative value and being measured in the right locations, specify that where the State has representativeness of monitoring sites, and that monitoring resources are used provided for a public comment process particularly for areas where one or more in the most effective and efficient and provided any comments received to NAAQS may be approached or manner to meet the needs of multiple EPA, and the posted plan has not been exceeded.10 The EPA acknowledges the stakeholders. Network assessments can substantially altered as a result of the potential challenge in obtaining help identify new data needs and public comments, the requirement for information about the distribution of associated technologies, find the Regional Administrator to obtain susceptible individuals in specific opportunities for consolidation of public comment by a separate process geographic areas around existing and individual sites into multi-pollutant can be waived. The 120 days allowed proposed sites, and has purposely sites, and identify geographic areas for Regional Administrator review of an defined the requirement as a where network coverage should be annual plan is a feature of the current ‘‘consideration’’ to provide significant increased or decreased based on monitoring rule, and has been kept in latitude for monitoring organizations to changes in population and/or emissions. this final rule. determine the complexity and depth of The EPA has already issued draft The EPA received many comments on their response. In recognition of the guidance to describe the possible the proposed requirement for the annual potential complexity of preparing techniques that States can use in monitoring network plan to contain cost assessments of susceptible populations developing their assessments, and has information. See 71 FR 2780. on a sub-county sized spatial scale as purposely limited the required elements Commenters were concerned that no represented by typical monitoring sites, to provide flexibility in the amount of details were provided regarding what in this final rule EPA has moved this resources that would be required. After consideration of the comments, EPA has information would be required and how requirement to become a required retained the network assessment the information would be used. The element of the 5-year network requirement in this final rule. In light of accounting difficulty in calculating such assessment rather than the annual the concerns raised about the resource cost information was also noted along monitoring network plan. with concerns regarding the With regard to the proposed provision requirements needed to complete administrative burden of preparing and requiring States to consider the effect on network assessments, the deadline for documenting the cost estimates. data users of proposed actions to the first required assessment under this The EPA has considered the proposed final rule has been delayed an requirement for cost information in the 10 See S. Rep. No. 91–1196. 91st Cong. 2d Sess. additional year to July 1, 2010. annual monitoring network plan and 10 (1970) (NAAQS is to be set to protect sensitive, The EPA is not adopting the proposed agrees that considerable effort would be at-risk population groups). requirement for a separate plan

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61249

establishing a network of PM10¥2.5 Commenters also noted the lack of be physically established no later than stations as an addendum to the annual currently available continuous FEM January 1, 2009 is not included in this monitoring network plan (see 71 FR PM10¥2.5 instruments and the final rule. However, by January 1, 2011, 2740, 2779) since the only required burdensome resource requirements States must implement the less PM10¥2.5 monitoring will take place as associated with daily sampling extensive monitoring for PM10¥2.5, part of the NCore multi-pollutant requirements using the proposed filter- including speciation sampling, as part stations, already covered by the based FRM. of the generally-applicable requirement proposed plan due July 1, 2009. The The proposed requirement for daily to operate NCore multipollutant EPA has added clarifying language to PM10¥2.5 sampling was based on a data monitoring stations by that date. A plan this final rule requiring Administrator quality objective system analysis that for the implementation of the required approval for the NCore plan due July 1, identified such a frequency as being a NCore multipollutant monitoring 2009 and subsequent annual monitoring key factor in reducing statistical stations, including site selection, is due network plan elements proposing uncertainty at concentrations near the July 1, 2009. modifications, consistent with the level of the proposed 24-hour PM10¥2.5 Little comment was received on the requirement for Administrator approval NAAQS. Since EPA is not finalizing a requirement for the NCore of NCore stations in section 3(a) of PM10¥2.5 NAAQS but instead is multipollutant sites to be physically appendix D. requiring a more limited set of PM10¥2.5 established no later than January 1, The proposed plan element monitors at NCore sites to support 2011, and that requirement remains supporting PM10¥2.5 suitability tests for objectives other than and (obviously) unchanged in this final rule as EPA NAAQS comparisons likewise is not not including NAAQS compliance, continues to believe that this is practical being adopted since EPA is not additional flexibility in sampling and desirable. finalizing the proposed PM ¥ frequency requirements is appropriate. 10 2.5 5. System Modifications NAAQS. Although daily sampling of PM10¥2.5 at The proposed prescriptive wording NCore sites remains a desirable In part, EPA started this rulemaking with reference to public hearings in the outcome, and will become a more based on the recognition by EPA and context of reviews of changes to practical goal with the advent of leaders of State and local monitoring violating PM2.5 monitors and/or continuous FEM monitors in several agencies that State/local monitoring community monitoring zones (71 FR years, EPA has reduced the PM10¥2.5 networks should be modified to reduce 2780) has been modified to specify that sampling frequency requirement in this some types of monitoring activity in draft plans containing such proposed final rule to 1-in-3 days. some areas and to begin new types of changes to PM2.5 networks must be The EPA proposed reducing the monitoring. The EPA proposed rule made available for public inspection sample frequency requirement for PM10 changes to revise the minimum required and comment by States prior to manual methods. Reducing the sample number of monitors for ozone (O3), submission to the EPA Regional frequency for PM10 was possible since PM2.5, lead (Pb), and PAMS pollutants Administrator but that States can design EPA had proposed to have daily and to eliminate altogether the the process for achieving such goals. sampling of PM10¥2.5 to support minimum number of required monitors protection from thoracic coarse for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur 3. Operating Schedules particles. As published elsewhere in dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide The EPA proposed that manual PM2.5 today’s Federal Register, EPA is (NO2) in order to utilize scarce resources monitors at SLAMS be required to retaining the 24-hour PM10 standard and more productively by allowing for operate on a 1-in-3 day sampling not finalizing a PM10¥2.5 standard. The reductions in the number of monitoring frequency, except under certain EPA is also only finalizing a limited sites where appropriate. See 71 FR 2729. conditions and when approved by the network of PM10¥2.5 monitors at multi- The EPA stated in the proposal that Regional Administrator. See 71 FR 2780. pollutant NCore stations for scientific the remaining requirements for the As discussed in section II.E.1 of the purposes. Therefore, since the existing minimum number of monitors for Pb, preamble to the final revisions to the requirement for PM10 sample frequency PM2.5, and O3 were intended to be PM NAAQS, published elsewhere in is for daily sampling for the site with necessary but not always sufficient to this Federal Register, commenters the expected maximum concentration in meet the requirements in section pointed out a potential bias in the each area, and previous assessments of 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) method used to calculate the 98th the 24-hour standard demonstrates that that State implementation plans (SIPs) percentile form of the 24-hour PM2.5 maximizing sample frequency will provide for operation of appropriate NAAQS. As explained there, to avoid minimize decision errors, EPA is systems to monitor, compile, and this potential bias, EPA is requiring retaining the existing daily sample analyze data on ambient air quality. daily sampling at design value sites that frequency requirement for the site with Similarly, although EPA believes that are within 5 percent of the 24-hour expected maximum concentration in one-size-fits-all rules for the number of NAAQS for PM2.5. each area. This existing requirement CO, SO2, and NO2 monitors are no The EPA proposed that manual also allows for other sites in the same longer appropriate in light of the rarity PM10¥2.5 samplers at SLAMS stations area to operate on a 1-in-6 day sample of NAAQS violations for those must operate on a daily schedule, frequency. Sample frequency relief is pollutants, EPA believes that some without a requirement for any possible for expected maximum monitoring should be continued in collocated continuously operated FEM concentration sites that are significantly many areas for these pollutants. ¥ PM10 2.5 samplers. See 71 FR 2780. away from the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS Accordingly, EPA proposed to continue Numerous commenters noted that a 1- and in seasons exempted by the to require States to propose changes in in-3 day sampling frequency was Regional Administrator. their monitoring networks, including acceptable for PM2.5 sites and said that discontinuation of monitors, and obtain the same sampling frequency for 4. Monitoring Network Completion for EPA approval before making changes, PM10¥2.5 and NCore Sites PM10¥2.5 would produce sufficient data even when the remaining minimum for comparison to the proposed 24-hour The proposed requirement for requirements, if any, for number of PM10¥2.5 NAAQS averaged over 3 years. specified numbers of PM10¥2.5 sites to monitors would still be met after the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61250 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

changes. The EPA approval would be final rule, govern only EPA’s monitoring objectives. The paragraphs given by the Regional Administrator, consideration of changes which below address two objectives that were usually through approval of the annual monitoring agencies seek to adopt. The most often mentioned by commenters. monitoring network plan, except for EPA recognizes that funding constraints Several commenters stated that changes involving NCore sites, PAMS may require agencies to discontinue ambient monitoring can serve as a sites, and PM2.5 speciation trends sites monitors that they otherwise would continuing check on the compliance of which would require Administrator operate, but this reinforces the need for a specific source, or sources in the approval. EPA review and the usefulness of aggregate, with applicable emissions While local situations need to be having criteria for discontinuance to limits. The EPA believes that given that considered individually, EPA proposed govern that review. factors such as wind direction, six criteria for approval of requests to A few commenters suggested that EPA dispersion conditions, and atmospheric discontinue monitors. See 71 FR 2749. include in the rule or provide via reactivity conditions can greatly To summarize, the six criteria guidance specific formulas or influence the relationship between addressed: (1) Any monitor which could calculation procedures regarding the emissions and ambient concentrations, be shown to have a low probability of estimation of the probability of a future situations are infrequent in which future violations; (2) a CO, PM10, SO2, NAAQS exceedance, which is the basis ambient monitoring is a critical, or the or NO2 monitor that has been reading of the first of the six proposed most important, element of source consistently lower than another monitor adjudicative criteria. The EPA intends compliance monitoring. Other EPA in the same area; (3) any highest reading to provide guidance on this matter in rules address requirements for direct monitor that has not indicated any the future, but we believe that binding emissions and compliance monitoring NAAQS violation in the previous 5 formulas or procedures in rule form for many types of sources. Ambient years and for which the approved SIP would preclude development of better monitoring agencies will have the provides for an alternative to continued general procedures and the sort of case- option of continuing to operate ambient monitoring; (4) any monitor which specific analysis of unique factors that monitors they feel are useful for this cannot be compared to a NAAQS is likely to be appropriate in some objective. because of siting considerations; (5) any situations. Some commenters stated that the monitor designed only to measure A number of commenters stated that ability to track trends in air quality and transport from upwind areas if another the six proposed criteria were overly assess whether those trends are transport monitor were replacing it; and focused on whether a monitor is consistent with trends expected from (6) any monitor for which logistical providing data for use in making the emission control program in general problems make continued operation at comparisons to the NAAQS for or from specific control measures (i.e., the current site impossible. Situations purposes of attainment/nonattainment accountability) could be impaired if too not addressed by these criteria would be findings, and that decisions to remove many existing monitors are removed. considered on a case-by-case basis. or retain a monitor should also The EPA believes that tracking trends is The EPA received a number of recognize the utility of the monitor in most important for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 comments on the proposed removal of satisfying other required monitoring because these are the NAAQS with more the minimum monitoring requirements objectives. Section 1 of the proposed than a few remaining nonattainment for some of the criteria pollutants, on appendix D of 40 CFR part 58 stated that areas. For these pollutants the revised the revision of the minimum numbers of air monitoring networks must be requirements in this final rule for monitors for other criteria pollutants, on designed to meet three monitoring minimum number of monitors, the new the six proposed criteria for objectives: (1) Providing air pollution requirement for NCore multipollutant discontinuing monitors, and on the data to the public; (2) supporting monitoring stations, and the interest of issue of discontinuing monitors more compliance with ambient air quality monitoring agencies in continuing these generally, mostly from State and local standards and emission strategy types of monitoring as indicated by the monitoring agency officials. This final development; and (3) supporting air comments themselves will, in EPA’s rule provisions on minimum numbers of pollution research studies. Some opinion, result in networks that are monitors for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and Pb are commenters pointed out that EPA has appropriately robust for tracking trends discussed in section V.E of this articulated in the draft National and assessing causal factors. The EPA preamble. Comments on the other parts Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy 11 believes that the availability of multiple of the proposal are addressed here. A seven objectives for the NCore collocated and time resolved few commenters specifically endorsed multipollutant monitoring stations measurements at NCore sites will be a all or part of these proposals, or at least (overlapping in part with the three major advantage in this work. the intention to facilitate reductions in objectives in section 1 of appendix D) The Response to Comments document unnecessary or duplicative monitoring and stated that single-pollutant stations available in the docket explains in more activities. Most commenters expressed should be considered to be part of an detail how the other objectives concern over the proposals. overall network to meet these objectives. mentioned by commenters are A number of commenters appear to The EPA agrees that these two sets of consistent with the six proposed have interpreted the proposals as overlapping objectives are important criteria. indicators of network reductions EPA and that monitors should not be Accordingly, this final rule mirrors intended to require monitoring agencies discontinued without regard to whether the proposals, with the following four to make, and expressed opposition to these objectives will continue to be met, exceptions: such reductions. The EPA clarifies here but EPA believes the proposed criteria, (1) In the first criterion, which as that EPA believes that proposals for along with other provisions regarding proposed would have allowed the network modifications should generally approval of annual monitoring network removal of a monitor for any criteria be initiated by the monitoring agency; plans and periodic network pollutant if it has shown attainment EPA does not intend to compel any assessments, protect the required over the last five years and has less than agency to remove any monitor. The a 10 percent probability of exceeding 80 proposals related to network 11 ‘‘Draft National Ambient Air Monitoring percent of the NAAQS over the next modifications, and the provisions in this Strategy,’’ December 2005. three years and if it is not specifically

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61251

required by the attainment plan or required under the accelerated deadline agencies. See 71 FR 2748. The following maintenance plan, this final rule also to be due by May 1, 2009, for data Air Quality System (AQS) reporting conditions the removal of the last collected in 2008. The EPA proposed requirements were proposed for remaining SLAMS monitor in a this change to provide opportunity for elimination: Maximum and minimum nonattainment or maintenance area on an earlier start and completion for ambient temperature, maximum and the attainment plan or maintenance nationwide designation actions, to minimum ambient pressure, flow rate plan not having any contingency provide States and the public with coefficient of variation, total sample measure triggered by air quality earlier design values in time for most volume, and elapsed sample time. AQS concentrations. If a plan does have such ozone seasons, and to support other data reporting requirements were retained for a trigger, a plan revision to remove that uses that could benefit from earlier data average ambient temperature and trigger would have to be adopted by the certification. average ambient pressure, and any State and approved by EPA. The EPA In response, some commenters applicable sampler flags. will address the requirements for such expressed reservations about the The EPA also proposed a requirement a revision at a future date. accelerated schedule as it applies to all for the submission of data on PM2.5 field (2) While the preamble described a submitted data, while others supported blank mass in addition to PM2.5 filter- sixth criterion for approval of State the proposal for continuous instruments based measurements. See 71 FR 2749. proposals to discontinue a monitor, that collect and report hourly data but Field blanks are filters which are having to do with logistical problems at not for data requiring lab analysis for handled in the field as much as possible a current site, the proposed rule text samples collected in the field. These like actual filters except that ambient air inadvertently omitted this criterion. commenters were concerned about the is not pumped through them, to help This final rule includes it. feasibility and cost of meeting an quantify contamination and sampling (3) The second and third criteria have accelerated schedule. The EPA notes artifacts. This requirement only applies been slightly revised to make them that some States have recently provided to field blanks which States are already applicable also to the lower reading certifications for filter-based data ahead taking into the field and weighing monitor of a pair that are in the same not only of the July 1 deadline, but also through their laboratory procedures. attainment area and county, and not just of the proposed May 1 deadline, when Commenters supported the proposed to the lowest reading monitor of a pair such certifications were deemed changes to data submittal requirements that are in the same nonattainment area advantageous by the States for data uses and they are being finalized without or maintenance area. A commenter such as PM2.5 nonattainment modification. The requirement for pointed out the need for this revision to designations. This suggests that all reporting of field blank mass data begins achieve the obvious intention of the States could be capable of certifying with filters collected on or after January proposal. data by the proposed May 1 deadline, if 1, 2007. (4) The third proposed criterion, not earlier, if they invest in needed 8. Special Purpose Monitors worded to apply only to ‘‘the highest improvements in information reading monitor * * * in a county,’’ technology or efficiencies in The January 17, 2006 proposal required that a described monitor could administrative procedures. Therefore, included a background explanation of be removed only if the approved SIP this final rule includes the proposed the historical distinctions between provided for a specific, reproducible May 1 deadline. In recognition of the regular air monitors and special purpose approach to representing the air quality time necessary for States to adjust to the monitors (SPMs) with respect to of the affected county in the absence of accelerated certification requirement, monitoring objectives, siting actions, actual monitoring data. While EPA the implementation date has been quality assurance, and use of data. See intended the highest reading monitor to delayed 1 year, until May 1, 2010, for 71 FR 2745. The EPA proposed a be addressed in this third criterion, EPA data collected in 2009. revision of the definition of SPM, to the did not intend to preclude the One commenter questioned the types effect that any SPM must be in excess possibility that a lower reading monitor of annual summary reports that would of the required minimum number of ineligible for removal under the first required to be submitted with the data monitors and that designation of a two criteria could be addressed also. certification letter, finding the proposed monitor as an SPM be made by the This final rule revises the criterion to requirements of 40 CFR 58.15(b) State. The EPA also proposed that States encompass any monitor not eligible for unclear. The EPA notes that different would continue to be able to choose to removal under the first two criteria reports were mentioned in the proposal start and stop SPMs at will, without where applicable. to clarify the difference between SLAMS needing EPA approval and that States be and SPM monitors (only FRM, FEM, required to submit all data from SPMs 6. Annual Air Monitoring Data and ARM SPM monitors are required to to the AQS operated by EPA. In Certification be certified) and to ensure that annual addition, EPA proposed that States The EPA proposed a shorter summary reports are provided for both follow 40 CFR part 58 appendix A timeframe for States to submit the types of monitors. Providing one annual quality assurance requirements for any annual letter certifying ambient summary report for certification of both SPM that utilizes a FRM, FEM, or ARM concentration and quality assurance SLAMS and SPM data is appropriate. instrument and which is sited data to the Administrator. See 71 FR An additional report providing a consistently with the requirements of 2749. Under current requirements, summary of precision and accuracy data appendix E (which does not apply to States have until July 1 to certify data is necessary to demonstrate that SPMs on a mandatory basis). The from January 1 to December 31 of the applicable monitors meet appendix A existing rule provides that States follow previous year. For data collected in criteria. these requirements only if the data from 2006, for example, the annual the SPM are intended by the State for certification letter is due no later than 7. Data Submittal use in attainment/nonattainment July 1, 2007. Under the proposed The EPA proposed to reduce the data determinations. requirement, the schedule for reporting requirements associated with The EPA also proposed that data from certification would be moved up 60 PM2.5 FRMs to ease the data the first 2 years of operation of a SPM days, with the data certification letter management burden for monitoring (even if using a FRM, FEM, or ARM

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61252 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

instrument and meeting appendix A and appendix A, if the SPM is a FRM, FEM, monitoring that could benefit air quality E requirements) would not be used by or ARM. All other commenters on this management. EPA in attainment/nonattainment issue contended that States should be In the proposal preamble (71 FR 2745, findings for PM2.5 or O3 if the monitor allowed more flexibility. Most of these January 17, 2006), EPA stated that it stopped operating by the end of those 2 commenters agreed that regular quality understood and to some degree years. See 71 FR 2745. For CO, SO2, assurance practices were desirable sympathized with the thrust of very NO2, Pb, and the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, generally, but stated that practical similar input EPA had received during EPA proposed that data from the first 2 difficulties can arise at a specific SPM the development of the proposed rule, years of operation of a SPM would not site, such that requiring regular quality but that EPA believed that under the be used by EPA for nonattainment assurance practices would effectively CAA EPA may not legally ignore redesignations but that such data would mean that the SPM could not be legally technically valid data from FRM and be considered when determining operated at all and the useful data it FEM (and by implication and logical whether a nonattainment area had could have provided would be lost to extension ARM) monitors when making attained the NAAQS. The reasons for users. attainment or nonattainment this distinction by pollutant had to do After considering these comments, determinations. The comments have not with differences in the form of the EPA continues to believe that regular provided EPA with any reason to respective NAAQS and whether the quality assurance practices are practical change this view of our legal obligation. EPA action in question is mandatory or and of reasonable cost and feasibility in There are only two situations where discretionary. These reasons were nearly all situations, as shown by EPA would not have to consider such explained in detail in the preamble to successful adherence to these practices data. One situation is when the data the proposal. Finally, EPA proposed at thousands of regular monitoring would be insufficient for making a that currently operating monitors not stations. They are appropriate in most finding because it is of insufficient already designated as SPMs could not cases and should be the presumptive duration given the averaging period or be designated as SPMs after January 1, requirement. As proposed, this final form of the relevant NAAQS. This was 2007. rule provides for a transition period by the basis for the proposal concerning The EPA received many comments on delaying this requirement until January PM2.5 and O3 for which the form of the these issues, mostly from State and local 1, 2009. However, EPA recognizes that NAAQS requires 3 years of data. air monitoring officials but also from unusual situations may exist in which The other situation is when EPA has two industry groups. No commenter exceptions should be allowed. For the discretion to simply not make a objected to the flexibility States have to example, a State, perhaps with EPA finding or to take an action, for example start and stop SPMs. That flexibility is encouragement, might operate an by taking no action to redesignate an retained in this final rule. automated O3 monitor year-round but area to nonattainment even though a Some commenters pointed out an have difficulty getting personnel and SPM indicates a new violation of a ambiguity in the proposed requirement equipment to the site regularly in winter NAAQS subsequent to the area’s initial that data from SPMs be submitted to due to road conditions. This final rule designation as attainment. This was the AQS. The EPA intended, but did not allows the Regional Administrator to basis for the proposal concerning the clearly state in the proposal, that this approve other appropriate quality CO, SO2, NO2, Pb, and PM10 NAAQS. requirement apply only to SPMs that are assurance practices if the requirements Unlike the PM2.5 and O3 NAAQS, the FRMs, FEMs, or ARMs and that are of 40 CFR part 58 appendix A would be NAAQS for these pollutants have forms operated consistently with the physically and/or financially that allow a nonattainment finding requirements of 40 CFR 58.11 (network impractical due to physical conditions based on only 1 or 2 years of data, either technical requirements), 40 CFR 58.12 at the monitoring site and the quality because the NAAQS is explicitly based (operating schedule), and part 58, assurance practices are not essential to on only one year of data or because a appendix A (quality assurance achieving the intended data objectives. single year of data may include so many requirements). These would be the This approval can be given separately, exceedances that it is certain that the SPMs that produce data that will be of or as part of the approval of the annual average number of expected most interest to EPA and the public, monitoring plan. Approval of alternative exceedances over three years will be because except for possible quality assurance practices for all or greater than one. However, for these inconsistencies with the siting part of the year does not qualify the other NAAQS, EPA does not have a requirements of appendix E to part 58, affected data from an affected SPM for mandatory duty to make nonattainment these are the type of data which can be comparison to the relevant NAAQS. redesignations until such time as the compared to the respective NAAQS. Most of the comments received on the NAAQS are revised. In the absence of This final rule provides this SPM proposals addressed the either a NAAQS revision or a State clarification. application of SPM data to attainment/ request for redesignation, the One commenter suggested that the nonattainment findings and Administrator has discretion in specific reference to the AQS data designations. One citizen supported the determining whether to redesignate an system be made more general, to proposal. About 20 commenters argued area based on data from a SPM which provide for the development and use of for a general, indefinitely long has operated for two years or less. The other suitable data submission systems prohibition on the use of data from EPA does regard air quality violations in the future. This comment is relevant SPMs for nonattainment findings and seriously, and does expect States to take to all monitoring data, not just data from designations, for States to have a way of actions to reduce air quality to healthy SPMs. This final rule retains references blocking EPA from using particular SPM levels in any areas that are experiencing to AQS. If AQS is replaced or data indefinitely, or for States to be able violations. However, EPA recognizes supplemented with approved to negotiate in advance with EPA for that there are other ways to address alternatives in the future, terminology particular SPM data to not be used. such violations besides redesignating an can be updated at that time. Those commenters who explained their area as nonattainment. For example, One State official supported the position generally stated that the risk of EPA can work directly with a State and proposal that SPMs be subject to the a nonattainment finding would nearby industries to take appropriate regular quality requirements of discourage voluntary special purpose actions to reduce emissions that are

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61253

contributing to the violation. The EPA part 58 of the 1997 rule), 12 a SPM that comparable to the respective NAAQS has worked in this way with States in is not population-oriented may not be under existing rules and EPA policies. the past. In the case of PM10, EPA stated used in comparisons to the PM2.5 See 71 FR 2719–20. The EPA also in section VII.B of the preamble to the NAAQS; this may be the situation in proposed to relocate one of the NAAQS rule (printed in today’s Federal some studies focusing on near-source provisions mentioned in the discussion, Register) that because EPA is retaining impacts as well as in some studies of proposing to move pre-existing PM2.5 the current 24-hour PM10 standards, transport of air pollution from rural rule language currently found in section new nonattainment designations for upwind areas. If the Regional 2.8.1.2.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR 58.30 PM10 will not be required under the Administrator has approved alternative of subpart D without substantive provisions of the Clean Air Act. quality assurance practices in place of change. This relocation would provide a With respect to the second situation, the requirements of appendix A, the more prominent rule location for applicable to the CO, SO2, NO2, Pb, and data from the affected SPM are not monitoring requirements detailing the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, EPA believes it eligible for comparison to the relevant comparability of ambient data to the could have extended the proposed 2- NAAQS. PM2.5 NAAQS. See 71 FR 2782. One year exclusion from use of SPM data in In reviewing comments about SPMs, commenter objected, not to this making nonattainment findings to a EPA noticed that the proposed rule text proposed rearrangement of rule longer period. However, such a for 40 CFR 58.11(d) implied that all language, but rather to the underlying provision could exclude more data than SPMs using FRM, FEM, or ARM existing (1997) requirement that PM2.5 appropriate and could prevent methods must meet appendix E siting sites must be population-oriented to be consideration of violations in making requirements. This was not our comparable to the PM2.5 NAAQS. This nonattainment decisions even when a intention, as the study objective for a commenter stated that EPA had failed to SPM monitor has shown violations over SPM may require it to be located justify any benchmark for defining an 3 or more years. The EPA believes that inconsistently with appendix E area as population-oriented. Another in some and perhaps many situations requirements. The implied restriction in commenter challenged whether EPA like this, it would be good policy to 40 CFR 58.11(d) as proposed conflicted had provided an adequate public health avoid a nonattainment designation and with an explicit statement to the basis for this provision. to find other less prescriptive contrary in 40 CFR 58.20(b) as The EPA considers these comments to approaches to reducing risk to public proposed. Removing this implication is be outside the scope of the proposal. health. EPA also believes, however, that certainly in keeping with the sense of EPA noted in the preamble to the it could be appropriate to base a most SPM-related comments, which monitoring proposal that some existing nonattainment designation on such data supported flexibility for States to regulatory language was being reprinted in some other cases, where a operate SPMs as they choose. The without change and that such reprinting nonattainment designation is the promulgated version of 40 CFR 58.11(d) was done solely for the readers’ appropriate way to deal with a long- is drafted so as to remove this implied convenience to aid in viewing the term nonattainment problem. Since restriction. Data from a SPM not sited proposal in a single context (71 FR under the final rule EPA still has the consistently with appendix E are not 2712). EPA also stated that all of the discretion not to make nonattainment eligible for comparison to the respective background description of existing redesignations based on three more NAAQS, unless the State has requested regulatory provisions—including the years of data if EPA so chooses, EPA and EPA has approved a waiver of these provision the commenters challenged— concludes the appropriate approach is criteria. was presented not to reexamine any of not to universally extend the exclusion In the course of considering all the the background provisions but rather and rather rely on the Administrator’s public comments on SPMs, EPA ‘‘to facilitate informed public comment’’ discretion to redesignate areas only in realized that the proposed restriction on on certain aspects of the proposal other appropriate cases. designating pre-existing SLAMS than these background provisions. This final rule follows the proposed monitors as SPMs after January 1, 2007 These other provisions were approach for use of data from SPMs. would have the effect of preventing a ‘‘requirements for the proposed The EPA would like to emphasize, State from switching a monitor to SPM PM10¥2.5 NAAQS’’, ‘‘provisions for however, that States and other parties status even if EPA had approved the special purpose monitors’’, provisions will have practical ways of obtaining outright removal of that monitor under ‘‘related to the required spacing between useful information using SPMs without other provisions. This could be counter- ozone monitors and roadways’’, and risk of a nonattainment redesignation. In productive. This final rule provides that ‘‘certain quality assurance many situations, the potential problem if EPA has approved the discontinuation requirements’’ (71 FR at 2719). EPA thus to be investigated, or the place under of a SLAMS monitor, the State may did not seek comment on, reconsider, or investigation, is such that a FRM, FEM, choose to retain the monitor and otherwise reopen the pre-existing or ARM instrument meeting the siting redesignate it to be a SPM. Such a provision regarding population-oriented requirements of 40 CFR part 58, PM monitors (or any of the other monitor could be removed later without 2.5 appendix E is not the only suitable provisions recited in the background further EPA approval. measurement system, and may not even section). The EPA notes, however, that be a preferred way to measure. For 9. Special Considerations for Data the pre-existing rule and this final rule example, there are many commercially Comparisons to the National Ambient do provide the same definition of available PM2.5 monitors that lack FRM, Air Quality Standards population-oriented, in 40 CFR 58.1 FEM, or ARM status that nevertheless By way of background, the preamble Definitions, which while not quantified would be suitable for an initial study of to the proposed monitoring rule in terms of population affected has PM2.5 concentrations in an unmonitored provided an explanation of when and served to guide PM2.5 monitor area of interest. In some other cases, 2 how monitoring data are considered placement and interpretation of years may be sufficient to achieve the monitoring data since 1997. study objectives. Finally, under the 12 EPA is recodifying this provision in section The most controversial portion of this 1997 rule (see statement at 71 FR 2719 58.30 of the final monitoring rule, but is not part of the proposal dealt with issues and section 2.8.1.2.3 of appendix D to reconsidering or otherwise reevaluating it. pertaining to the proposed NAAQS for

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61254 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

PM10¥2.5. The EPA proposed a new five- help determine and ensure data quality for example, the data quality necessary part suitability test for the comparison comparability across individual for EPA or a monitoring organization to of PM10¥2.5 data to the proposed monitoring programs. make data comparisons against the qualified PM10¥2.5 indicator. This test The EPA received some comments NAAQS. The DQOs help to establish the included an urbanized area population expressing concerns about the funding requirements for the data quality criterion, a block group population of the quality system. Funding issues indicators of precision, bias, density criterion, a requirement for sites are addressed in section III.E of this completeness, and detectability and the to be population oriented, an exclusion preamble. Substantive and procedural rationale for the acceptance criteria for for source-influenced microscale sites, issues are addressed here. these indicators. The EPA received a and a site-specific assessment to insure 1. General Quality Assurance number of endorsements on this that data were dominated by certain Requirements approach and did not receive negative sources of concern. See 71 FR 2736– comments. This final rule matches the 2738. The EPA received extensive The EPA proposed to revise or proposed rule. comment on the proposed PM10¥2.5 include a number of general QA 2. Specific Requirements for PM ¥ qualified indicator and on the proposed provisions that would serve to 10 2.5, PM2.5, PM10 and Total Suspended PM ¥ NAAQS five-part site- consolidate information and to ensure 10 2.5 Particulates suitability test. These issues are now conformance to the QA requirements moot since EPA is not adopting a specified in EPA Order 5360.1 A2. The EPA proposed to revise some of The EPA proposed to consolidate the NAAQS using a PM10¥2.5 indicator. See the PM2.5 and PM10 QA requirements in also section III.C of the preamble to the QA requirements for SLAMS and PSD an attempt to provide consistency in final rule adopting revisions to the PM stations from two separate appendices, implementation and assessment. Since NAAQS which explains why EPA did 40 CFR part 58, appendices A and B, PM10¥2.5 monitoring was proposed to be not adopt the proposed qualified into one single appendix A because both required, EPA included similar QA indicator for thoracic coarse particles programs have similar QA requirements. requirements for this monitoring. These and why the proposed monitoring See 71 FR 2725. The EPA received only requirements included the suitability criteria proved to be endorsements on the proposed implementation of flow rate audits inappropriate. consolidation and therefore this final conducted by the monitoring rule consolidates these appendices. organization, collocated monitoring, and C. Appendix A—Quality Assurance The EPA proposed to revise the part performance evaluations. Requirements for State and Local Air 58 appendix A to conform to the current The EPA proposed to make all the Monitoring Stations and Prevention of EPA Quality Assurance Policies in EPA requirements for flow rate verifications Significant Deterioration Air Monitoring Order 5360.1 A2 which requires and audits consistent among the A quality system provides a agencies that accept Federal grant PM10¥2.5, PM2.5, and PM10 methods. See framework for planning, implementing funding for their air monitoring 71 FR 2728. This requirement would and assessing work performed by an programs to have a QA program with have increased the audit frequency for organization and for carrying out certain elements including quality PM10 monitoring and decreased the required quality assurance (QA) and management plans (QMPs), quality audit frequency for PM2.5 monitoring. quality control (QC) activities. The assurance project plans (QAPPs), and Most commenters endorsed the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part the identification of a QA management proposed approach but a few 58, appendix A were intended to function. EPA received three sets of commenters voiced concerns regarding provide the requirements necessary to comments endorsing the revision and the increased frequency for high-volume develop quality systems for monitoring received one comment expressing samplers for PM10 and total suspended the pollutants of SO2, NO2, O3, CO, concern about the identification of the particulates (TSP) which operate PM2.5, PM10 and PM10¥2.5 at SLAMS QA manager function. See 71 FR 2725. somewhat differently and are not as stations including NCore stations, The proposed regulation would not easy to audit. The EPA reviewed the PAMS, and Prevention of Significant have required that monitoring comments and revised the flowrate Deterioration (PSD) networks, and SPM organizations identify a QA manager but verification requirement from monthly stations using FRM, FEM, or ARM would have required that they provide to quarterly for the hi-volume manual monitors. The proposed revisions for a QA management function, which instruments sampling for PM10 and TSP addressed responsibilities for provides for independent oversight of only. implementing the quality system for the ambient air monitoring quality The EPA proposed to revise the EPA and monitoring organizations. system. The EPA feels that the proposed sampling frequency for the They also addressed adherence to EPA’s language captures the essence of the implementation of the PM2.5 QA policy, DQOs, and the minimum QC requirements in EPA Order 5360.1A2, Performance Evaluation Program (PEP). requirements and performance while accommodating the diverse See 71 FR 2726. This proposed evaluations needed to assess the data nature of the ambient air monitoring approach, based on historical PM2.5 quality indicators of precision, bias, community which is made up of large precision and bias data, identified the detectability, and completeness. In and small (local and Tribal) minimum number of performance addition, the proposed amendments organizations. Consistent with the evaluations required for all primary described the required frequency of the majority of positive feedback, and the quality assurance organizations to QC requirements and performance need for conformance to the EPA Order, provide an adequate assessment of bias, evaluations, the data to be collected, this final rule matches the proposed rule rather than the current requirement that and the statistical calculations for on this point. a uniform 25 percent of monitors in a estimates of the data quality indicators The EPA proposed to revise the QA primary quality assurance organization at various levels of aggregation. The program by emphasizing the DQO be evaluated each year. The revision revised statistical calculations would be process. See 71 FR 2725. A DQO is a would establish a suitable sampling used to determine attainment of the qualitative and quantitative statement frequency of five valid audits a year for DQOs. The proposed amendments also that defines the appropriate quality of organizations with less than or equal to addressed required auditing programs to data needed for a particular decision— five monitoring sites and eight valid

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61255

audits a year for those organizations sample size, lowering the concentration provide a distribution of collocation with greater than five monitoring sites. values tends to tighten or lower the across the United States, EPA will The majority of commenters approved confidence limits because more data require, at a minimum, one collocated of the PEP reduction frequency. A few points are available in the sample and site in each EPA Region. The Regional commenters suggested that some therefore offsets any greater variability Administrator shall select the sites for primary quality assurance organizations that might be associated with lower collocation. The site selection process do not need to be audited and said PEP concentrations. Therefore this final rule will also consider selecting States with audits should only focus on those matches the proposed rule. more than one PM10¥2.5 site to have one producing inferior results. The EPA Based upon the decision that there is or two of the required collocations and will aim for an appropriate distribution disagrees with this comment and no need to implement a PM10¥2.5 believes that because the PEP program monitoring program broad enough to among rural and urban sites. needs to provide a periodic estimate of systematically determine attainment/ For the PEP, this final rule departs from the proposal by requiring only one bias for each primary quality assurance nonattainment with a PM10¥2.5 NAAQS, organization, the program must be EPA has modified the proposed PEP audit at one PM10¥2.5 site in each primary quality assurance organization implemented at each primary quality PM10¥2.5 collocation precision assurance organization. requirement and the Performance each year. The proposed rule would There was also a comment suggesting Evaluation Program (PEP) requirements have required five or eight PEP audits further reductions to the auditing in this final rule. See 71 FR 2726. The for PM10¥2.5 in each organization. See 71 FR 2787, 2788. Since the PEP is frequency or requiring the same number proposed quality system for PM ¥ 10 2.5 already being run, at present, for the of audits over a longer period of time. was developed for NAAQS comparison PM network and it is expected that The proposed audit cycle is based on 3 purposes and would have provided 2.5 the PM ¥ FRMs will utilize the same years since that is how many years of reliable precision and bias estimates at 10 2.5 FRMs as the PM samplers, the PEP data are collected for comparison the the primary quality assurance 2.5 audit for the PM ¥ site can count PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, the audit organization level of aggregation. 10 2.5 towards the required number of PEP cycle frequency was based on the However, EPA is not adopting a NAAQS audits for PM2.5 sites. It will be number of audit values needed to using a PM ¥ indicator at this time, 10 2.5 necessary to place a PM PEP sampler provide EPA the confidence in our bias so EPA is now requiring a network of 10c at the NCore site also but, this estimates at the primary quality PM ¥ monitors only at NCore 10 2.5 incremental requirement will not be a assurance organization over a 3 year stations. The goal of these monitors will period. Therefore, this final rule significant additional resource burden. be to improve our understanding of When and if FEMs are implemented at matches the proposed rule. PM10¥2.5, support health studies for some PM ¥ sites, the PEP audit will The EPA proposed to reduce the future reviews of the NAAQS, and 10 2.5 lower ends of concentration limits for be an additional audit at those promote improvements in the particular sites and will require which collocated data can be used to monitoring technology. States may provide precision estimates. See 71 FR additional resources for auditing. choose to operate additional PM10¥2.5 The incremental cost of placing and 2727. The lower ends of concentration monitors. With this in mind, the quality operating PM10¥2.5 samplers for limits would be reduced from 6 system need not be focused on the data µ 3 purposes of tracking precision will also micrograms per cubic meter ( /m ) to 3 quality assessments at the primary µ 3 be minor in most cases. Many of the /m for PM2.5 and PM10c (low-volume quality assurance organization level of µ 3 µ 3 primary quality assurance organizations samplers) and from 20 /m to 15 /m aggregation but rather can and should be for PM (high-volume samplers). that will implement the PM10¥2.5 10 focused on understanding and monitor at NCore sites are required to Statistical evaluation of 3 years of PM2.5 controlling the data quality of each of implement PM2.5 and PM10 networks. and PM10 data revealed comparable the methods used to collect PM10¥2.5. ¥ estimates of precision using data from Some or most of the initial PM10 2.5 Also, since it is now anticipated that a deployments will be with manual FRM both of these reduced concentration primary quality assurance organization ranges, and also revealed that the instruments, similar to the instruments would have very few PM10¥2.5 sites, the addition of the data at these lower used in the PM2.5 networks and to some proposal, if adopted without change, of the instruments used in the PM ranges will increase the level of 10 would have required almost every networks. The EPA will allow confidence in the precision estimates. NCore site to have a collocated second collocated PM ¥ monitors to be The majority of commenters endorsed 10 2.5 PM10¥2.5 monitor, and the proposal included in the primary quality the approach but there were a few would not provide for assessment of assurance organization’s count for commenters who were concerned that FEM precision even if FEMs are required PM and PM collocation. In the lower concentrations, based on the 2.5 10 approved and deployed in place of some most cases, the primary quality statistics used to estimate precision, or most FRMs since as proposed the first assurance organization’s collocation might lead to greater imprecision collocation requirement of an FEM in a requirements for FRMs will not increase estimates. The evaluation that EPA primary quality assurance organization overall, since it is not anticipated that made with the data from these lower would always be with a FRM. To avoid any one primary quality assurance concentrations included did not show these undesirable outcomes, this final organization will have many additional any major increase in imprecision rule requires fewer collocated samplers PM ¥ sites that are not already both compared to omitting those data.13 10 2.5 than the proposal would have. Under PM2.5 and PM10 sites. The only Since EPA has proposed the use of this final rule, EPA will ensure that restriction to this aggregated collocation target upper confidence limits for collocated sampling for estimating count will be for monitoring statistical assessments and an upper precision be implemented at 15 percent organizations that are operating high- confidence limit is influenced by of FRMs (all FRMs aggregated) and 15 volume PM10 samplers. Since the PM10c percent of the FEMs of each method monitor in a PM10¥2.5 FRM will be a 13 ‘‘Proposal to Change PM2.5 and PM10 Collocation Sampling Frequency Requriements,’’ designation. The number of collocated low-volume sampler, PM10 high-volume Mike Papp and Louise Camalier; November 2005. sites would thus be based on the size of and PM10 low-volume samplers cannot http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmgainf.html. the final PM10¥2.5 network. In order to be aggregated together in the collocation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61256 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

count and at least one collocated Monitoring organizations that choose three monitoring organizations (besides monitor must be identified for each type to comply with the revised provisions of the one already implementing NPAP) within primary quality assurance appendix A to 40 CFR part 58 regarding opted to implement the NPAP and three organization. Therefore, it is expected performance evaluations by relying on monitoring organizations (besides the that the 15 percent collocation EPA audits, for PM2.5, PM10¥2.5, and/or two already implementing PEP) opted to requirement for PM10¥2.5 FRMs will not other NAAQS pollutants, would be implement the PEP. The EPA believes it actually increase the overall collocation required to agree that EPA hold back has the capability to ensure these State burden at the majority of the primary part of the grant funds they would will implement programs will produce quality assurance organizations beyond otherwise receive directly. These funds data of a quality comparable to the what they would have been required to would be used by EPA to hire Federally implemented program. implement for their PM10 and PM2.5 contractors to perform the audits and to The EPA also received comments networks. purchase expendable supplies. To stating concerns about the stringency of For any FEMs that might be used at ensure national consistency and the definition of adequate and PM10¥2.5 sites, EPA will require 15 effective audits, EPA included independent. Adequacy refers to the percent collocation of each method provisions to ensure certification of data number of audits administered at any designation or at least two collocations comparability for audit services not primary quality assurance organization within each method designation. The provided by EPA and for traceability of and the technical procedures used in EPA will require two collocations in gases and other audit standards to the audits. This final rule does not order to collocate one FEM instrument national standards maintained by the require any additional adequacy with the same method designation to National Institute for Standards and requirements above and beyond what provide estimates of within method Technology. EPA currently implements for the precision and collocate a second with The EPA received a broad range of federally implemented program. The an FRM to provide for an estimate of comments on this proposed revision. EPA evaluates data quality at the bias. These collocations would not The EPA received a few comments in aggregation called ‘‘reporting necessarily need to be at separate support of these programs and one organization’’ (which was changed to monitoring sites. commenter felt that the PEP audits ‘‘primary quality assurance should be increased. In general, the organization’’ in the proposal). The EPA 3. Particulate Matter Performance comments expressing concern with the feels that it needs to collect enough data Evaluation Program and National proposed language did not suggest that to be able to judge data quality within Performance Audit Programs these programs were not necessary but each primary quality assurance The EPA proposed to revise the were concerned about some technical organization over the same period that current regulatory requirements dealing aspects of the programs or with funding it uses the data for comparison to the with responsibilities for independent implications. Funding issues are NAAQS (3 years). assessments of monitoring system addressed in section III.E of this In the case of the PEP for PM2.5, performance. See 71 FR 2726. These preamble. today’s action requires five audits per evaluations are the subject of sections The EPA received a number of year for organizations with five or fewer 2.4 and 3.5.3.1 of the existing (1997) comments expressing concerns that sites and eight audits for those appendix A to 40 CFR part 58. Section allowing the monitoring agencies to organizations with greater than five 2.4 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 58 implement the audit programs sites, the same as proposed. The number applied to all NAAQS pollutants and themselves or through third parties of audits aggregated over three years section 3.5.3.1 applied only to PM2.5. would increase the variability in the provides a reasonable estimate of bias at The EPA proposed to revise the text performance evaluation data. Since one a primary quality assurance of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A to cover of the major goals in the historically organization within an acceptable level PM10¥2.5 and also to clarify that it is the centralized and federally implemented of confidence. For the NPAP program responsibility of each monitoring PEP and NPAP programs has been the addressing NAAQS for CO, SO2, Pb, and organization to make arrangements for, evaluation of data comparability, EPA is NO2, the goal is to perform audits on and to provide any necessary funding also concerned about any additional about 20 percent of the sites each year, for, the conduct of adequate variability and its effect on data but since there may be a number of high independent performance evaluations of comparability. It has been EPA’s priority sites within a primary quality all its FRM or FEM criteria pollutant practice with regard to any State which assurance organization that should be monitors. The proposed language also already performs these audits to perform audited more often, it is anticipated that clearly indicates that it is the side-by-side comparisons of EPA’s NPAP might audit each site within a monitoring organization’s choice equipment and procedures and the primary quality assurance organization whether to obtain its independent State’s procedures to ensure both are over about 7 to 8 years. This 20 percent performance evaluations through EPA’s producing results of acceptable quality. goal is the current EPA practice, but was National Performance Audit Program The EPA has successfully performed not proposed to be required by rule and, (NPAP) and PM2.5 PEP programs, or these comparisons with the California therefore, does not appear in this final from some other independent Air Resources Board’s audit system. rule. organization. An independent These comparisons will be expanded to There were a few comments organization could be another unit of include any additional States which suggesting that some primary quality the same agency that is sufficiently choose to perform audits themselves or assurance organizations do not need to separated in terms of organizational through third parties, rather than ask be audited and that EPA mandatory reporting and which can provide for EPA to do so. During the comment audits for CO, SO2, Pb, and NO2 should independent filter weighing and period, EPA asked the monitoring only focus on those organizations performance evaluation auditing. The organizations whether or not, assuming producing inferior results. The EPA proposed approach would ensure that finalization of the proposed rule continues to believe that it is important adequate and independent audits are changes, they would continue to use the to develop an estimate of bias for each performed and would provide flexibility federally implemented program or primary quality assurance organization. in the implementation approach. perform the audits itself. For 2007, only To do this, the audit program must be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61257

implemented at each primary quality appendix A (with the exception of to use these older technologies. The assurance organization. The NPAP PM2.5) combine precision and bias EPA received only comments endorsing audits using a through-the-probe together into a probability limit at the the removal of the manual audit checks. approach, which is generally not how primary quality assurance organization Therefore, this final rule matches the audits are performed by the primary level of aggregation. Since the standard proposed rule. quality assurance organizations EPA DQO process uses separate The EPA proposed to change the themselves. By auditing some stations estimates of precision and bias, EPA concentration ranges for QC checks and within a primary quality assurance examined separated assessment annual audit concentrations. The one- organization each year using the methods that were statistically point QC check concentration ranges for through-the-probe approach, the NPAP reasonable and simple. the gaseous pollutants SO2, NO2, O3, can identify problems which the For SO2, NO2, CO, and O3, EPA and CO were expanded to include lower organization may not be aware of on its proposed to estimate precision and bias concentrations. Lower audit ranges were own. Also, EPA continues to believe on confidence intervals at the site level added to concentration ranges for the that it is necessary to provide an of data aggregation rather than the annual audits. Adding or expanding the adequate assessment of data primary quality assurance organization. required range to lower concentration comparability of all primary quality Estimates at the site level can be ranges was appropriate due to the lower assurance organizations every year. accomplished with the automated measured concentrations at many There were also comments concerning methods for SO2, NO2, CO, and O3 monitoring sites as well as the potential the requirement to use independent because there is sufficient QC for NCore stations to monitor areas filter weighing laboratories for the information collected at the site level to where concentrations are at trace ranges. implementation of the PEP. When EPA perform adequate assessments. In addition, EPA proposed that the first implemented the PEP program, The precision and bias statistics for selection of QC check gas concentration EPA established two independent PM measurements (PM10, PM10¥2.5 and must reflect the routine concentrations laboratories to weigh filters for the PEP PM2.5) are generated at a primary quality normally measured at sites within the audits. Due to program efficiencies, EPA assurance organization level because, monitoring network in order to is now using one filter weighing unlike the gaseous pollutants, due to appropriately estimate the precision and laboratory. If primary quality assurance costs only a percentage of the sites have bias at these routine concentration organizations implement the PEP precision and bias checks performed in ranges. The majority of the comments themselves, they should not be able to any year and only a few times per year. EPA received on this proposal were utilize the same laboratory in which As with the gaseous pollutants, the positive but EPA received comments they weigh their routine sampler filters statistics would use the confidence limit that asked for more guidance on how a since any bias or contamination that approach. Using a consistent set of monitoring organization would choose might occur at the routine lab will also statistics simplifies the procedures. the appropriate audit ranges. The EPA be ‘‘passed on’’ to the PEP filter. The EPA also proposed to change the would like to provide as much Because the PEP provides an estimate of precision and bias statistics for Pb to flexibility as possible for the monitoring bias (systematic error), it is necessary to provide a framework for developing and organization to use their local avoid having a systematic bias occurring assessing a DQO. See 71 FR 2727. The knowledge of their monitoring sites to in the routine filter weighing lab affect QC checks for Pb come in three forms: choose their audit concentration ranges. both the PEP filters and the routine Flow rate audits, Pb audit strips, and Accordingly, in this final rule, section filters. Primary quality assurance collocation. The EPA proposed to 3.2.2.1 of appendix A to part 58 organizations interested in combine information from the flow rate establishes a non-binding goal that the implementing the PEP themselves have audits and the Pb audit strips to provide primary quality assurance organization the option to make arrangements with an estimate of bias. Precision estimates select the three audit concentration other State labs, contractor labs, or would still be made using collocated ranges which bracket 80 percent of the utilize the PEP national lab. sampling but the estimates would be routine monitoring concentrations at the The EPA believes that both the NPAP based on the upper 95 percent site. So in general, with some minor and PEP programs serve as an integral confidence limit of the coefficient of modification to address comments, this part of the overall ambient air variation, similar to the method final rule matches the proposed rule. monitoring program quality system and described for the automated instruments The EPA proposed to revise the PM10 provide EPA and the public with for SO2, NO2, CO, and O3. collocation requirement. See 71 FR independent and objective assessments The EPA received only positive 2726. Fifteen percent of all PM2.5 sites of data quality and data comparability. comments on the proposed statistics are required to maintain collocated Both programs provide the only and some typographical corrections. samplers. For PM10, the collocated quantitative independent assessments of This final rule matches the proposed requirements in the existing (1997) data quality at a national level. rule. regulation were three alternative values Therefore, the proposed language was based on the number of routine not changed and this final rule matches 5. Other Program Updates monitors within a primary quality the proposed rule. The EPA proposed several QA assurance organization. For consistency, program changes to update the existing the proposed amendments would have 4. Revisions to Precision and Bias requirements in 40 CFR part 58 to changed the PM collocation Statistics 10 reflect current program needs and requirement to match the PM2.5 The EPA proposed to change the terminology. requirement. This proposed change statistics for assessment of precision and The EPA proposed to remove SO2 and would make the collocation requirement bias for criteria pollutants. See 71 FR NO2 manual audit checks. A review of consistent for PM2.5 and PM10. The EPA 2727. Two important data quality all SLAMS/NAMS/PAMS sites by did not receive any comments on this indicators that are needed to assess the monitor type revealed that no proposed change. Therefore, this final achievement of DQOs are bias and monitoring organizations are using rule matches the proposed rule. precision. Statistics in the current manual SO2 or NO2 methods, nor are The EPA proposed to revise the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, any monitoring organizations expected requirements for PM2.5 flow rate audits.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61258 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

See 71 FR 2728. Based on an evaluation methods used at NCore stations are the U.S. which utilizes uniform air of flow rate data and discussions within addressed in section V.E.1 of this quality monitoring criteria and the QA Strategy Workgroup,14 EPA preamble. methodology * * *’’. The EPA proposed to reduce the frequency of The EPA proposed that SLAMS use recognizes that there may be occasions flow rate audits from quarterly to FRMs or FEMs for criteria pollutants. when a unique method is better suited semiannually and to remove the See 71 FR 2728. The EPA also proposed to meet a specific monitoring objective alternative method which allows for that these sites have the additional that is different from NAAQS decision obtaining the precision check from the option of using ARMs for PM2.5. making. In these cases, EPA will allow analyzers internal flow meter without Approved regional methods are for these innovative methods, so long as the use of an external flow rate transfer described in section V.D.2 of this the monitoring agency is not attempting standard. Most monitoring organizations preamble. to use them to meet minimum participating in the QA Strategy Photochemical assessment monitoring requirements for the number of Workgroup considered auditing with an stations (PAMS) were proposed to be monitors for a given criteria pollutant. external transfer standard to be the required to use FRM or FEM monitors For example, a low cost method might preferred method and believed that the for O3, with most expected to use the O3 be applied as a SPM to provide short quarterly audit data demonstrated the ultraviolet photometry FEM and the term data for validation of an air quality instruments were sufficiently stable to nitric oxide (NO) and NO2 model. reduce the audit frequency. The EPA chemiluminescence FRM for criteria 2. Approved Regional Methods for PM did not receive any comments on this pollutant measurements. See 71 FR 2.5 proposal; therefore, this final rule 2728. Methods for volatile organic The EPA proposed amendments that matches the proposed rule. compounds (VOC) including carbonyls, expanded the allowed use of alternative additional measurements of gaseous PM2.5 measurement methods through D. Appendix C—Ambient Air Quality nitrogen, such as NOy, and ARMs. See 71 FR 2729. The EPA also Monitoring Methodology meteorological measurements are proposed to extend the existing 1. Applicability of Federal Reference routinely operated at PAMS. Because provisions for approval of a Methods and Federal Equivalent these measurements are not of criteria nondesignated PM2.5 method as a Methods pollutants, the methods were not subject substitute for a FRM or FEM at a to the requirements for reference or specific individual site to a network of The EPA proposed that monitoring equivalent methods. However, these sites. This approval would be extended methods used in the multipollutant methods were described in detail in the on a network basis to allow for NCore, SLAMS, and PAMS networks report, ‘‘Technical Assistance Document flexibility in operating a hybrid network were required to be FRMs, FEMs, ARMs, (TAD) for Sampling and Analysis of of PM2.5 FRM and continuous monitors. or where appropriate, other methods Ozone Precursors.’’ 15 The size of the network, in which the designed to meet the DQOs of the The EPA proposed that SPM sites ARM could be approved, would be network being deployed. See 71 FR have no restrictions on the type of based on the location of test sites 2731. Specifics on the monitoring method to be utilized. While FRM and operated during the testing of the methods proposed for use at each type FEM can be employed at SPM sites, candidate ARM. The proposed of site are described below. other methods, not limited to The EPA proposed that NCore amendments would have required that continuous, high-sensitivity, and multipollutant stations must use FRMs test sites be located in urban and rural passive methods, may also be utilized. or FEMs for criteria pollutants when the locations that characterize a wide range Because the SPM provision was expected concentration of the pollutants of aerosols expected across the network. designed to encourage monitoring, was at or near the level of the NAAQS. A hybrid network of monitors was agencies could design SPM sites with For criteria pollutant measurements of envisioned to address monitoring methods to meet monitoring objectives CO and SO , where the level of the objectives beyond just determining 2 that may not be achievable with FRMs compliance with NAAQS. The hybrid pollutant is well below the NAAQS, or FEMs. Additional information on network was expected to lead to a EPA observed that it may be more SPMs is included in section V.E.8 of reduced number of existing FRM appropriate to operate higher sensitivity this preamble. samplers and an increase in continuous monitors than typical FRM or FEM The EPA received several comments ARM samplers that would all be instruments. See 71 FR 2728. In these on its proposed approach for ambient approved for direct comparison with the cases, higher sensitivity methods were air monitoring methodology. Some of applicable forms of the PM2.5 NAAQS. expected to support additional these comments expressed concern that Many comments were received on monitoring objectives that conventional requiring only designated reference or EPA’s proposal regarding ARMs for FRMs or FEMs cannot. In some cases, equivalent methods takes away PM2.5. Several commenters suggested higher-sensitivity gas monitors have flexibility and the drive for requiring on-going collocation with an also been approved as FEM and can improvements to air quality FRM. Commenters also raised concerns serve both NAAQS and other instrumentation. The EPA agrees that about ensuring data quality, especially monitoring objectives. Options for high- some flexibility is desirable for agencies in light of the lower level of the 24-hour sensitivity measurements of CO, SO2, to use innovative methods that can PM2.5 NAAQS and therefore the and total reactive nitrogen (NOy) are support other objectives beyond perceived need to ensure that the described in the report, ‘‘Technical NAAQS decision making. However, statistical criteria are met in each Assistance Document for Precursor Gas CAA section 319 requires ‘‘* * * an air season. One commenter was so Measurements in the NCore quality monitoring system throughout concerned about the data quality issues Multipollutant Monitoring Network.’’ that the commenter recommended Comments regarding monitoring 15 Technical Assistance Document (TAD) for dropping the ARM provision. Other Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. U.S. commenters voiced strong support for 14 The QA Strategy Workgroup consists of EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. Human State, and local staff responsible for monitoring Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division. EPA/ the ARM provision, but also quality assurance activities who meet informally to 600–R–98/161. September 1998. Available at: recommended that EPA allow for less exchange information on current monitoring issues. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pams.html. collocation with FRMs than the 30

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61259

percent that was proposed. Several when using an ARM, including non- years as described in section V.B.2 of commenters recommended that EPA linear ones, so long as the this preamble. allow non-linear data adjustment factors transformations are described in both The testing criteria EPA will use for as are used for AIRNow and mapping the ARM application and the approval of PM2.5 continuous methods purposes. monitoring agency’s quality assurance as ARMs are intended to be robust but In reviewing comments on the project plan (or addendum to the not overly burdensome. The two main provision for ARMs, EPA agrees that QAPP), the transformations are features of testing that are different than data quality issues need to be prospective, and the ARM application FEMs are the duration and locations of appropriately addressed. Since ARMs provides for details on how often or testing. The duration is expected to be will be used for several monitoring under what circumstances they will be 1 year to provide an understanding of objectives, including NAAQS recalculated, based on what data, and the quality of the data on a seasonal attainment/nonattainment which analytical method. basis. The locations for testing are determinations, they must meet the Since participation in seeking expected to be a subset of sites in a Class III FEM performance criteria set approval of ARMs is voluntary and network where the State desires the out in part 53. However, as proposed, approval of an ARM applies only in the PM2.5 continuous monitor to be these performance criteria left open the territory of the agency seeking approval, approved as an ARM. Testing will be possibility that in cleaner environments no monitoring agency having concerns carried out in multiple locations to where concentration data approached will be required to utilize the ARM include up to two Core-based Statistical background levels of PM2.5 that provisions. However, for many agencies Area/Combined Statistical Areas approved methods may have this approach will offer an opportunity (CBSA/CSA) and one rural area or small unacceptable levels of bias to meet other to improve their monitoring network’s city for a new method. For methods that monitoring objectives. Therefore, the utility, by using methods that can serve have already been approved by EPA in Class III equivalency criteria, which are multiple objectives, while having lower other networks, one CBSA/CSA and one the same criteria used for PM2.5 ARMs, costs. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the rural area or small city are required to has been strengthened to address ARM provisions as proposed, with the be tested. concerns about additive bias in cleaner exceptions of the additive bias To ensure that approvals of new environments. The EPA performed an requirement being strengthened; methods are made consistently on a extensive investigation into developing changes to the required collocation national basis, the procedures for equivalency criteria for PM2.5 requirement; and clarifying use of data approval of methods are similar to the continuous methods. One of the transformations, including non-linear requirements specified in 40 CFR part conclusions from that process was that ones. 53, i.e., the EPA Administrator (or continuous methods, by virtue of being Today’s final action thus allows State, delegated official) will approve the able to provide a sample every day, local, and Tribal monitoring agencies to application. However, to optimize generate data with more certainty in independently, or in cooperation with flexibility in the approval process, all decision making than methods used instrument manufacturers, seek other monitoring agencies seeking with lower sample frequencies (i.e., a 1- approval of ARMs where PM2.5 approval of an ARM that is already in-3 day sample schedule), with all continuous monitor data quality is approved in another agency’s other factors being equal. Although sufficiently comparable to FRMs for monitoring network can seek approval biases can be seasonal, correlation integration into the agency’s PM2.5 through their EPA Regional combined with the other performance network used in NAAQS attainment Administrator. This approach will criteria will guard against high biases in findings. The performance criteria for provide a streamlined approval process, one season cancelling out low biases in approval of candidate ARMs are the as well as an incentive for consistency another. Together, the performance same criteria for precision, correlation, in selection and operation of PM2.5 criteria and the daily sample schedule and additive and multiplicative bias continuous monitors across various will ensure that data quality objectives that have been finalized for approval of monitoring agency networks. are met when making NAAQS decisions continuous PM2.5 Class III equivalent The QA requirements for approval of with data from ARMs. methods, described in section IV.C of continuous PM2.5 ARM at a network of With respect to requiring on-going this preamble. These performance sites are the same as for FEM in 40 CFR collocation with FRMs at 30 percent of criteria are to be demonstrated by part 58, appendix A, except that 30 the sites with continuous PM2.5 monitoring agencies independently or percent—rounded up—of the required monitors, EPA has considered how this in cooperation with instrument sites that utilize a PM2.5 ARM would be would affect agencies with many manufacturers under actual operational collocated with an FRM and required to continuous monitors and finds it conditions using one to two FRM and operate at a sample frequency of at least unnecessary to require such a large one to two candidate monitors each. a 1-in-6 day schedule. The higher absolute number of collocated sites, This is a departure from the very tightly- collocation requirement would support although the number of collocated FRM controlled approach used for national the main goal of the particulate matter under a 30 percent collocation equivalency demonstration in which continuous monitoring implementation requirement makes sense for smaller three FRM and three candidate monitors plan, which was to have an optimized networks. Therefore, this final rule are operated. The ARM will be validated FRM and PM2.5 continuous monitoring states that monitoring agencies are only periodically in recognition of changing network that can serve several required to have 30 percent collocation aerosol composition and instrument monitoring objectives. This collocation of the ARMs they count towards the performance. These validations will be requirement is necessary to retain a applicable minimum number of performed on at least two levels: (1) minimum number of FRM for continued required FRM/FEM/ARM sites— Through yearly assessments of data validation of the ARM, direct rounded up, rather than 30 percent of quality provided for as part of the on- comparison to NAAQS, and for long- their full networks of ARMs. going quality assurance (QA) term trends that are consistent with the For the issue of non-linear data requirements in 40 CFR part 58, historical data set archived in the AQS. transformations, this final rule appendix A, and (2) through network The collocated sites are to be located at specifically allows data transformations assessments conducted at least every 5 the highest concentration sites, starting

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61260 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

with one site in each of the largest These NCore multipollutant stations gradients, including specifically population MSA in the network and are intended to track long-term trends requiring additional rural sites. working to the next highest-population for accountability of emissions control Regarding methods, a few commenters MSA with the second site and so forth. programs and health assessments that recommended not requiring the total Finally, EPA reiterates that ARMs contribute to ongoing reviews of the reactive NOy measurement, since this may be used to measure compliance NAAQS; support development of measurement in some but not all cases emissions control strategies through air is little different from the existing NO2 with the PM2.5 NAAQS. See section 50.13(b) and (c) (as published elsewhere quality model evaluation and other measurement by chemiluminescence, in today’s Federal Register) (annual and observational methods; support which uses the same measurement 24-hour primary and secondary scientific studies ranging across principle as NOy. In reviewing the comments, EPA standards are met when designated technological, health, and atmospheric notes that more NCore sites can be concentrations ‘‘as determined in process disciplines; and support deployed than required by regulation. accordance with Appendix N’’ are met), ecosystem assessments. Of course, these For example, in our proposal EPA stated and Part 50 Appendix N section 1.a (for stations together with the more numerous PM , PM , O , and other that it would develop a design of the purposes of section 50.13, PM can be 2.5 10 3 2.5 NAAQS pollutant sites would also network for rural sites—not specifically measured by FRM, FEM, ‘‘or by an provide data for use in attainment and required of any individual State—that Approved Regional Method (ARM) nonattainment designations and for leveraged existing rural networks such designated in accordance with part 58 of public reporting and forecasting of the as IMPROVE, CASTNET and, in some this chapter’’). AQI. cases, State-operated rural sites. In some E. Appendix D—Network Design The EPA proposed that these NCore cases it may be appropriate to have Criteria for Ambient Air Quality multipollutant stations be required to enough NCore multipollutant sites to Monitoring measure O2; CO, SO2, and total reactive assess gradients; however, in other areas nitrogen (NOy) (using high-sensitivity having enough sites to develop 1. Requirements for Operation of methods, where appropriate); PM2.5 gradients with all the parameters Multipollutant NCore Stations (with both a FRM and a continuous required of an NCore station may not be The EPA proposed requirements for monitor); PM2.5 chemical speciation; needed and would therefore present an NCore stations applicable to States PM10¥2.5 (with a continuous FEM); and unnecessary burden to the States. individually that would, in the meteorological parameters including Therefore, EPA is finalizing the NCore temperature, wind speed, wind network design requirements as aggregate, result in the deployment of a direction, and relative humidity. See 71 proposed. new network of multipollutant FR 2730. High-sensitivity measurements For required methods, EPA agrees that monitoring stations in approximately 60 are necessary for CO, SO , and NO to in areas where the existing NOX method mostly urban areas. See 71 FR 2730. In 2 y adequately measure these pollutants in provides comparable data to the NOy the proposal, most States would have most air sheds for data purposes beyond method, monitoring agencies should be been required to operate one urban NAAQS attainment determinations. For allowed to operate NOX instead of the station; however, rural stations could be the other criteria pollutants, EPA more challenging measurement of NOy. substituted in States that have limited proposed use of conventional ambient However, EPA notes much of the reason dense urban exposures. Such air monitoring methods. for NOy and NOX reading being so close substitution would not change the goal At least one NCore station was may be a positive bias with current of having about 20 rural NCore sites. proposed to be required in each State, typical NOX (NO + NO2) instruments California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, unless a State determines through the which may over report NO2. Since New York, North Carolina, Ohio, network design process that a site which further development of the NOX method Pennsylvania, and Texas would be meets their obligation can be reasonably is underway, monitoring agencies which required to operate one to two represented by a site in a second State, seek waivers for the NOy method are additional NCore stations in order to and the second State has committed to encouraged to utilize high sensitivity account for their unique situations. establishing and operating that site. Any versions of the chemiluminescence These stations, combined with about 20 State could propose modifications to method so that they are capable of multipollutant rural stations, which these requirements for approval by the switching from high sensitivity NOX to were not proposed to be required of Administrator. While the proposed high sensitivity NOy in performing specific States, would form the new amendments did not specify the cities gaseous nitrogen measurements. The NCore multipollutant network. The in which the States would have to place EPA is therefore finalizing the required rural NCore stations would be their NCore multipollutant monitoring measurements at NCore multipollutant negotiated using grant authority as part stations, EPA anticipated that the sites as proposed; however, EPA will of an overall design of the network that overall result would be a network that allow for waivers of the NOy method in is expected to leverage existing rural has a diversity of locations to support areas where measured NOX is expected networks such as IMPROVE, CASTNET the purposes listed earlier. For example, to provide virtually the same data as and, in some cases, State-operated rural there would be sites with different NOy. This is largely expected to be in 16 sites. levels and compositions of PM2.5 and urban environments until such time as PM10¥2.5, allowing air quality models to the NO2 method (and hence the NOX) is 16 To clarify, under the proposed rule, and this be evaluated under a range of sufficiently improved that having final rule, 41 States, the District of Columbia, the conditions. separate measurements of NOy and NOX Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico will be required to operate one NCore site. The other nine States will The EPA received several comments provides more useful information than be required to operate two or three sites, for a on the proposed requirements for the existing technology. See also section national total of 62 to 71 required sites. Some of operating the NCore multipollutant V.E.7. these required sites might be waived by EPA. The monitoring stations. Some commenters The NCore stations are to be deployed EPA anticipates, but the rule does not require that some of these sites will be rural. Counting non- recommended requiring additional at sites representing as large an area of required sites, the goal is a total of about 75 sites, NCore monitoring stations for better relatively uniform land use and ambient about 20 of which will be rural. spatial coverage and to capture air concentrations as possible (i.e., out

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61261

of the area of influence of specific local filter methods on as infrequent a resources for other types of monitoring. sources, unless exposure to the local schedule as a 1-in-3 day sampling. Alternatively, the CASTNET stations source(s) is typical of exposures across This final rule contains a requirement will contribute to a more robust rural the urban area). Neighborhood-scale for PM10¥2.5 speciation to be conducted network with multipollutant sites may be appropriate for NCore at NCore multipollutant monitoring capabilities. stations. The EPA had proposed a multipollutant monitoring stations in 2. Requirements for Operation of cases where the site is expected to be requirement for PM10¥2.5 speciation in PM10¥2.5 Stations similar to many other neighborhood 25 areas, with the areas required to have scale locations throughout the area. In this monitoring selected based on For PM10¥2.5, EPA proposed a new some instances, State and local agencies having an MSA population over 500,000 minimum network requirement based on metropolitan statistical area (MSA) may have a long-term record of several and having an estimated design value of population and estimated PM ¥ measurements at an existing location greater than 80 percent of the proposed 10 2.5 design value. See 71 FR 2732–2736. that deviates from this siting scheme. PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. This would have concentrated the PM ¥ speciation Under that proposal, only those MSAs The State or local agency may propose 10 2.5 monitoring in areas that have high that contained an urbanized area of at utilizing these kinds of sites as the populations and high exposures to least 100,000 persons were required to NCore multipollutant monitoring station PM ¥ Since EPA is requiring have one or more monitors. The to take advantage of that record. The 10 2.5. PM10¥2.5 monitoring at NCore primarily minimum network design requirements EPA will approve these sites, for scientific purposes, it is more would not have included separate considering both existing and expected appropriate to have monitoring in a requirements for multiple urbanized new users of the data. The NCore variety of urban and rural locations so areas of 100,000 persons or more within multipollutant stations should be as to increase the diversity of areas that a single MSA. Where more than one collocated, when appropriate, with have available chemical species data to MSA was part of a CSA, each MSA was other multipollutant air monitoring use in scientific studies. The EPA had treated separately and was subject to stations including PAMS, National Air already proposed to have chemical individual requirements. Toxic Trends Station sites, and the speciation for PM2.5 at NCore stations. The EPA proposed that the actual or PM2.5 chemical Speciation Trends The collocation of both PM10¥2.5 and estimated PM10¥2.5 design value (3-year Network sites. Collocation will allow PM2.5 speciation monitoring at NCore average of 98th percentile 24-hour use of the same monitoring platform and stations is consistent with the concentrations) of a MSA, where one equipment to meet the objectives of multipollutant objectives of the NCore could be calculated, be used as a second multiple programs where possible and network and will support further factor to increase the minimum number advantageous. Of the approximately 60 research in understanding the chemical of monitors in MSAs with higher required NCore stations, up to 35 composition and sources of PM10 and estimated ambient coarse particle levels existing State-operated multi-monitor PM10¥2.5, and PM2.5 at a variety of urban and to reduce requirements in MSAs stations are already also operating or and rural locations. with lower estimated concentrations. preparing to also operate the high- Once these multipollutant NCore The EPA developed an initial database sensitivity monitors for CO, SO2, and stations are established, it is EPA’s of estimated PM10¥2.5 design values by NOy that are part of the NCore intention that they operate for many analyzing concentrations from existing requirement. years in their respective locations. collocated or nearly collocated PM10 Therefore, State and local agencies are and PM2.5 monitors in each MSA and Although EPA is retaining the 24-hour encouraged to insure long-term identifying which pairs met the PM NAAQS for requisite protection 10 accessibility to the sites proposed for proposed siting criteria which specified against short-term exposure to thoracic NCore monitoring stations. Relocating when a monitor was suitable for coarse particles and is not promulgating these stations will require EPA comparison to the proposed PM10¥2.5 a PM ¥ NAAQS, the NCore stations 10 2.5 approval, which will be based on the NAAQS. Monitoring agencies were are also being required to deploy a data needs of the host State and other given the option of proposing other PM10¥2.5 FRM or FEM to build a dataset clients of the information. procedures for calculating estimated for scientific research purposes, The EPA may negotiate with some PM10¥2.5 design values as a substitute including supporting health studies and States, and possibly with some Tribes, for EPA-calculated values. future reviews of the PM NAAQS. for the establishment and operation of The EPA’s proposal would have Separate PM10 monitoring will not be additional rural NCore multipollutant required as many as five PM10¥2.5 required at NCore stations. For many monitoring stations to complement the monitors in MSAs with total population PM10¥2.5 methods, including the FRM, stations required by today’s action. of more than 5 million with actual or PM10 data will be readily available as The EPA is in the process of estimated design values of greater than part of the calculated PM10¥2.5 upgrading the CASTNET monitoring 80 percent of the proposed PM10¥2.5 measurement. Even if a PM10¥2.5 capabilities to allow stations to provide NAAQS, and no monitors in MSAs method that does not report PM10 is even more useful data to multiple users. under 1 million people with actual or approved as an FEM and is deployed to The EPA expects that about 20 estimated design values less than 50 one or more NCore sites, PM10 will still CASTNET sites, operated at EPA percent of that proposed NAAQS. The be available by virtue of the expense, will have new capabilities EPA estimated that the size of the independent measurements of PM2.5 equivalent to some of the capabilities minimum required PM10¥2.5 network and PM10¥2.5 (which could envisioned for NCore multipollutant would be approximately 250 monitors appropriately be summed). Therefore, sites. After consultations with State air based on these proposed requirements EPA is not making measurements of quality planners and other data users, and the most recent estimates of PM10 a requirement of the NCore EPA may adjust the goal of having 20 PM10¥2.5 design values available at the network. Also, since the NCore network rural State-operated NCore stations, if time of proposal. An additional review of PM10¥2.5 FRM/FEM is not being used some of these CASTNET stations can of urbanized area population counts and for attainment/nonattainment achieve the same data objectives. This estimated design values completed after determinations, agencies may operate would preserve State/local funding proposal subsequently reduced the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61262 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

estimated size of the required PM10¥2.5 provide data for health and ecosystem the severity and extent of the PM2.5 network to approximately 225 monitors assessments that contribute to periodic problem and possibly in more need of (not counting PM10¥2.5 monitors at reviews of the NAAQS. More than 500 other types of data to address it. NCore stations) through the elimination continuous PM2.5 monitors are operated We proposed to retain the current of some MSAs where the population of to support public reporting and siting criteria for PM2.5, which have an the urbanized area was found to be forecasting of the AQI. emphasis on population-oriented sites fewer than 100,000 persons, or where The EPA proposed to modify the at neighborhood scale and larger. See 71 updated estimated design values network minimum requirements for FR 2741. In the proposal, EPA stated decreased sufficiently for monitoring PM2.5 monitoring so that multiple urban that these current design criteria requirements to drop into an adjoining monitors in the same MSA or CSA are appeared to remain appropriate for design value category with lower not required if they are redundant or are implementation of the proposed requirements. measuring concentrations well below primary PM2.5 NAAQS. See 71 FR 2742. As noted earlier, in addition to the the NAAQS. See 71 FR 2741. EPA The proposal stated that the existing minimum monitoring requirements, proposed to base minimum monitoring minimum requirements effectively EPA proposed a five-part test that would requirements on PM2.5 concentrations as ensure that monitors are placed in be used to determine whether potential represented by the design value of the locations that appropriately reflect the PM10¥2.5 monitoring sites were suitable area, and on the census population of community-oriented area-wide for comparison to the proposed NAAQS. the CSA, or in cases where there is no concentrations levels used in the All five parts of the site-suitability test CSA, the MSA. Overall, this was epidemiological studies that support the were required to be met for data from expected to result in a lower number of proposed (and now final) lowering of required monitors or non-required required sites (to satisfy minimum the 24-hour NAAQS. monitors to be compared to the network design requirements); however, The EPA further proposed that proposed PM10¥2.5 NAAQS. EPA recommended that States continue background and transport sites remain a The EPA received extensive to operate a high percentage of the required part of each State’s network to comments on all aspects of the PM10¥2.5 existing sites now utilizing FRM, but support characterization of regional network design proposal including the with FEM and ARM continuous transport and regional scale episodes of minimum monitoring requirements, methods replacing the FRM monitors at PM2.5. To meet these requirements, five-part suitability test for PM10¥2.5 many of the sites.17 Id. IMPROVE samplers could be used even NAAQS comparability, and monitor The EPA proposed to require that all though they would not be eligible for placement criteria. As summarized in sites counted by a State towards meeting comparison to the PM2.5 NAAQS; these section III.C.2 of the preamble for the the minimum requirement for the samplers are currently used in visibility NAAQS revisions published elsewhere number of PM2.5 sites have an FRM, monitoring programs in Class I areas in this Federal Register, EPA is not FEM, or ARM monitor. The EPA also and national parks. Sites in other States adopting a proposed PM10¥2.5 NAAQS proposed that at least one-half of all the which are located at places that make but instead will be retaining the current required PM2.5 sites be required to them appropriate as background and 24-hour PM10 standard. Therefore, the operate PM2.5 continuous monitors of transport sites could also fulfill these elements of the PM10¥2.5 monitoring some type even if not an FEM or ARM. minimum siting requirements. network design that were proposed to As noted, EPA proposed to use design The preamble to the proposal also implement an ambient network for the value and population as inputs in pointed out that in most MSAs, the primary purpose of determining deciding the minimum required number PM2.5 monitor recording the maximum NAAQS compliance are no longer of PM2.5 monitoring sites in each CSA/ annual PM2.5 concentrations is the same required and are not included in this MSA. The EPA proposed these inputs so as the monitor showing the maximum final rule. that monitoring resources would be 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, As described elsewhere in this notice, prioritized based on the number of suggesting that generally it will be these EPA is requiring PM10¥2.5 mass people who may be exposed to a common high-reading monitors that will concentration and speciation problem and the level of exposure of determine attainment/nonattainment for monitoring as part of the NCore network that population. Metropolitan areas with both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 of multipollutant sites. These sites are smaller populations would not be NAAQS. 71 FR 2742. The preamble intended to track long-term trends for required to perform as much monitoring further noted that where this is the case, accountability of emissions control as larger areas. If ambient air supplemental monitors, such as programs and health assessments that concentrations as indicated by historical continuous PM2.5 monitors and PM2.5 contribute to ongoing reviews of the monitoring are low enough, these speciation monitors, should already be NAAQS; support development of smaller population areas would not well located to help in understanding emissions control strategies through air have been required to continue to the causes of the high PM2.5 quality model evaluation and other perform any PM2.5 monitoring. concentrations. In a relatively small observational methods; support The proposed amendments also number of cases, certain microscale scientific studies ranging across would have required fewer sites when PM2.5 monitors that have not been technological, health, and atmospheric design values are well above (rather eligible for comparison to the annual process disciplines; and support than near) the level of the NAAQS to PM2.5 NAAQS and that have been ecosystem assessments. allow more flexibility in the use of complying with the pre-existing 24-hour 3 PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 µg/m , and 3. Requirements for Operation of PM monitoring resources in areas where 2.5 States and EPA are already confident of therefore have no impact on attainment Stations status, may become more influential to The PM2.5 network includes over 17 As explained earlier, an approved regional attainment status under the more 1,200 FRM samplers at approximately method (ARM) is a PM2.5 method that has been stringent level of the then-proposed, 900 sites that are operated to determine approved specifically within a State, local, or Tribal now adopted 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In air monitoring network for purposes of comparison compliance with the NAAQS; track to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and these cases, EPA noted that States may trends, development, and accountability to meet other monitoring objectives. See section choose to move accompanying of emission control programs; and V.D.2 of this preamble. speciation and continuous monitors to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61263

the new site of particular interest to get The EPA also received several minimum PM2.5 monitoring a better characterization of PM2.5 at that comments regarding the location of requirements. In a CSA, each MSA must location. required PM2.5 monitoring sites, meet the MSA requirements separately. The EPA received a number of questioning EPA’s proposal to keep the In considering the comments on comments regarding the PM2.5 network siting requirements for PM2.5 monitors requiring one-half the required PM2.5 design. Several commenters expressed the same despite the revision of the 24- sites to have continuous monitors, EPA concern regarding the provision to allow hour NAAQS to a level at which notes that the existing network of fewer required sites when monitored commenters asserted that violations of monitors is providing invaluable data PM2.5 concentrations are significantly the 24-hour NAAQS may occur in many for reporting and forecasting of the AQI above the PM2.5 NAAQS. Commenters middle scale or microscale locations not and in support of emergency situations stated that allowing fewer sites would presently experiencing violations of the such as wildfires and natural disasters be inadequate to demonstrate actual current 24-hour NAAQS. The gist of the (e.g., Hurricane Katrina). Ensuring a ambient air conditions. One commenter comments was that more monitors minimum network of these monitors is stated that the provision had merit for should be deployed in middle and/or essential to informing the public and long-term NAAQS such as the annual microscale locations to find such policy makers on the quality of the air average but not for short term standards. violations. One commenter during air pollution episodes. The The commenter pointed out that long recommended that EPA specifically technology utilized in the network term standards, where concentrations require a monitoring organization to continues to evolve as agencies adopt are averaged out over a multiple year have at least one microscale site in any the most suitable methods for use in period, tend to provide relatively area that is nonattainment or marginally their own network. The EPA believes uniform results even over a large nonattainment for the 24-hour NAAQS. that as agencies continue to purchase geographical area; however, daily In response to concerns about the most optimal equipment for their observations are going to be more requiring fewer PM2.5 monitoring sites networks and as instrument variable at a given site and from site to when monitored PM2.5 concentrations manufacturers now will have the site. Other commenters expressed are significantly above the NAAQS, EPA opportunity to receive FEM or ARM concern that while they appreciated the is not adopting the provision and will approval for their method(s), flexibility to redirect resources to instead provide two ranges of minimum manufacturers will continue to develop speciation sampling in areas with monitoring requirements depending on better continuous instruments. The EPA significantly high NAAQS design design value. As proposed, agencies is therefore adopting the proposed values, there would still be a need for with areas that are significantly below requirement for one-half the required both speciation and FRM data. In these the PM2.5 NAAQS (less than or equal to PM2.5 sites to have continuous monitors cases, while the flexibility may be 85 percent of the annual and 24-hour as proposed. However, to address the available, in practice it would be PM2.5 NAAQS) will have a lower concern about whether required difficult to shut down a monitor in an minimum monitoring requirement. continuous monitors need to be area that is significantly above the Areas that are within 15 percent of the collocated with a matching second NAAQS. NAAQS or above it will be required to continuous monitor, this final rule The EPA also received comments on operate more PM2.5 monitoring sites states that only one of all the required using CSA as the definition for a (i.e., be required to deploy a greater PM2.5 continuous monitors in each MSA metropolitan area in which to apply the minimum number of monitors), relative needs to have such a collocated match. minimally required PM2.5 monitoring to those at less than 85 percent of the This will allow a minimal level of network criteria. Commenters expressed NAAQS. performance characterization of the concern that the CSA was too large an To address the comments concerning continuous monitors in each area that area to apply minimum monitoring the most appropriate Census Bureau they are operated. Additional PM2.5 requirements and that it may result in definition in which to apply the PM2.5 continuous monitors, when required, the loss of essential monitors necessary minimum monitoring requirements, can either be collocated with FRMs or to characterize the extent of EPA compared the current network to set up at non-collocated sites to provide nonattainment areas. In addition, EPA the number of monitors that would be better spatial coverage of the MSA. received comments on the proposed required using either CSA or MSA as With regard to concerns expressed in requirement for the PM2.5 monitoring the unit for applying monitoring comments about monitor siting in light network to provide for one-half the requirements. The results demonstrated of the revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, required sites, rounded-up, to operate that using MSA ensures a few more EPA agrees that the proposed change in PM2.5 continuous monitors. required sites in areas that have the level of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 Commenters expressed concern that multiple MSAs making up a large CSA NAAQS from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 requiring PM2.5 continuous monitors, with high populations and large raised the issue of whether any none of which at present meet FEM geographical areas, without requiring commensurate changes would be and/or ARM performance criteria, may new sites of less obvious priority in needed in these requirements. The EPA result in minimizing the impetus for MSAs that have smaller geographic has considered the original equipment manufacturers to further coverage and population. Since the requirements for PM2.5 network design develop versions of these technologies overall goal of reducing redundant promulgated in 1997 and their rationale, that would meet the FEM/ARM required sites in large metropolitan how the PM2.5 network is currently performance criteria. Some commenters areas can be met by using MSA as the configured, what if any changes need to expressed concern that although PM2.5 unit for monitoring requirements, and be made to this network to make it continuous monitors serve multiple using MSA as the unit will also result consistent with the intended level of monitoring objectives, which in multiple MSAs with high design protection of the lower 24-hour PM2.5 underscores the need for their values in the same CSA each having NAAQS in combination with the annual operation, requiring collocation with minimum monitoring requirements to PM2.5 NAAQS, and whether these or any FRMs should not be a requirement of all address spatial gradients in large areas, changes should be required by a general the sites since it places an unnecessary EPA is adopting the MSA in as the rule or developed on a case-by-case burden on the States. geographic unit for applying the basis.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61264 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

In specifying monitor siting criteria dimensions of at least a few kilometers On the other hand, States and EPA for the original PM2.5 monitoring and thus can be considered community- may agree as part of the annual network in 1997, EPA noted that the oriented. The existing PM2.5 monitoring monitoring plan submission by the State annual standard had been set based on network continues to mostly be made and approval by the Regional epidemiology studies in which monitors up of these population-oriented, Administrator that in specific cases generally were representative of community-oriented, neighborhood placement of new or relocated monitors community-average exposures. The EPA scale monitoring sites. The EPA is into microenvironment or middle scale stated its expectations that the annual presently aware of fewer than ten PM2.5 locations is warranted and consistent standard would generally be the monitors that are sited in relatively with the intended level of protection of controlling standard in designating unique population-oriented microscale the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. States may nonattainment areas and that areas, localized hot spots, or unique also propose, and EPA would be controlling emissions to reduce annual population-oriented middle-scale areas. inclined to approve, the placement of averages would lower both annual and Such sites may have higher PM2.5 monitors in populated areas too 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations across concentrations than neighborhood scale small to be subject to the requirements each annual NAAQS nonattainment sites on at least some days because they regarding minimum numbers of area. Accordingly, the PM2.5 network may be close to and downwind of large monitors, if there is reason to believe design provisions in that final rule (62 emission sources, but the number of PM2.5 concentrations are of concern. Of FR 38833, July 18, 1997) and EPA’s people exposed to such concentrations particular interest may be smaller cities subsequent negotiations with State/local is not large relative to the surrounding and towns which presently lack any monitoring agencies over monitoring communities. PM2.5 monitor but which experience plans were largely but not solely The EPA believes the PM2.5 networks emission patterns such as use of wood directed at obtaining air quality data that were deployed were, and the stoves and/or weather conditions such reflecting community-wide exposures networks that are now operating as inversions which can create high by placing monitors in neighborhood currently are, consistent with the short-term concentrations of PM2.5. and larger scales of representation. intended level of protection of the States also remain free to place SPM at Section 2.8 of appendix D of 40 CFR annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Consistency or any location, without need for EPA part 58 as promulgated in 1997 had only inconsistency with regard to the 24-hour review or approval.18 a few definite requirements regarding The proposed rule text for 40 CFR 58, PM2.5 NAAQS has not been of practical the siting of PM2.5 monitors. Section significance until now due to the near appendix D inadvertently failed to 2.8.1.3 specified how many ‘‘core’’ absence of violations of that standard. In include rule text on PM2.5 monitoring monitors representing community-wide the January 17, 2006, proposal notice, network design criteria, found in air quality were required based on MSA EPA said that it believed that the 1997 existing appendix D section 2.8.1.2.3, population. For areas with populations rule’s design criteria remained setting forth the requirements that: (1) of 500,000 or more, section 2.8.1.3.1(a) appropriate for implementation of the The required monitors are sited to required that at least one core proposed primary PM NAAQS, represent community-wide air quality, monitoring station must be placed in a 2.5 including the lower 24-hour NAAQS, (2) at least one monitoring site is placed ‘‘population-oriented’’ area of expected because these requirements effectively in a ‘‘population-oriented’’ area of maximum concentration and (unless ensured that monitors are placed in expected maximum concentration, and waived under section 2.8.1.3.4) at least (3) at least one station is placed in an one core station in an area of poor air locations that appropriately reflect the community-oriented areawide area of poor air quality. Therefore, this quality. Areas with populations between final rule restores these pre-existing 200,000 and 500,000 were required to concentration levels used in the epidemiological studies that support the requirements to appendix D. This final operate at least one core monitor. rule sets out these criteria (in Section 2.8.1.3.4 strongly encouraged proposed lowering of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 71 FR 2742. The EPA substantively identical but slightly any State with an MSA with only one redrafted form) in appendix D section required monitor (due to being fewer continues to believe this, noting that the monitors used in the epidemiology 4.7.1(b). than 500,000 in population or due to a Also, as noted in the proposal and studies underlying the 24-hour PM2.5 waiver) to site it so it represented again above, some monitors that have community-oriented concentrations in NAAQS were sited similar to the majority of monitors in the existing not measured high concentrations areas of high average PM2.5 State/local networks. relative to the 1997 24-hour NAAQS concentrations. Section 2.8.1.3.7 may become more influential to No comments directly contradicted required core monitoring sites to attainment status under the just this assessment. While an implication of represent neighborhood or larger spatial adopted, more stringent 24-hour the final monitoring rule provisions scales. States could at their initiative NAAQS. In these cases, EPA encourages regarding siting of PM monitors is that place additional monitors anywhere, but 2.5 States to consider adding or moving States may choose not to monitor monitors in relatively unique speciation and continuous monitors to microenvironment or middle scale microscale, localized hot spot, or unique the newly influential site to get a better locations where some people are middle-scale locations cannot be characterization of PM concentrations exposed to 24-hour concentrations 2.5 compared to the annual NAAQS, and and their causes at that location. above the level of the 24-hour NAAQS, any monitoring site must be population- Finally, this final rule clarifies that such a result remains consistent with oriented to be compared to either IMPROVE monitors operated by an NAAQS. Part 58 App. D section the community-oriented area-wide level 2.8.1.2.3. of protection on which the 24-hour 18 The possible additional monitoring discussed In practice, the majority of PM2.5 PM2.5 NAAQS is premised. Thus, EPA in the text above could be compared solely to the monitors are deployed at neighborhood believes it is not appropriate to 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, the scale and larger, meaning that they are specifically require any number of 1997 rules provide that monitors that are sited in relatively unique population-oriented microscale located far enough from large emission monitors to be placed in areas, localized hot spots, or unique population- sources that they represent the fairly microenvironment or hot spot locations oriented middle-scale areas, may not be compared uniform air quality across an area with as one commenter suggested. to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61265

organization other than the State may be should be required overall for PM10. areas. States may of course choose to counted as satisfying the State’s This final rule therefore retains the retain PM10 monitors that are recording obligation to operate background and current PM10 minimum network concentrations below the PM10 NAAQS transport monitoring sites for PM2.5. requirements, except that these will no level to support monitoring objectives longer be called ‘‘NAMS’’ requirements. other than attainment/nonattainment 4. Requirements for Operation of PM10 The current PM10 minimum determinations, such as baseline Stations monitoring requirements in section monitoring for prevention of significant PM10 monitors currently are deployed 3.7.7 of part 58 appendix D are based on deterioration permitting or public throughout the country at about 1,200 MSA population and three different information. The EPA expects to work sites, with most metropolitan areas ranges of ambient PM10 concentrations with States to assess their PM10 already operating more PM10 monitors as compared to the PM10 NAAQS. For networks and help determine which of than are required by current monitoring MSAs in the lowest category of ambient these monitors are delivering valuable requirements. PM10 concentrations, those for which data and which monitors present In the January 17, 2006, proposal ambient PM10 data show concentrations disinvestment opportunities. As should notice, EPA proposed changes to the less than 80 percent of the NAAQS, at be evident, however, States may not PM10 requirements in coordination with least one monitor is required if the reduce their PM10 networks below the new minimum requirements for a population of the MSA is 500,000 or minimum requirements for monitoring PM10¥2.5 monitoring network in support greater. For MSAs in the highest within MSAs given in 40 CFR part 58 of the proposed 24-hour PM10¥2.5 category of ambient PM10 appendix D. NAAQS which would have eventually concentrations, those for which ambient In addition, if States and Tribes are replaced the PM10 NAAQS entirely. See PM10 data show concentrations considering deploying new PM10 71 FR 2742. As already explained, EPA exceeding the NAAQS by 20 percent or monitors, EPA recommends, again is not finalizing the proposed NAAQS more, at least one monitor is required if consistent with the basis for retaining for PM10¥2.5 and instead is retaining the the population of the MSAs is 100,000 the 24-hour PM10 standard, that those 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for all parts of the persons or greater. These requirements monitors be placed in areas where there U.S. This change has necessitated a list ranges of required monitors, with are urban and/or industrial sources of different approach for PM10 minimum the actual number of monitors to be thoracic coarse particles. Furthermore, monitoring requirements from the one determined by EPA and States. consistent with the monitors used in proposed. Based on PM10 ambient data for 2003– studies that informed our decision on Rather than revoking PM10 monitoring 2005 and current census population the level of the standard (see section requirements, as proposed, EPA believes statistics, a minimum of between 200 III.D of the final rule on the PM NAAQS that a robust nationwide monitoring and 500 PM10 FRM/FEM monitors will published elsewhere in today’s Federal network is required to provide be required across all affected MSAs. Register), EPA recommends that any compliance data for the 24-hour PM10 Over 800 PM10 monitors are in fact new PM10 monitors be placed in NAAQS and to support other objectives currently deployed in these MSAs. locations that are reflective of including the assessment of long-term About 400 other PM10 monitors community exposures at middle and trends, evaluations of the effectiveness currently operate outside the boundary neighborhood scales of representation, of State and local coarse particle control of any MSA. As stated in section III.B and not in source-oriented hotspots that programs, and health effects research. of this preamble, EPA believes a are not population oriented. The EPA has therefore considered reduction in the size of the existing The final rule omits two passages in whether the existing National Air monitoring networks for certain section 4.6 (Particulate Matter (PM10) Monitoring Station Criteria in Table 4 of pollutants, including PM10, for which Design Criteria) of 40 CFR 58, appendix appendix D of 40 CFR part 58, last the large majority of monitors record no D that were included for providing revisited in 1997, are still appropriate NAAQS violations, is an appropriate context for the proposed rule. The for these purposes. Because these way to free up resources for higher omitted passages are 4.6(b)(4) (Urban criteria have an urban focus by being priority monitoring objectives. These scale) and 4.6(b)(5) (Regional scale). As based on MSAs, allow for local higher priority objectives could include explained below, these two passages are considerations to be a factor in meeting both the new requirements in not consistent with EPA’s intention to determining the actual required number this final rule such as the NCore preserve the substance of the 1997 of stations, require more stations in multipollutant measurements and monitoring rule regarding scales of larger MSAs and MSAs with more objectives defined by the local air representativeness, while restructuring evidence of poor PM10 air quality while quality management program. The EPA appendix D to eliminate SLAMS versus also requiring some stations even in notes that many PM10 monitors have NAMS distinctions and to make clearer clean MSAs of a certain size, and in the been recording concentrations well which requirements (and explanatory aggregate will result in a required below the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and background and guidance) applied to number of PM10 monitors that is similar thus are candidates for discontinuation each individual pollutant. In appendix to the required numbers of ozone and at a State’s initiative. States may also D of the 1997 monitoring rule, section PM2.5 monitors, EPA believes these choose to continue to operate monitors 2.8 (Particulate Matter Design Criteria criteria are appropriate. With regard to in excess of the minimum requirements. for SLAMS) addressed both PM2.5 and the comparison to the required numbers To the extent that States and Tribes are PM10, in some sentences referring of ozone and PM2.5 monitors, EPA has considering reducing the total number explicitly to PM2.5, PM10, or both, and in considered two directionally opposite of PM10 monitors deployed, EPA some sentences referring only in general factors. PM10 is less spatially uniform believes, consistent with the basis for to particulate matter. In this final rule, than O3 or PM2.5, suggesting the need for retaining the 24-hour PM10 standard, section 4.6 (Particulate Matter (PM10) relatively more intensive monitoring in priority should be given to maintaining areas with PM10 problems, but PM10 monitors sited in urban and industrial 19 encompass extraction and/or mechanical handling concentrations in most areas are below of natural geologic crustal materials. In the context of this rule making, neither mining nor agricultural the PM10 NAAQS (unlike for O3 and 19 As used in the Staff Paper, the term ‘‘mining sources are included in the more general category PM2.5) suggesting that fewer monitors sources’’ is intended to include all activities that of ‘‘industrial sources.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61266 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Design Criteria) addresses this subject The EPA proposed to revoke all low as 350,000 people in population matter for PM10, while section 4.7 (Fine minimum requirements for CO, SO2, would be required to operate as few as Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Design and NO2 monitoring networks, and one site. An even smaller area would Criteria) does so for PM2.5. In the reduce the requirements for Pb. See 71 have no required monitor, provided its proposed rule, for the purpose of FR 27423. The proposal allowed for design values (for example, from a providing context, EPA included reductions in ambient air monitoring for previously required monitor or a SPM) paragraphs on microscale, middle scale, CO, SO2, NO2, and Pb, particularly were sufficiently low. Taking the same neighborhood scale, urban scale, and where measured levels are well below approach used in the proposed regional monitoring scales in both the applicable NAAQS and air quality minimum requirements for PM2.5 sites, section 4.6 and 4.7. However, EPA upon problems are not expected, except in EPA proposed that high-population closer consideration has determined cases with ongoing regulatory areas with measured ambient that omitting the paragraphs on urban requirements for monitoring such as SIP concentrations significantly above the scale and regional scale from section 4.6 or permit provisions. The EPA stated it NAAQS be allowed to operate one less is appropriate for PM10, in terms of would work with States on a voluntary site than areas with measured ambient clarifying and preserving the effective basis to make sure that at least some concentrations near the NAAQS to substance of the 1997 rule for PM10. The monitors for these pollutants remain in allow flexibility of monitoring resources bases for reaching this conclusion place in each EPA region. Measurement in those areas. include the following: (1) The of CO, SO2, and NOy were also proposed The EPA received a number of paragraphs concerning these scales of as required measurements at NCore comments on the proposed minimum representation in the 1997 appendix D sites. There may be little regulatory network requirements for O3. Similar to (section 2.8.0.7 and 2.8.0.8) mention purpose for keeping many other sites the comments received on PM2.5, many PM2.5 specifically but not PM10, (2) the showing low concentrations, other than commenters had concerns with paragraph which precedes the five specific State, local, or Tribal requiring only one site when an area is paragraphs on the five scales (2.8.0.2) commitments to do so. However, in significantly above the NAAQS and states that middle and neighborhood limited cases, some of these monitors with defining the minimum monitoring scales are the most important scales for may be part of a long-term record requirements by CSA instead of by a smaller level of a metropolitan area. For PM10, (3) section 2.8 in the 1997 rule utilized in a health effects study. Under was titled as applying to SLAMS in 40 CFR 58.11 of this final rule, States instance, several commenters noted that particular but no SLAMS monitors were must consider the effect of monitoring by applying the minimum monitoring specifically required at any spatial scale site closures on data users other than requirements by CSA, agencies may not or scales, (4) under section 3.7 the State itself, such as health effects be required to deploy enough monitors (Particulate Matter Design Criteria for studies. The EPA expects State and local to characterize the within-MSA gradient agencies to seek input on which needed to adequately characterize O3 NAMS) specific numbers of PM10 monitors were required but without monitors are being used for health across a metropolitan area. In response to concerns about specification as to spatial scale, and (5) effects studies so they can give this allowing one less O monitoring site Table 6 of appendix D in the 1997 rule consideration. See also section IV.E.8 of 3 when a high-population area is indicates that only the micro, middle, this preamble. significantly above the NAAQS, EPA is and neighborhood scales are ‘‘required 6. Requirements for Operation of Ozone not adopting this provision. This final for NAMS.’’ The EPA notes that in the Stations rule instead provides two values for the final rule, the same numbers of PM10 Ozone (O3) monitors currently are minimum required number of monitors monitors are required as in the 1997 deployed throughout the country at according to design value. Agencies rule, but they are not referred to as about 1,200 sites, with most with areas that are significantly below NAMS monitors. The EPA notes that metropolitan areas already operating the O NAAQS (less than or equal to 85 urban scale and regional scale are of 3 more O3 monitors than would be percent of the O3 NAAQS) have the little, if any, relevance to PM10 required by today’s action. The EPA lower minimum monitoring monitoring, because of the short does not anticipate or recommend requirement. Areas that are within 15 transport distances for PM10, especially significant changes to the size of this percent of the NAAQS or above it have when emitted near ground level. In network because O3 remains a pollutant will be required to operate more O3 contrast, because PM2.5 is a secondary with measured levels near or above the monitoring sites. pollutant, large spatial scales are NAAQS in many areas throughout the To address the comments concerning relevant because monitors in such country. However, this final rule should the most appropriate Census Bureau- locations will reflect regional emissions help to better prioritize monitoring defined area for which to apply the O3 trends and transport patterns. resources depending on the population minimum monitoring requirements, 5. Requirements for Operation of Carbon and levels of O3 in an area. EPA investigated the current network Monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen For O3, EPA proposed changing the compared with using either CSA or Dioxide, and Lead Monitoring Stations minimum network requirement from at MSA as the basis for applying the least two sites in ‘‘any urbanized area minimum network requirements. The Criteria pollutant monitoring having a population of more than results demonstrate that using MSA networks for the measurement of CO, 200,000’’ to an approach that considers ensures a few more sites in the small SO2, NO2, and Pb are primarily operated the level of exposure to O3, as indicated number of large CSAs that have high to determine compliance with the by the design value, and the census populations and large geographical NAAQS and to track trends and population of a metropolitan area. See areas without unnecessarily requiring accountability of emission control 71 FR 2742. The proposal stated that a new sites in the many areas that have programs as part of a SIP. Because these CSA, or MSA if there is no CSA, with smaller geographic coverage and criteria pollutant concentrations are a population of 10 million or more and population. Since using MSA does not typically well below the NAAQS, there a design value near the O3 NAAQS impose a significant new burden on the is limited use for public reporting to the would be required to operate at least States and makes it more likely that AQI. four sites. Smaller CSAs and MSAs as within-MSA gradient characterization of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61267

O3 will be characterized in high Type 1 or one Type 3 site. Several many methods, EPA continues to concentration areas, EPA is adopting commenters stated that the PAMS NOy evaluate improvements to the method, MSA as the appropriate unit of a requirement is not likely to be but at this time EPA believes that the metropolitan area to apply the beneficial. They argued that NOy data in current method (and commercially minimum O3 monitoring requirements. urban areas are likely to be available instrumentation) provides data All other monitoring requirements for indistinguishable from NOX data, the of sufficient quality to meet the PAMS O3 are adopted as proposed. commercial NOy instrumentation is not program objectives. yet fully developed, NO monitors are While proper siting of an NOy monitor 7. Requirements for Operation of y difficult to site properly, and that few (installing a 10 meter tower and meeting Photochemical Assessment Monitoring States have the modeling capability to proper fetch characteristics) may be Stations employ NOy data. difficult in some urban settings, EPA Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA required The EPA disagrees with the believes that NOy monitors can be EPA to promulgate rules requiring commenters’ statements that PAMS NOy adequately sited at most PAMS areas. enhanced monitoring of O3, NO, and measurements will not be beneficial. As Nonetheless, if siting a NOy monitor is VOC in ozone nonattainment areas compared to NOX measurements, NOy not practicable in a given PAMS area, a classified as serious, severe, or extreme. measurements provide a more complete State may request an alternative plan, as On February 12, 1993, EPA promulgated measurement of the available reactive allowed for under paragraph 5.3 of requirements for State and local nitrogen species involved in the appendix D to part 53, to allow monitoring agencies to establish PAMS photochemical reactions that lead to O3 monitoring of NOX instead of as part of their SIP monitoring networks formation. One of the primary uses of monitoring for NOy. in ozone nonattainment areas classified NOy data is for O3 modeling. However, After review and consideration of the as serious, severe, or extreme. During O3 modeling is not the only use for NOy comments received, EPA has decided to 2001, EPA formed a workgroup data. Long-term measurements of NOy finalize the revisions to the PAMS consisting of EPA, State, and local provide the best indicator of the requirements as proposed. monitoring experts to evaluate the effectiveness of NO controls at X F. Appendix E—Probe and Monitoring existing PAMS network. The PAMS reducing the reactive nitrogen Path Siting Criteria for Ambient Air workgroup recommended that the compounds involved in O formation. In 3 Monitoring existing PAMS requirements be addition, a relatively simple analysis of streamlined to allow for more the O3-to-NOy ratio, or VOC-to-NOy ratio The proposed revisions to this individualized PAMS networks to suit can be performed to identify if an area appendix consisted of minor the specific data needs for a PAMS area. is ‘‘NOX limited’’ or ‘‘VOC limited’’ organizational changes and two The EPA proposed changes to the which would indicate if additional NOX technical changes to the siting criteria minimum PAMS monitoring controls would be more beneficial than affecting PM10¥2.5 and O3 monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 58 to additional VOC controls. sites. See 71 FR 2748. implement the recommendations of the Ideally, the NOX method should 1. Vertical Placement of PM ¥ PAMS workgroup. See 71 FR 2743. 10 2.5 measure NO and NO2, whereas NOy Samplers Specifically, EPA proposed the measurements include NO, NO2, and following changes: The number of other important reactive nitrogen Specific probe siting criteria were required PAMS sites would be reduced; species (referred to here as NOz) which required to support the proposed only one Type 2 site would be required includes nitrous acids [nitric acid PM10¥2.5 network. The EPA proposed per area regardless of population and (HNO3), and nitrous acid (HONO)], vertical probe placement requirements Type 4 sites would not be required; and organic nitrates [peroxyl acetyl nitrate that limited microscale PM10¥2.5 sites to only one Type 1 or one Type 3 site (PAN), methyl peroxyl acetyl nitrate an allowable height range of 2 to 7 would be required per area. The (MPAN), and peroxyl propionyl nitrate, meters and neighborhood and large requirements for speciated VOC (PPN)], and particulate nitrates. scale PM10¥2.5 sites to a range of 2 to 15 measurements would be reduced. However, recent studies have shown meters. These ranges were identical to Speciated VOC measurements would that existing NOX monitors also measure the existing requirements for PM10. The only be required at Type 2 sites and one (and misreport as NO2) some NOz range for middle-scale PM10¥2.5 sites other site (either Type 1 or Type 3) per species. The NOy method was was limited to 2 to 7 meters which PAMS area. Carbonyl sampling would developed as an extension of the NOX represented a change from PM10 where only be required in areas classified as method to accurately measure all 2 to 15 meters was the allowed vertical serious or above for the 8-hour O3 reactive nitrogen compounds. placement range for middle-scale sites. standard. Conventional NO2/NOX Nonetheless, EPA will allow for waivers Several commenters supported the monitors would only be required at of the NOy method (via an alternative proposed PM10¥2.5 middle-scale vertical Type 2 sites. High sensitivity NOy plan provided for under paragraph 5.3 requirement as being consistent with the monitors would be required at one site of appendix D to part 53) in areas where expectation that coarse particle per PAMS area (either Type 1 or Type measured NOX is expected to provide concentrations nearest the breathing 3). High sensitivity CO monitors would virtually the same data as NOy. This is zone would be important to measure in be required at Type 2 sites. largely expected to be in areas with the assessment of exposure risk, and The EPA received comments on the fresh oxides of nitrogen emissions until that monitoring sites with more elevated proposed amended PAMS requirements. such time as the NO2 method (and inlets would be more likely to miss Overall, the commenters supported the hence the NOX method) is sufficiently localized concentrations where the reduction in minimum PAMS improved that having separate public is exposed. By contrast, other requirements which will allow for more measurements of NOy and NOX provides commenters raised concerns that the individualized PAMS networks and more useful information than the requirement would result in the alternative enhanced O3 monitoring existing technology. The EPA has measurement of localized (microscale) initiatives. However, some commenters evaluated a number of commercially near-ground conditions not were concerned with the proposed available NOy monitors and has found representative of a middle-scale sized requirement for NOy monitoring at one them accurate and reliable. As with area. Commenters also noted the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61268 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

importance of keeping identical inlet G. Sample Retention Requirements The EPA did not propose a specific requirements for PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 to effective date for this requirement in the maximize the benefits of having During the regulatory development monitoring rule and no commenters collocated measurements at the same process, various governmental agencies expressed implementation concerns. site. and health scientists indicated that Accordingly, this final rule includes an archiving particulate matter filters for Based on review of the comments, effective date of January 1, 2007 for the FRM and FEM would be useful for later EPA is retaining the 2 to 7 meter vertical sample retention requirement. chemical speciation analyses, mass requirement for middle-scale PM ¥ In the proposal, rule requirements 10 2.5 analyses, or other analyses. sites. This requirement is consistent regarding sample retention were located with current requirements for Current sample retention in section 4.9 of appendix D, a section microscale PM monitors but would requirements apply specifically to PM2.5 devoted to network design criteria. The filters and require a minimum storage require modifications for existing PM2.5 EPA believes that sample retention requirement of 1 year. The EPA and PM10 monitors located between 8 requirements are more logically located and 15 meters above ground that were proposed that retention requirements be in subpart B of part 58, which contains expanded to require archival of PM2.5, provisions on data submittal. intended for middle-scale PM10¥2.5 measurement. The EPA does not expect PM10¥2.5, and PM10c (low volume) filters Accordingly, the title of 40 CFR 58.16 this requirement to have a major impact for a period of 1 year after collection. (‘‘Data submittal’’) has been renamed on monitoring networks since this final See 71 FR 2749. ‘‘Data submittal and archiving requirements’’ and corresponding rule rule requires PM10¥2.5 monitoring only Commenters were supportive of the at NCore sites, and these sites will proposed requirement. Some requirements on sample retention have typically represent neighborhood or commenters stated that the required been moved to 40 CFR 58.16(f) of this larger scales. This final rule retains the filter retention period should be longer final rule. existing rule language that has the than 1 year, with a range in suggested H. Deletion of Appendices B and F storage periods of between 3 to 7 years. option for the Regional Administrator to This final rule removes and reserves grant a waiver of siting criteria, States provided examples of how filters archived for longer than 1 year were appendix B of 40 CFR 58, Quality providing flexibility for States to Assurance Requirements for Prevention document situations where useful data subsequently analyzed to provide data useful in the support of health studies, of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air could still be produced by monitors not Monitoring, and appendix F of 40 CFR meeting applicable requirements. SIP work, or analysis of exceptional events. Several commenters, while part 58, Annual SLAMS Air Quality 2. Ozone Monitor Setback Requirement supportive of the rationale for filter Information, because both are obsolete. The preamble to the proposed rule From Roads archival, preferred that the requirement explicitly proposed to remove appendix not be included in the regulation and The EPA proposed an increase to the B because the quality assurance instead left for voluntary monitoring minimum permitted distance between requirements for PSD monitoring were agency compliance. One commenter roadways and the inlet probes of proposed to be moved to appendix A, neighborhood and urban scale ozone suggested that the requirement be which this final rule does. See 71 FR and oxides of nitrogen sites to reduce clarified to explicitly include retention 2725. (The amendatory language at the the scavenging effects of motor vehicle- of blank filters in addition to exposed end of the January 17, 2006 proposal related nitric oxide emissions. See 71 filters. notice inadvertently did not list this FR 2748. The EPA notes the support for the change.) No adverse comments were Many commenters believed that the proposed sample retention requirement received on this change. scavenging effects of oxides of nitrogen and did not change that requirement in The January 17, 2006 notice did not on O3 levels in urban, populated areas this final rule. As stated in this final explicitly address the preservation or was more of an area-wide phenomena rule, States have the discretion to retain removal of appendix F, but its effective and would not be changed by moving a their samples for longer than one year. removal was inherent in the proposed site a few meters farther from the The EPA supports such procedures, rule because no section of the proposed nearest roadway. The relative value of recognizing that States will have part 58 would continue to refer to the proposed change on the basis of the different logistical constraints that appendix F. Similarly, the final part 58 resource requirements necessary to control the maximum length of time for does not refer to appendix F. Appendix relocate sites not meeting the increased which filters can be stored. The EPA has F previously was referenced by 40 CFR road setback requirements was also clarified that the requirement applies to 58.26 in subpart C, Annual state air questioned. Some support was noted for all such filters referenced in 40 CFR monitoring report, now deleted. the application of the increased 58.16(f), including exposed filters and Appendix F specified the required roadway setback requirement to new blanks. content, which was extensive, of the sites as long as existing ozone sites were The EPA acknowledges the concern annual report of summarized ‘‘grandfathered.’’ among some commenters that States monitoring data. An extensive annual The EPA acknowledges the logistical retain the right to determine the best use report of summarized monitoring data is difficulty and expense of moving of archived filters. These commenters no longer required in this final rule. existing sites to meet the increased stated that national considerations for New section, 40 CFR 58.16, Data setback requirement. To achieve a filter analysis should be considered a submittal, instead requires submission balance between the goal of minimizing secondary priority to State needs. The of individual data values. Summary the interference of roadway emissions EPA is respectful of this issue, and information on monitoring data is still on O3 and oxides of nitrogen monitor expects to negotiate with States on the required by 40 CFR 58.15, Annual air data and to reduce the burden on scope of any request for archived filters monitoring data certification, for the affected monitoring organizations, EPA intended for potentially destructive sole purpose of making it clear what has modified the increased roadway analyses so that the request if data is within the scope of the required setback requirement to apply only to compatible with other State uses for the certification letter. This final rule does newly established sites. same type of filters. not specify the exact content of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61269

summary information required by 40 streamline EPA administrative unless it displays a currently valid OMB CFR 58.15 in order to provide more requirements. control number. The OMB control flexibility and to accommodate possible The incremental annual reporting and numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 evolution of the standardized AQS recordkeeping burden for this collection CFR parts 53 and 58 are listed in 40 CFR reports which are the most convenient of information under 40 CFR part 53 part 9. When these ICR are approved by way for monitoring organizations to (averaged over the first 3 years of this OMB, EPA will publish a technical provide this information. ICR) for one additional respondent per amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the year is estimated to increase by a total Federal Register to display the OMB VI. Statutory and Executive Order of 2,774 labor hours per year with an control number for the approved Reviews increase in costs of $32,000/year. The information collection requirements A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory capital/startup costs for test equipment contained in this final rule. Planning and Review and qualifying tests are estimated at $3,832 with operation and maintenance C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR costs of $27,772. The EPA has determined that it is not 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a The information collected and necessary to prepare a regulatory ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because reported under 40 CFR part 58 is needed flexibility analysis in connection with it may raise novel legal policy issues to determine compliance with the these final rule amendments. arising out of legal mandates, the NAAQS, to characterize air quality and For the purposes of assessing the President’s priorities, or the principles associated health and ecosystems impacts of the final amendments on set forth in the Executive Order. impacts, to develop emission control small entities, small entity is defined as: Accordingly, EPA submitted this action strategies, and to measure progress for (1) A small business as defined by the to the Office of Management and Budget the air pollution program. The Small Business Administration’s (OMB) for review under Executive amendments revise the technical regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a Order 12866 and any changes made in requirements for certain types of sites, government jurisdiction that is a response to OMB recommendations add provisions for monitoring of government of a city, county, town, have been documented in the docket for PM1010¥2.5, and reduce certain school district or special district with a this action. monitoring requirements for criteria population of less than 50,000; and (3) B. Paperwork Reduction Act pollutants. Monitoring agencies are a small organization that is any not-for- required to submit annual monitoring profit enterprise which is independently The information collection network plans, conduct network owned and operated and that is not requirements in this rule have been assessments every 5 years, perform dominant in its field. submitted for approval to the Office of quality assurance activities, and, in After considering the economic Management and Budget (OMB) under certain instances, establish NCore sites impacts of this final rule amendments the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. by January 1, 2011. on small entities, EPA has concluded 3501 et seq., OMB control number The annual average reporting burden that this action will not have a 2060–0084. The information collection for the collection under 40 CFR part 58 significant economic impact on a requirements are not enforceable until (averaged over the first 3 years of this substantial number of small entities. OMB approves them. ICR) for 168 respondents is estimated to The final requirements in 40 CFR part The monitoring, recordkeeping, and decrease by a total of 48,546 labor hours 53 for an FEM application are voluntary reporting requirements in 40 CFR parts per year with a decrease in costs of actions on the part of equipment 53 and 58 are specifically authorized by $6,151,494. State, local, and Tribal manufacturers to seek EPA approval for sections 110, 301(a), and 319 of the entities are eligible for State assistance their candidate sampling methods. The Clean Air Act (CAA). All information grants provided by the Federal applications are evaluated according to submitted to EPA pursuant to the government under the CAA which can the requirements in 40 CFR part 53 and monitoring, recordkeeping, and be used for monitors and related test data submitted by the reporting requirements for which a activities. manufacturers to EPA to ensure that the claim of confidentiality is made is Burden means the total time, effort, or candidate equivalent methods meet the safeguarded according to Agency financial resources expended by persons same technical standards as the FRM. policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose The final amendments to 40 CFR part 58 The information collected under 40 or provide information to or for a will reduce annual ambient air CFR part 53 (e.g., test results, Federal agency. This includes the time monitoring costs for State and local monitoring records, instruction manual, needed to review instructions; develop, agencies by approximately $6.2 million and other associated information) is acquire, install, and utilize technology and 48,546 labor hours from present needed to determine whether a and systems for the purposes of levels. State and Tribal assistance grant candidate method intended for use in collecting, validating, and verifying funding provided by the Federal determining attainment of the National information, processing and government can be used to defray the Ambient Air Quality Standards maintaining information, and disclosing costs of new or upgraded monitors for (NAAQS) in 40 CFR part 50 will meet and providing information; adjust the the NCore networks. the design, performance, and/or existing ways to comply with any comparability requirements for previously applicable instructions and D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act designation as a Federal reference requirements; train personnel to be able Title II of the Unfunded Mandates method (FRM) or Federal equivalent to respond to a collection of Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public method (FEM). The final amendments information; search data sources; Law 104–4, establishes requirements for add requirements for PM10¥2.5 FEM and complete and review the collection of Federal agencies to assess the effects of FRM determinations, Class II equivalent information; and transmit or otherwise their regulatory actions on State, local, methods for PM10¥2.5 and Class III disclose the information. and Tribal governments and the private equivalent methods for PM2.5 and An agency may not conduct or sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, PM10¥2.5; reduce certain monitoring and sponsor, and a person is not required to EPA generally must prepare a written data collection requirements; and respond to a collection of information statement, including a cost-benefit

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61270 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

analysis, for proposed and final rules E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may and Coordination With Indian Tribal result in expenditures to State, local, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Governments and Tribal governments, in the August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to Executive Order 13175, entitled aggregate, or to the private sector, of ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with $100 million or more in any one year. ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Before promulgating an EPA rule for 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA which a written statement is needed, development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies to develop an accountable process to section 205 of the UMRA generally ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by requires EPA to identify and consider a that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to tribal officials in the development of reasonable number of regulatory regulatory policies that have tribal alternatives and adopt the least costly, include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, implications.’’ This final rule does not most cost-effective or least burdensome on the relationship between the national have tribal implications, as specified in alternative that achieves the objectives government and the States, or on the Executive Order 13175. The final of the rule. The provisions of section distribution of power and amendments will not directly apply to 205 do not apply when they are responsibilities among the various Tribal governments. However, a Tribal inconsistent with applicable law. levels of government.’’ government may elect to conduct Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to ambient air monitoring and report the adopt an alternative other than the least This final rule does not have data to AQS. Since it is possible that costly, most cost-effective or least federalism implications because it will tribal governments may choose to burdensome alternative if the not have substantial direct effects on the establish and operate NCore sites as part Administrator publishes with this final States, on the relationship between the of the national monitoring program, rule an explanation why that alternative national government and the States, or EPA consulted with Tribal officials was not adopted. Before EPA establishes on the distribution of power and early in the process of developing the any regulatory requirements that may responsibilities among the various proposed rule to permit them to have significantly or uniquely affect small levels of government, as specified in meaningful and timely input into its governments, including Tribal Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive development and after proposal to governments, it must have developed Order 13132 does not apply to this final discuss their comments and concerns. under section 203 of the UMRA a small rule. As discussed in section VI.E of this government agency plan. The plan must Although section 6 of the Executive preamble, tribal agencies were provide for notifying potentially Order does not apply to this final rule, represented on both the NMSSC and the affected small governments, enabling EPA did consult with representatives of workgroups that developed the NAAMS officials of affected small governments State and local governments early in the document and proposed monitoring to have meaningful and timely input in process of developing this proposed requirements. Tribal monitoring the development of EPA regulatory rule. In 2001, EPA organized a National programs were represented on both the proposals with significant Federal Monitoring Steering Committee (NMSC) Quality Assurance and Technology intergovernmental mandates, and to provide oversight and guidance in work groups. Participation was also informing, educating, and advising reviewing the existing air pollution open to tribal monitoring programs on small governments on compliance with monitoring program and in developing the regulatory review workgroup. the regulatory requirements. a comprehensive national ambient air monitoring strategy. The NMSC G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of The EPA has determined that this membership includes representatives Children From Environmental Health final rule does not contain a Federal from EPA, State and local agencies, and Safety Risks mandate that may result in expenditures State and Territorial Air Pollution Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, of $100 million or more for State, local, Program Administrators/Association of April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: and Tribal governments, in the Local Air Pollution Control Officials (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically aggregate, or the private sector in any (STAPPA/ALAPCO), and Tribal significant’’ as defined under Executive one year. The final amendments to 40 governments to reflect the partnership Order 12866, and (2) concerns an CFR part 58 will reduce annual ambient between EPA and governmental environmental health or safety risk that air monitoring costs for State and local agencies that collect and use ambient air EPA has reason to believe may have a agencies by approximately $6.2 million data. The NMSC formed workgroups to disproportionate effect on children. If and 48,546 labor hours from present address quality assurance, technology, the regulatory action meets both criteria, levels. Thus, these final amendments and regulatory review of the draft EPA must evaluate the environmental are not subject to the requirements of ambient air monitoring strategy health or safety effects of the planned sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. (NAAMS). These workgroups met rule on children, and explain why the The EPA has determined that this several times by phone and at least once planned regulation is preferable to other final rule contains no regulatory in a face-to-face workshop to develop potentially effective and reasonably requirements that might significantly or specific recommendations for improving feasible alternatives considered by EPA. uniquely affect small governments. the ambient air monitoring program. A The EPA interprets Executive Order Small governments that may be affected record of the Steering Committee 13045 as applying only to those by the final amendments are already members, workgroup members, and regulatory actions that are based on meeting similar requirements under the workshop are available on the Web at: health or safety risks, such that the existing rules, and the final http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ analysis required under section 5–501 of amendments will substantially reduce monitor.html. The EPA also met with the Order has the potential to influence the costs of the existing rules. Therefore, State, local, and Tribal government the regulation. This final rule is not this final rule is not subject to the representatives to discuss their subject to Executive Order 13045 requirements of section 203 of the comments on the proposed amendments because, while it is based on the need UMRA. and suggestions for resolving issues. for monitoring data to characterize risk,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61271

this final monitoring rule itself does not concentrations of PM2.5 are currently amendments will be effective on establish an environmental standard measured by the Federal reference December 18, 2006. The final intended to mitigate health or safety method in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L amendments will be effective 60 days risks. (Reference Method for the after publication in the Federal Register Determination of Fine Particulate as to be consistent with the effective date H. Executive Order 12898: Federal PM in the Atmosphere) or by FRM or Actions To Address Environmental 2.5 of the revised NAAQS for PM published FEM that meet the requirements in 40 Justice in Minority Populations and elsewhere in this Federal Register. CFR part 53. Ambient air concentrations Low-Income Populations Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring of PM10¥2.5 will be measured by the Regulations. Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, final FRM in 40 CFR part 50, appendix February 11, 1994) requires that each O (Reference Method for the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 53 and Federal agency make achieving Determination of Coarse Particulate 58 environmental justice part of its mission Matter as PM10¥2.5 in the Atmosphere) Environmental protection, by identifying and addressing, as published elsewhere in this Federal Administrative practice and procedure, appropriate, disproportionately high Register or by an FRM or FEM that Air pollution control, Intergovernmental and adverse human health or meets the requirements in 40 CFR part relations, Reporting and recordkeeping environmental effects of its programs, 53. As discussed in section IV.B of this requirements. policies, and activities on minorities preamble, the final FRM for PM10¥2.5 is Dated: September 27, 2006. and low-income populations. These similar to the existing methods for PM 2.5 Stephen L. Johnson, requirements have been addressed to and PM10. the extent practicable in the Regulatory Procedures are included in this final Administrator. Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final rule that allow for approval of an FEM For the reasons set out in the revisions to the NAAQS for particulate for PM10¥2.5 that is similar to the final preamble, title 40, chapter I, parts 53 matter. FRM. Any method that meets the and 58 of the Code of Federal performance criteria for a candidate Regulations are amended as follows: I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That equivalent method may be approved for Significantly Affect Energy Supply, use as an FRM or FEM. PART 53—[AMENDED] Distribution, or Use This approach is consistent with 1. The authority citation for part 53 This final rule is not a ‘‘significant EPA’s Performance-Based Measurement continues to read as follows: energy action’’ as defined in Executive System (PBMS). The PBMS approach is Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning intended to be more flexible and cost Authority: Section 301(a) of the Clean Air Regulations That Significantly Affect effective for the regulated community; it Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 1857g(a)), as amended by Energy Supply, Distribution or Use’’ (66 is also intended to encourage innovation sec. 15(c)(2) of Pub. L. 91–604, 84 Stat. 1713, unless otherwise noted. FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is in analytical technology and improved not likely to have a significant adverse data quality. The EPA is not precluding Subpart A—[Amended] effect on the supply, distribution, or use the use of any method, whether it of energy. No significant change in the constitutes a voluntary consensus 2. Sections 53.1 through 53.5 are use of energy is expected because the standard or not, as long as it meets the revised to read as follows: total number of monitors for ambient air specified performance criteria. quality measurements will not increase § 53.1 Definitions. K. Congressional Review Act above present levels. Further, EPA has Terms used but not defined in this concluded that this final rule is not The Congressional Review Act, 5 part shall have the meaning given them likely to have any adverse energy U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the by the Act. effects. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act means the Clean Air Act (42 Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides U.S.C. 1857–1857l), as amended. J. National Technology Transfer that before a rule may take effect, the Additive and multiplicative bias Advancement Act agency promulgating the rule must means the linear regression intercept Section 12(d) of the National submit a rule report, which includes a and slope of a linear plot fitted to Technology Transfer Advancement Act copy of the rule, to each House of corresponding candidate and reference of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, Congress and to the Comptroller General method mean measurement data pairs. section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) of the United States. The EPA will Administrator means the directs EPA to use voluntary consensus submit a report containing the final Administrator of the Environmental standards in its regulatory activities amendments and other required Protection Agency (EPA) or his or her unless to do so would be inconsistent information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. authorized representative. with applicable law or otherwise House of Representatives, and the Agency means the Environmental impractical. Voluntary consensus Comptroller General of the United Protection Agency. standards are technical standards (e.g., States prior to publication of the final Applicant means a person or entity materials specifications, test methods, amendments in the Federal Register. A who submits an application for a sampling procedures, and business major rule cannot take effect until 60 Federal reference method or Federal practices) that are developed or adopted days after it is published in the Federal equivalent method determination under by voluntary consensus standards Register. This action is not a ‘‘major § 53.4, or a person or entity who bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This assumes the rights and obligations of an provide Congress, through OMB, final rule will not have an annual effect applicant under § 53.7. Applicant may explanations when EPA decides not to on the economy of $100 million or include a manufacturer, distributor, use available and applicable voluntary more, will not result in a major increase supplier, or vendor. consensus standards. in costs or prices for State or local Automated method or analyzer means The final amendments involve agencies, and will not affect competition a method for measuring concentrations environmental monitoring and with foreign-based enterprises in of an ambient air pollutant in which measurement. Ambient air domestic and export markets. The final sample collection (if necessary),

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61272 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

analysis, and measurement are designation has been canceled in start time, stop time, and duration of the performed automatically by an accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16. sampling or measurement period. instrument. Federal reference method (FRM) Pb means lead. Candidate method means a method means a method of sampling and PM means PM10, PM10C, PM2.5, for measuring the concentration of an analyzing the ambient air for an air PM10¥2.5, or particulate matter of air pollutant in the ambient air for pollutant that is specified as a reference unspecified size range. which an application for a Federal method in an appendix to part 50 of this PM2.5 means particulate matter with reference method determination or a chapter, or a method that has been an aerodynamic diameter less than or Federal equivalent method designated as a reference method in equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as determination is submitted in accordance with this part; it does not measured by a reference method based accordance with § 53.4, or a method include a method for which a reference on appendix L of part 50 of this chapter tested at the initiative of the method designation has been canceled and designated in accordance with part Administrator in accordance with in accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16. 53 of this chapter, by an equivalent § 53.7. ISO 9001-registered facility means a method designated in accordance with Class I equivalent method means an manufacturing facility that is either: part 53 of this chapter, or by an equivalent method for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 (1) An International Organization for approved regional method designated in which is based on a sampler that is very Standardization (ISO) 9001-registered accordance with appendix C to this part. similar to the sampler specified for manufacturing facility, registered to the PM10 means particulate matter with reference methods in appendix L or ISO 9001 standard (by the Registrar an aerodynamic diameter less than or appendix O (as applicable) of part 50 of Accreditation Board (RAB) of the equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as this chapter, with only minor deviations American Society for Quality Control measured by a reference method based or modifications, as determined by EPA. (ASQC) in the United States), with on appendix J of part 50 of this chapter Class II equivalent method means an registration maintained continuously; or and designated in accordance with this equivalent method for PM or PM ¥ 2.5 10 2.5 (2) A facility that can be part or by an equivalent method that utilizes a PM sampler or PM ¥ 2.5 10 2.5 demonstrated, on the basis of designated in accordance with this part. sampler in which integrated PM2.5 information submitted to the EPA, to be PM10C means particulate matter with samples or PM10¥2.5 samples are obtained from the atmosphere by operated according to an EPA-approved an aerodynamic diameter less than or filtration and subjected to a subsequent and periodically audited quality system equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as filter conditioning process followed by which meets, to the extent appropriate, measured by a reference method based a gravimetric mass determination, but the same general requirements as an ISO on appendix O of part 50 of this chapter which is not a Class I equivalent method 9001-registered facility for the design and designated in accordance with this because of substantial deviations from and manufacture of designated Federal part or by an equivalent method the design specifications of the sampler reference method and Federal designated in accordance with this part. specified for reference methods in equivalent method samplers and PM10¥2.5 means particulate matter appendix L or appendix O (as monitors. with an aerodynamic diameter less than applicable) of part 50 of this chapter, as ISO-certified auditor means an or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers determined by EPA. auditor who is either certified by the and greater than a nominal 2.5 Class III equivalent method means an Registrar Accreditation Board (in the micrometers as measured by a reference United States) as being qualified to method based on appendix O to part 50 equivalent method for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 that is an analyzer capable of providing audit quality systems using the of this chapter and designated in requirements of recognized standards accordance with this part or by an PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 ambient air measurements representative of one- such as ISO 9001, or who, based on equivalent method designated in information submitted to the EPA, accordance with this part. hour or less integrated PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 concentrations as well as 24-hour meets the same general requirements as PM2.5 sampler means a device, measurements determined as, or provided for ISO-certified auditors. associated with a manual method for equivalent to, the mean of 24 one-hour Manual method means a method for measuring PM2.5, designed to collect consecutive measurements. measuring concentrations of an ambient PM2.5 from an ambient air sample, but CO means carbon monoxide. air pollutant in which sample lacking the ability to automatically Collocated means two or more air collection, analysis, or measurement, or analyze or measure the collected sample samplers, analyzers, or other some combination thereof, is performed to determine the mass concentrations of instruments that are operated manually. A method for PM10 or PM2.5 PM2.5 in the sampled air. simultaneously while located side by which utilizes a sampler that requires PM10 sampler means a device, side, separated by a distance that is manual preparation, loading, and associated with a manual method for large enough to preclude the air weighing of filter samples is considered measuring PM10, designed to collect sampled by any of the devices from a manual method even though the PM10 from an ambient air sample, but being affected by any of the other sampler may be capable of lacking the ability to automatically devices, but small enough so that all automatically collecting a series of analyze or measure the collected sample devices obtain identical or uniform sequential samples. to determine the mass concentrations of ambient air samples that are equally NO means nitrogen oxide. PM10 in the sampled air. representative of the general area in NO2 means nitrogen dioxide. PM10C sampler means a PM10 sampler which the group of devices is located. NOX means oxides of nitrogen and is that meets the special requirements for Federal equivalent method (FEM) defined as the sum of the concentrations a PM10C sampler that is part of a means a method for measuring the of NO2 and NO. PM10¥2.5 reference method sampler, as concentration of an air pollutant in the O3 means ozone. specified in appendix O to part 50 of ambient air that has been designated as Operated simultaneously means that this chapter, or a PM10 sampler that is an equivalent method in accordance two or more collocated samplers or part of a PM10¥2.5 sampler that has been with this part; it does not include a analyzers are operated concurrently designated as an equivalent method for method for which an equivalent method with no significant difference in the PM10¥2.5.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61273

PM10¥2.5 sampler means a sampler, or facility, as defined in § 53.1 and as set (4) PM10¥2.5 Class I. A PM10¥2.5 Class a collocated pair of samplers, associated forth in § 53.51. I FEM sampler must also satisfy the with a manual method for measuring (4) PM10¥2.5. A FRM for measuring applicable requirements of subpart E of PM10¥2.5 and designed to collect either PM10¥2.5 must be a manual method that this part (there are no additional PM10¥2.5 directly or PM10C and PM2.5 meets all requirements specified in requirements specifically for Class I separately and simultaneously from appendix O of part 50 of this chapter PM10¥2.5 methods in subpart C of this concurrent ambient air samples, but and must include PM10C and PM2.5 part). lacking the ability to automatically samplers that have been shown in (5) PM10¥2.5 Class II. (i) A PM10¥2.5 analyze or measure the collected accordance with this part to meet the Class II FEM sampler must also satisfy sample(s) to determine the mass applicable requirements specified in the applicable requirements of subpart C concentrations of PM10¥2.5 in the this subpart A and subpart E of this part. of this part and also the applicable sampled air. Further, PM10¥2.5 FRM samplers must requirements and provisions of Sequential samples for PM samplers be manufactured in an ISO 9001- paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this means two or more PM samples for registered facility, as defined in § 53.1 section, or the alternative requirements sequential (but not necessarily and as set forth in § 53.51. in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. contiguous) time periods that are (b) Automated methods. An (ii) In lieu of the applicable collected automatically by the same automated FRM for measuring CO, O3, requirements specified for Class II sampler without the need for or NO2 must utilize the measurement PM10¥2.5 methods in subpart C of this intervening operator service. principle and calibration procedure part and in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this ¥ SO2 means sulfur dioxide. specified in the appropriate appendix to section, a Class II PM10 2.5 FEM sampler Test analyzer means an analyzer part 50 of this chapter and must have may alternatively meet the applicable subjected to testing as part of a been shown in accordance with this part requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and candidate method in accordance with to meet the requirements specified in (ii) of this section and the testing, subparts B, C, D, E, or F of this part, as this subpart A and subpart B of this performance, and comparability applicable. part. requirements specified for Class III Test sampler means a PM10 sampler, FEMs for PM10¥2.5 in subpart C of this § 53.3 General requirements for an PM2.5 sampler, or PM10¥2.5 sampler part. subjected to testing as part of a equivalent method determination. (6) ISO 9001. All designated FEMs for candidate method in accordance with (a) Manual methods. A manual PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 must be manufactured subparts C, D, E, or F of this part. Federal equivalent method (FEM) must in an ISO 9001-registered facility, as Ultimate purchaser means the first have been shown in accordance with defined in § 53.1 and as set forth in person or entity who purchases a this part to satisfy the applicable § 53.51. Federal reference method or a Federal requirements specified in this subpart A (b) Automated methods. All types of equivalent method for purposes other and subpart C of this part. In addition, automated FEMs must have been shown than resale. a PM sampler associated with a manual in accordance with this part to satisfy method for PM10, PM2.5, or PM10¥2.5 the applicable requirements specified in § 53.2 General requirements for a must have been shown in accordance this subpart A and subpart C of this reference method determination. with this part to satisfy the following part. In addition, an automated FEM The following general requirements additional requirements, as applicable: must have been shown in accordance for a Federal reference method (FRM) (1) PM10. A PM10 sampler associated with this part to satisfy the following determination are summarized in table with a manual method for PM10 must additional requirements, as applicable: A–1 of this subpart. satisfy the requirements of subpart D of (1) An automated FEM for pollutants (a) Manual methods—(1) Sulfur this part. other than PM must be shown in dioxide (SO2) and lead. For measuring (2) PM2.5 Class I. A PM2.5 Class I FEM accordance with this part to satisfy the SO2 and lead, appendices A and G of sampler must also satisfy all applicable requirements specified in part 50 of this chapter specify unique requirements of subpart E of this part, subpart B of this part. manual FRM for measuring these which shall include appropriate (2) An automated FEM for PM10 must pollutants. Except as provided in demonstration that each and every be shown in accordance with this part § 53.16, other manual methods for SO2 deviation or modification from the FRM to satisfy the applicable requirements of and lead will not be considered for FRM sampler specifications does not subpart D of this part. determinations under this part. significantly alter the performance of (3) A Class III automated FEM for (2) PM10. A FRM for measuring PM10 the sampler. PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 must be shown in must be a manual method that meets all (3) PM2.5 Class II. (i) A PM2.5 Class II accordance with this part to satisfy the requirements specified in appendix J of FEM sampler must also satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) part 50 of this chapter and must include applicable requirements of subparts E through (iii) of this section, as a PM10 sampler that has been shown in and F of this part or the alternative applicable. accordance with this part to meet all requirements in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of (i) All pertinent requirements of 40 requirements specified in this subpart A this section. CFR part 50, appendix L, including and subpart D of this part. (ii) In lieu of the applicable sampling height, range of operational (3) PM2.5. A FRM for measuring PM2.5 requirements specified for Class II PM2.5 conditions, ambient temperature and must be a manual method that meets all methods in subparts C and F of this pressure sensors, outdoor enclosure, requirements specified in appendix L of part, a Class II PM2.5 FEM sampler may electrical power supply, control devices part 50 of this chapter and must include alternatively meet the applicable and operator interfaces, data output a PM2.5 sampler that has been shown in requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) port, operation/instruction manual, data accordance with this part to meet the through (iii) of this section and the output and reporting requirements, and applicable requirements specified in testing, performance, and comparability any other requirements that would be this subpart A and subpart E of this part. requirements specified for Class III reasonably applicable to the method, Further, FRM samplers must be equivalent methods for PM2.5 in subpart unless adequate (as determined by the manufactured in an ISO 9001-registered C of this part. Administrator) rationale can be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61274 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

provided to support the contention that the specific type of measurement or (A) Description of the method and a particular requirement does not or operation of the candidate method. associated instruments. should not be applicable to the (4) All designated FEM for PM2.5 or (B) Explanation of all indicators, particular candidate method. PM10¥2.5 must be manufactured in an information displays, and controls. (ii) All pertinent tests and ISO 9001-registered facility, as defined (C) Complete setup and installation requirements of subpart E of this part, in § 53.1 and as set forth in § 53.51. instructions, including any additional such as instrument manufacturing materials or supplies required. quality control; final assembly and § 53.4 Applications for reference or (D) Details of all initial or startup equivalent method determinations. inspection; manufacturer’s audit checks or acceptance tests and any checklists; leak checks; flow rate (a) Applications for FRM or FEM auxiliary equipment required. accuracy, measurement accuracy, and determinations shall be submitted in (E) Complete operational instructions. flow rate cut-off; operation following duplicate to: Director, National (F) Calibration procedures and power interruptions; effect of variations Exposure Research Laboratory, descriptions of required calibration in power line voltage, ambient Reference and Equivalent Method equipment and standards. temperature and ambient pressure; and Program (MD–D205–03), U.S. (G) Instructions for verification of aerosol transport; unless adequate (as Environmental Protection Agency, correct or proper operation. determined by the Administrator) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (H) Trouble-shooting guidance and rationale can be provided to support the 27711 (Commercial delivery address: suggested corrective actions for contention that a particular test or 4930 Old Page Road, Durham, North abnormal operation. requirement does not or should not be Carolina 27703). (I) Required or recommended routine, applicable to the particular candidate (b) Each application shall be signed periodic, and preventative maintenance method. by an authorized representative of the and maintenance schedules. (iii) Candidate methods shall be tested applicant, shall be marked in (J) Any calculations required to derive for and meet any performance accordance with § 53.15 (if applicable), final concentration measurements. requirements, such as inlet aspiration, and shall contain the following: (K) Appropriate references to any particle size separation or selection (1) A clear identification of the applicable appendix of part 50 of this characteristics, change in particle candidate method, which will chapter; reference 6 of appendix A of separation or selection characteristics distinguish it from all other methods this subpart; and any other pertinent due to loading or other operational such that the method may be referred to guidelines. conditions, or effects of surface unambiguously. This identification (ii) The manual shall also include exposure and particle volatility, must consist of a unique series of adequate warning of potential safety determined by the Administrator to be descriptors such as title, identification hazards that may result from normal use necessary based on the nature, design, number, analyte, measurement and/or malfunction of the method and and specifics of the candidate method principle, manufacturer, brand, model, a description of necessary safety and the extent to which it deviates from etc., as necessary to distinguish the precautions. (See § 53.9(b).) However, the design and performance method from all other methods or the previous requirement shall not be characteristics of the reference method. method variations, both within and interpreted to constitute or imply any These performance requirements and outside the applicant’s organization. warranty of safety of the method by the specific test(s) for them will be (2) A detailed description of the EPA. For samplers and automated determined by Administrator for each candidate method, including but not methods, the manual shall include a specific candidate method or type of limited to the following: The clear description of all procedures candidate method and may be similar to measurement principle, manufacturer, pertaining to installation, operation, or based on corresponding tests and name, model number and other forms of preventive maintenance, and requirements set forth in subpart F of identification, a list of the significant troubleshooting and shall also include this part or may be special requirements components, schematic diagrams, parts identification diagrams. The and tests tailored by the Administrator design drawings, and a detailed manual may be used to satisfy the to the specific nature, design, and description of the apparatus and requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and operational characteristics of the measurement procedures. Drawings and (2) of this section to the extent that it candidate method. For example, a descriptions pertaining to candidate includes information necessary to meet candidate method with an inlet design methods or samplers for PM2.5 or those requirements. deviating substantially from the design PM10¥2.5 must meet all applicable (4) A statement that the candidate of the reference method inlet would requirements in reference 1 of appendix method has been tested in accordance likely be subject to an inlet aspiration A of this subpart, using appropriate with the procedures described in test similar to that set forth in § 53.63. graphical, nomenclature, and subparts B, C, D, E, and/or F of this part, Similarly, a candidate method having an mathematical conventions such as those as applicable. inertial fractionation system specified in references 3 and 4 of (5) Descriptions of test facilities and substantially different from that of the appendix A of this subpart. test configurations, test data, records, reference method would likely be (3) A copy of a comprehensive calculations, and test results as subject to a static fractionation test and operation or instruction manual specified in subparts B, C, D, E, and/or a loading test similar to those set forth providing a complete and detailed F of this part, as applicable. Data must in §§ 53.64 and 53.65, respectively. A description of the operational, be sufficiently detailed to meet candidate method with more extensive maintenance, and calibration appropriate principles described in part or profound deviations from the design procedures prescribed for field use of B, sections 3.3.1 (paragraph 1) and 3.5.1 and function of the reference method the candidate method and all and part C, section 4.6 of reference 2 of may be subject to other tests, full wind- instruments utilized as part of that appendix A of this subpart; and in tunnel tests similar to those described in method (under § 53.9(a)). paragraphs 1 through 3 of section 4.8 § 53.62, or to special tests adapted or (i) As a minimum this manual shall (Records) of reference 5 of appendix A developed individually to accommodate include: of this subpart. Salient requirements

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61275

from these references include the provided in the following sections of II or Class III equivalent methods for following: reference 2 of appendix A of this PM10¥2.5, the applicant, if requested by (i) The applicant shall maintain and subpart: part A (Management Systems), EPA, shall provide to EPA for test include records of all relevant sections 2.2 (Quality System and purposes one sampler or analyzer that is measuring equipment, including the Description), 2.3 (Personnel representative of the sampler or make, type, and serial number or other Qualification and Training), 2.4 analyzer associated with the candidate identification, and most recent (Procurement of Items and Services), 2.5 method. The sampler or analyzer shall calibration with identification of the (Documents and Records), and 2.7 be shipped FOB destination to Director, measurement standard or standards (Planning); part B (Collection and National Exposure Research Laboratory, used and their National Institute of Evaluation of Environmental Data), Reference and Equivalent Method Standards and Technology (NIST) sections 3.1 (Planning and Scoping), 3.2 Program (MD-D205–03), U.S. traceability. These records shall (Design of Data Collection Operations), Environmental Protection Agency, 4930 demonstrate the measurement capability and 3.5 (Assessment and Verification of Old Page Road, Durham, North Carolina of each item of measuring equipment Data Usability); and part C (Operation of 27703, scheduled to arrive concurrent used for the application and include a Environmental Technology), sections with or within 30 days of the arrival of description and justification (if needed) 4.1 (Planning), 4.2 (Design of Systems), the other application materials. This of the measurement setup or and 4.4 (Operation of Systems). analyzer or sampler may be subjected to configuration in which it was used for (2) A description of the durability various tests that EPA determines to be the tests. The calibration results shall be characteristics of such analyzers or necessary or appropriate under § 53.5(f), recorded and identified in sufficient samplers (see § 53.9(c)). For methods for and such tests may include special tests detail so that the traceability of all PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 the warranty not described in this part. If the measurements can be determined and program must ensure that the required instrument submitted under this any measurement could be reproduced specifications (see Table A–1 to this paragraph malfunctions, becomes under conditions close to the original subpart) will be met throughout the inoperative, or fails to perform as conditions, if necessary, to resolve any warranty period and that the applicant represented in the application before the anomalies. accepts responsibility and liability for necessary EPA testing is completed, the (ii) Test data shall be collected ensuring this conformance or for applicant shall be afforded an according to the standards of good resolving any nonconformities, opportunity to repair or replace the practice and by qualified personnel. including all necessary components of device at no cost to EPA. Upon Test anomalies or irregularities shall be the system, regardless of the original completion of EPA testing, the analyzer documented and explained or justified. manufacturer. The warranty program or sampler submitted under this The impact and significance of the must be described in sufficient detail to paragraph shall be repacked by EPA for deviation on test results and meet appropriate provisions of the return shipment to the applicant, using conclusions shall be determined. Data ANSI/ASQC and ISO 9001 standards the same packing materials used for collected shall correspond directly to (references 1 and 2 in appendix A of shipping the instrument to EPA unless the specified test requirement and be this subpart) for controlling alternative packing is provided by the labeled and identified clearly so that conformance and resolving applicant. Arrangements for, and the results can be verified and evaluated nonconformance, particularly sections cost of, return shipment shall be the against the test requirement. 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 of reference 1 in responsibility of the applicant. The EPA Calculations or data manipulations must appendix A of this subpart. does not warrant or assume any liability be explained in detail so that they can (i) Section 4.12 in reference 1 of for the condition of the analyzer or be verified. appendix A of this subpart requires the sampler upon return to the applicant. (6) A statement that the method, manufacturer to establish and maintain analyzer, or sampler tested in a system of procedures for identifying § 53.5 Processing of applications. accordance with this part is and maintaining the identification of After receiving an application for a representative of the candidate method inspection and test status throughout all FRM or FEM determination, the described in the application. phases of manufacturing to ensure that Administrator will, within 120 calendar (c) For candidate automated methods only instruments that have passed the days after receipt of the application, and candidate manual methods for required inspections and tests are take one or more of the following PM10, PM2.5, and PM10¥2.5 the released for sale. actions: application shall also contain the (ii) Section 4.13 in reference 1 of (a) Send notice to the applicant, in following: appendix A of this subpart requires accordance with § 53.8, that the (1) A detailed description of the documented procedures for control of candidate method has been determined quality system that will be utilized, if nonconforming product, including to be a reference or equivalent method. the candidate method is designated as a review and acceptable alternatives for (b) Send notice to the applicant that reference or equivalent method, to disposition; section 4.14 in reference 1 the application has been rejected, ensure that all analyzers or samplers of appendix A of this subpart requires including a statement of reasons for offered for sale under that designation documented procedures for rejection. will have essentially the same implementing corrective (4.14.2) and (c) Send notice to the applicant that performance characteristics as the preventive (4.14.3) action to eliminate additional information must be analyzer(s) or samplers tested in the causes of actual or potential submitted before a determination can be accordance with this part. In addition, nonconformities. In particular, section made and specify the additional the quality system requirements for 4.14.3 requires that potential causes of information that is needed (in such candidate methods for PM2.5 and nonconformities be eliminated by using cases, the 120-day period shall PM10¥2.5 must be described in sufficient information such as service reports and commence upon receipt of the detail, based on the elements described customer complaints to eliminate additional information). in section 4 of reference 1 (Quality potential causes of nonconformities. (d) Send notice to the applicant that System Requirements) of appendix A of (d) For candidate reference or additional test data must be submitted this subpart. Further clarification is equivalent methods for PM2.5 and Class and specify what tests are necessary and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61276 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

how the tests shall be interpreted (in ultimate purchaser, and an electronic or PM10¥2.5 sampler that has been such cases, the 120-day period shall copy of the manual suitable for designated as a FRM or FEM, the commence upon receipt of the incorporating into user-specific applicant shall not sell the modified additional test data). standard operating procedure analyzer or sampler as a reference or (e) Send notice to the applicant that documents shall be readily available to equivalent method nor attach a label or the application has been found to be any users. sticker to the modified analyzer or substantially deficient or incomplete (b) Any method offered for sale as a sampler under paragraph (d) or (e) of and cannot be processed until FRM or FEM shall generate no this section until the applicant has additional information is submitted to unreasonable hazard to operators or to received notice under § 53.14(c) that the complete the application and specify the environment during normal use or existing designation or a new the general areas of substantial when malfunctioning. designation will apply to the modified deficiency. (c) Any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5 analyzer or sampler or has applied for (f) Send notice to the applicant that sampler, or PM10¥2.5 sampler offered for and received notice under § 53.8(b) of a additional tests will be conducted by sale as part of a FRM or FEM shall new FRM or FEM determination for the the Administrator, specifying the nature function within the limits of the modified analyzer or sampler. of and reasons for the additional tests performance specifications referred to in (h) An applicant who has offered § 53.20(a), § 53.30(a), § 53.50, or § 53.60, and the estimated time required (in such PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 samplers or analyzers cases, the 120-day period shall as applicable, for at least 1 year after for sale as part of a FRM or FEM may commence 1 calendar day after the delivery and acceptance when continue to do so only so long as the additional tests have been completed). maintained and operated in accordance facility in which the samplers or 3. Sections 53.8 and 53.9 are revised with the manual referred to in analyzers are manufactured continues to to read as follows: § 53.4(b)(3). be an ISO 9001-registered facility, as set

(d) Any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5 forth in subpart E of this part. In the § 53.8 Designation of reference and sampler, or PM10¥2.5 sampler offered for equivalent methods. event that the ISO 9001 registration for sale as a FRM or FEM shall bear a the facility is withdrawn, suspended, or (a) A candidate method determined prominent, permanently affixed label or otherwise becomes inapplicable, either by the Administrator to satisfy the sticker indicating that the analyzer or permanently or for some specified time applicable requirements of this part sampler has been designated by EPA as interval, such that the facility is no shall be designated as a FRM or FEM (as a FRM or FEM (as applicable) in longer an ISO 9001-registered facility, applicable) by and upon publication of accordance with this part and the applicant shall notify EPA within 30 a notice of the designation in the displaying any designated method days of the date the facility becomes Federal Register. identification number that may be other than an ISO 9001-registered (b) Upon designation, a notice assigned by EPA. facility, and upon such notification, indicating that the method has been (e) If an analyzer is offered for sale as EPA shall issue a preliminary finding designated as a FRM or FEM shall be a FRM or FEM and has one or more and notification of possible cancellation sent to the applicant. selectable ranges, the label or sticker of the FRM or FEM designation under (c) The Administrator will maintain a required by paragraph (d) of this section § 53.11. current list of methods designated as shall be placed in close proximity to the FRM or FEM in accordance with this range selector and shall indicate clearly (i) An applicant who has offered PM2.5 part and will send a copy of the list to which range or ranges have been or PM10¥2.5 samplers or analyzers for any person or group upon request. A designated as parts of the FRM or FEM. sale as part of a FRM or FEM may copy of the list will be available for (f) An applicant who offers analyzers, continue to do so only so long as updates of the Product Manufacturing inspection or copying at EPA Regional PM10 samplers, PM2.5 samplers, or Checklist set forth in subpart E of this Offices and may be available via the PM10¥2.5 samplers for sale as FRM or Internet or other sources. FEMs shall maintain an accurate and part are submitted annually. In the current list of the names and mailing event that an annual Checklist update is § 53.9 Conditions of designation. addresses of all ultimate purchasers of not received by EPA within 12 months Designation of a candidate method as such analyzers or samplers. For a period of the date of the last such submitted a FRM or FEM shall be conditioned to of 7 years after publication of the FRM Checklist or Checklist update, EPA shall the applicant’s compliance with the or FEM designation applicable to such notify the applicant within 30 days that following requirements. Failure to an analyzer or sampler, the applicant the Checklist update has not been comply with any of the requirements shall notify all ultimate purchasers of received and shall, within 30 days from shall constitute a ground for the analyzer or sampler within 30 days the issuance of such notification, issue cancellation of the designation in if the designation has been canceled in a preliminary finding and notification of accordance with § 53.11. accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16 or if possible cancellation of the reference or (a) Any method offered for sale as a adjustment of the analyzer or sampler is equivalent method designation under FRM or FEM shall be accompanied by necessary under § 53.11(b). § 53.11. a copy of the manual referred to in (g) If an applicant modifies an 4. Table A–1 to subpart A of part 53 § 53.4(b)(3) when delivered to any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5 sampler, is revised to read as follows:

TABLE A–1 TO SUBPART A OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR AIR MONITORING OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.

Applicable Applicable subparts of part 53 Pollutant Ref. or equivalent Manual or automated part 50 ap- pendix A B C D E F

SO2 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... A ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ......

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61277

TABLE A–1 TO SUBPART A OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR AIR MONITORING OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.—Continued

Applicable Applicable subparts of part 53 Pollutant Ref. or equivalent Manual or automated part 50 ap- pendix A B C D E F

Automated ...... CO ...... Reference ...... Automated ...... C ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... O3 ...... Reference ...... Automated ...... D ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... NO2 ...... Reference ...... Automated ...... F ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... Pb ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... G ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... PM10 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... J ...... Equivalent ...... Manual ...... Automated ...... PM2.5 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... L ...... Equivalent Class I ...... Manual ...... L ...... Equivalent Class II ...... Manual ...... L1 ...... 2 1,2 Equivalent Class III ...... Automated ...... L1 ...... 1 1 2 PM10–2.5 ...... Reference ...... Manual ...... O ...... Equivalent Class I ...... Manual ...... O2 ...... Equivalent Class II ...... Manual ...... O2 ...... 2 1 1, 2 Equivalent Class III ...... Automated ...... L1,O1, 2 ...... 1 1 1 Some requirements may apply, based on the nature of each particular candidate method, as determined by the Administrator. 2 Alternative Class III requirements may be substituted.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61278 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

5. Paragraphs (1), (2), and (6) of Tables to Subpart C of Part 53 site with suitable supporting evidence such as a description of the surrounding appendix A to subpart A of part 53 are Table C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test area, characterization of the sources and revised to read as follows: Concentration Ranges, Number of pollutants typical in the area, maps, Measurements Required, and Maximum Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 53— population density data, vehicular Discrepancy Specification References traffic data, emission inventories, (1) American National Standard Quality Table C–2 to Subpart C of Part 53— pollutant measurements from previous Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in Sequence of Test Measurements years, concurrent pollutant Design, Development, Production, Table C–3 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test measurements, meteorological data, and Installation, and Servicing, ANSI/ISO/ASQC Specifications for Pb Methods other information useful in supporting the suitability of the site for the Q9001–1994. Available from American Table C–4 to Subpart C of Part 53—Test Society for Quality, P.O. Box 3005, comparison test or tests. Specifications for PM , PM , and Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// 10 2.5 (2) If approval of one or more PM ¥ Candidate Equivalent Methods qualitypress.asq.org). 10 2.5 proposed test sites is desired prior to (2) American National Standard Quality Table C–5 to Subpart C of Part 53— conducting the tests, a written request Systems for Environmental Data and Summary of Comparability Field for approval of the test site or sites must Technology Programs—Requirements with Testing Campaign Site and Seasonal be submitted to the address given in guidance for use, ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. Requirements for Class II and III FEMs § 53.4. The request should include Available from American Society for Quality for PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 information identifying the type of candidate method and one or more P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// Figures to Subpart C of Part 53 qualitypress.asq.org). specific proposed test sites along with a justification for each proposed specific * * * * * Figure C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53— site as described in paragraph (b)(1) of (6) Quality Assurance Guidance Document Suggested Format for Reporting Test this section. The EPA will evaluate each 2.12. Monitoring PM in Ambient Air Using Results for Methods for SO2, CO, O3, 2.5 proposed site and approve the site, Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent NO2 disapprove the site, or request more Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure Figure C–2 to Subpart C of Part 53— information about the site. Any such Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, Illustration of the Slope and Intercept pre-test approval of a test site by the NC, November 1998 or later edition. Limits for Class II and Class III PM 2.5 EPA shall indicate only that the site Currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ Candidate Equivalent Methods ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. meets the applicable test site Figure C–3 to Subpart C of Part 53— requirements for the candidate method 6. Subpart C is revised to read as Illustration of the Slope and Intercept type; it shall not indicate, suggest, or follows: Limits for Class II and Class III PM10¥2.5 imply that test data obtained at the site Candidate Equivalent Methods Sec. will necessarily meet any of the Figure C–4 to Subpart C of Part 53— applicable data acceptance Subpart C—Procedures for Determining Illustration of the Minimum Limits for requirements. The Administrator may Comparability Between Candidate Methods exercise discretion in selecting a Correlation Coefficient for PM2.5 and and Reference Methods different site (or sites) for any additional PM10¥2.5 Class II and III Methods 53.30 General provisions. tests the Administrator decides to 53.31 [Reserved] Appendix to Subpart C of Part 53 conduct. 53.32 Test procedures for methods for SO2, Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 53— (c) Test atmosphere. Ambient air CO, O3, and NO2. References sampled at an appropriate test site or 53.33 Test procedure for methods for Pb. sites shall be used for these tests. 53.34 Test procedures for methods for PM10 Subpart C—Procedures for Simultaneous concentration and Class I methods for PM2.5. Determining Comparability Between measurements shall be made in each of 53.35 Test procedures for Class II and Class Candidate Methods and Reference the concentration ranges specified in III methods for PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. Methods tables C–1, C–3, or C–4 of this subpart, as appropriate. § 53.30 General provisions. (d) Sampling or sample collection. All (a) Determination of comparability. test concentration measurements or The test procedures prescribed in this samples shall be taken in such a way subpart shall be used to determine if a that both the candidate method and the candidate method is comparable to a reference method obtain air samples reference method when both methods that are alike or as nearly identical as measure pollutant concentrations in practical. ambient air. Minor deviations in testing (e) Operation. Set-up and start-up of requirements and acceptance the test analyzer(s), test sampler(s), and requirements set forth in this subpart, in reference method analyzers or samplers connection with any documented shall be in strict accordance with the extenuating circumstances, may be applicable operation manual(s). determined by the Administrator to be (f) Calibration. The reference method acceptable, at the discretion of the shall be calibrated according to the Administrator. appropriate appendix to part 50 of this (b) Selection of test sites. (1) Each test chapter (if it is a manual method) or site shall be in an area which can be according to the applicable operation shown to have at least moderate manual(s) (if it is an automated concentrations of various pollutants. method). A candidate method (or Each site shall be clearly identified and portion thereof) shall be calibrated shall be justified as an appropriate test according to the applicable operation

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61279

manual(s), if such calibration is a part appropriate time intervals such that (2) All test measurements shall be of the method. trend plots similar to a strip chart made with the same test analyzer; use (g) Submission of test data and other recording may be constructed with a of multiple test analyzers is not information. All recorder charts, similar or suitable level of detail. permitted. The test analyzer shall be calibration data, records, test results, (2) Other data acquisition components operated continuously during the entire procedural descriptions and details, and may be used along with the chart series of test measurements. other documentation obtained from (or recorder during the conduct of these (3) If a test analyzer should pertinent to) these tests shall be tests. Use of the chart recorder is malfunction during any of these tests, identified, dated, signed by the analyst intended only to facilitate visual the entire set of measurements shall be performing the test, and submitted. For evaluation of data submitted. repeated, and a detailed explanation of candidate methods for PM2.5 and (3) Allow adequate warmup or the malfunction, remedial action taken, PM10¥2.5, all submitted information stabilization time as indicated in the and whether recalibration was necessary must meet the requirements of the applicable operation manual(s) before (along with all pertinent records and ANSI/ASQC E4 Standard, sections 6 beginning the tests. charts) shall be submitted. (reference 1 of appendix A of this (e) Range. (1) Except as provided in (4) Ambient air shall be sampled from subpart). paragraph (e)(2) of this section, each a common intake and distribution § 53.31 [Reserved] method shall be operated in the range manifold designed to deliver specified for the reference method in the homogenous air samples to both § 53.32 Test procedures for methods for appropriate appendix to part 50 of this methods. Precautions shall be taken in SO2, CO, O3, and NO2. chapter (for manual reference methods), the design and construction of this (a) Comparability. Comparability is or specified in table B–1 of subpart B of manifold to minimize the removal of shown for SO2, CO, O3, and NO2 this part (for automated reference particulate matter and trace gases, and methods when the differences between: methods). to insure that identical samples reach (1) Measurements made by a (2) For a candidate method having the two methods. If necessary, the candidate manual method or by a test more than one selectable range, one concentration of pollutant in the analyzer representative of a candidate range must be that specified in table B– sampled ambient air may be augmented automated method, and; 1 of subpart B of this part, and a test with artificially generated pollutant. (2) Measurements made analyzer representative of the method However, at all times the air sample simultaneously by a reference method must pass the tests required by this measured by the candidate and are less than or equal to the values for subpart while operated on that range. reference methods under test shall maximum discrepancy specified in table The tests may be repeated for a broader consist of not less than 80 percent C–1 of this subpart. range (i.e., one extending to higher ambient air by volume. Schematic (b) Test measurements. All test concentrations) than the one specified drawings, physical illustrations, measurements are to be made at the in table B–1 of subpart B of this part, descriptions, and complete details of the same test site. If necessary, the provided that the range does not extend manifold system and the augmentation concentration of pollutant in the to concentrations more than two times system (if used) shall be submitted. sampled ambient air may be augmented the upper range limit specified in table (g) Tests. (1) Conduct the first set of with artificially generated pollutant to B–1 of subpart B of this part and that the simultaneous measurements with the facilitate measurements in the specified test analyzer has passed the tests candidate and reference methods: ranges, as described under paragraph required by subpart B of this part (if (i) Table C–1 of this subpart specifies (f)(4) of this section. applicable) for the broader range. If the the type (1-or 24-hour) and number of (c) Requirements for measurements or tests required by this subpart are measurements to be made in each of the samples. All test measurements made or conducted or passed only for the range three test concentration ranges. test samples collected by means of a specified in table B–1 of subpart B of (ii) The pollutant concentration must sample manifold as specified in this part, any equivalent method fall within the specified range as paragraph (f)(4) of this section shall be determination with respect to the measured by the reference method. at a room temperature between 20° and method will be limited to that range. If 30° C, and at a line voltage between 105 the tests are passed for both the (iii) The measurements shall be made and 125 volts. All methods shall be specified range and a broader range (or in the sequence specified in table C–2 calibrated as specified in § 53.30(f) prior ranges), any such determination will of this subpart, except for the 1-hour to initiation of the tests. include the broader range(s) as well as SO2 measurements, which are all in the (d) Set-up and start-up. (1) Set-up and the specified range. Appropriate test high range. start-up of the test analyzer, test data shall be submitted for each range (2) For each pair of measurements, sampler(s), and reference method shall sought to be included in such a determine the difference (discrepancy) be in strict accordance with the determination. between the candidate method applicable operation manual(s). If the (f) Operation of automated methods. measurement and reference method test analyzer does not have an integral (1) Once the test analyzer has been set measurement. A discrepancy which strip chart or digital data recorder, up and calibrated and tests started, exceeds the discrepancy specified in connect the analyzer output to a suitable manual adjustment or normal periodic table C–1 of this subpart constitutes a strip chart or digital data recorder. This maintenance, as specified in the manual failure. Figure C–1 of this subpart recorder shall have a chart width of at referred to in § 53.4(b)(3), is permitted contains a suggested format for least 25 centimeters, a response time of only every 3 days. Automatic reporting the test results. 1 second or less, a deadband of not more adjustments which the test analyzer (3) The results of the first set of than 0.25 percent of full scale, and performs by itself are permitted at any measurements shall be interpreted as capability of either reading time. The submitted records shall show follows: measurements at least 5 percent below clearly when manual adjustments were (i) Zero failures: The candidate zero or offsetting the zero by at least 5 made and describe the operations method passes the test for percent. Digital data shall be recorded at performed. comparability.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61280 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Three or more failures: The correction procedure shall become a performed sequentially, i.e., a single candidate method fails the test for part of the method. sample should not be analyzed three comparability. times in sequence. Calculate the (iii) One or two failures: Conduct a § 53.33 Test procedure for methods for Pb. indicated Pb concentrations for the second set of simultaneous (a) Comparability. Comparability is reference method samples in measurements as specified in table C–1 shown for Pb methods when the micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for of this subpart. The results of the differences between: each analysis of each filter. Calculate combined total of first-set and second- (1) Measurements made by a the indicated total Pb amount for the set measurements shall be interpreted as candidate method, and audit samples in µg/strip for each (2) Measurements made by the follows: analysis of each strip. Label these test reference method on simultaneously (A) One or two failures: The candidate results as R1A, R1B, R1C, R2A, R2B, * * *, collected Pb samples (or the same method passes the test for Q1A, Q1B, Q1C, * * *, where R denotes sample, if applicable), are less than or comparability. results from the reference method equal to the value specified in table C– (B) Three or more failures: The samples; Q denotes results from the 3 of this subpart. audit samples; 1, 2, 3 indicate the filter candidate method fails the test for (b) Test measurements. Test number, and A, B, C indicate the first, comparability. measurements may be made at any second, and third analysis of each filter, (iv) For SO2, the 1-hour and 24-hour number of test sites. Augmentation of respectively. measurements shall be interpreted pollutant concentrations is not (2) For the candidate method samples, separately, and the candidate method permitted, hence an appropriate test site analyze each sample filter or filter must pass the tests for both 1- and 24- or sites must be selected to provide Pb extract three times and calculate, in hour measurements to pass the test for concentrations in the specified range. accordance with the candidate method, comparability. (c) Collocated samplers. The ambient the indicated Pb concentration in µg/m3 (4) A 1-hour measurement consists of air intake points of all the candidate and for each analysis of each filter. Label the integral of the instantaneous reference method collocated samplers these test results as C , C , C , * * *, concentration over a 60-minute shall be positioned at the same height 1A 1B 2C where C denotes results from the continuous period divided by the time above the ground level, and between 2 candidate method. For candidate period. Integration of the instantaneous meters (1 meter for samplers with flow methods which provide a direct concentration may be performed by any rates less than 200 liters per minute (L/ measurement of Pb concentrations appropriate means such as chemical, min)) and 4 meters apart. The samplers without a separable procedure, electronic, mechanical, visual judgment, shall be oriented in a manner that will C =C =C , C =C =C , etc. or by calculating the mean of not less minimize spatial and wind directional 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C (g) Average Pb concentration. For the than 12 equally-spaced instantaneous effects on sample collection. reference method, calculate the average readings. Appropriate allowances or (d) Sample collection. Collect Pb concentration for each filter by corrections shall be made in cases simultaneous 24-hour samples (filters) averaging the concentrations calculated where significant errors could occur due of Pb at the test site or sites with both from the three analyses using equation to characteristic lag time or rise/fall time the reference and candidate methods 1 of this section: differences between the candidate and until at least 10 filter pairs have been reference methods. Details of the means obtained. A candidate method which Equation 1 of integration and any corrections shall employs a sampler and sample be submitted. RRR++ collection procedure that are identical = iA iB iC (5) A 24-hour measurement consists Ri ave to the sampler and sample collection 3 of the integral of the instantaneous procedure specified in the reference concentration over a 24-hour method, but uses a different analytical Where, i is the filter number. continuous period divided by the time procedure, may be tested by analyzing (h) Accuracy. (1)(i) For the audit period. This integration may be common samples. The common samples samples, calculate the average Pb performed by any appropriate means shall be collected according to the concentration for each strip by such as chemical, electronic, sample collection procedure specified averaging the concentrations calculated mechanical, or by calculating the mean by the reference method and each shall from the three analyses using equation of twenty-four (24) sequential 1-hour be divided for respective analysis in 2 of this section: measurements. accordance with the analytical (6) For O3 and CO, no more than six procedures of the candidate method and Equation 2 1-hour measurements shall be made per the reference method. QQQ++ = iA iB iC day. For SO2, no more than four 1-hour (e) Audit samples. Three audit Qi ave measurements or one 24-hour samples must be obtained from the 3 measurement shall be made per day. address given in § 53.4(a). The audit Where, i is audit sample number. 3 × One-hour measurements may be made samples are ⁄4 8-inch glass fiber strips (ii) Calculate the percent difference concurrently with 24-hour containing known amounts of Pb at the (Dq) between the indicated Pb measurements if appropriate. following nominal levels: 100 concentration for each audit sample and µ µ (7) For applicable methods, control or micrograms per strip ( g/strip); 300 g/ the true Pb concentration (T ) using µ q calibration checks may be performed strip; 750 g/strip. The true amount of equation 3 of this section: once per day without adjusting the test Pb, in total µg/strip, will be provided analyzer or method. These checks may with each audit sample. Equation 3 be used as a basis for a linear (f) Filter analysis. (1) For both the − interpolation-type correction to be reference method samples and the audit QTiqi ave D = ×100% applied to the measurements to correct samples, analyze each filter extract three qi T for drift. If such a correction is used, it times in accordance with the reference qi shall be applied to all measurements method analytical procedure. The (2) If any difference value (Dqi) made with the method, and the analysis of replicates should not be exceeds ±5 percent, the accuracy of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.015 ER17OC06.016 ER17OC06.017 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61281

reference method analytical procedure determinations (A, B, and C) for each to the sampler and sample collection is out-of-control. Corrective action must method using equation 6 of this section: procedure specified in the reference be taken to determine the source of the method, but use a different analytical error(s) (e.g., calibration standard Equation 6 procedure, may be tested by analyzing discrepancies, extraction problems, etc.) CR− common samples. The common samples and the reference method and audit = ij ik × shall be collected according to the Din 100% sample determinations must be repeated Rik sample collection procedure specified according to paragraph (f) of this by the reference method and shall be where, i is the filter number, and n numbers section, or the entire test procedure from 1 to 9 for the nine possible analyzed in accordance with the (starting with paragraph (d) of this difference combinations for the three analytical procedures of both the section) must be repeated. determinations for each method (j = A, candidate method and the reference (i) Acceptable filter pairs. Disregard B, C, candidate; k = A, B, C, reference). method. all filter pairs for which the Pb (2) If none of the percent differences (d) Methods for PM2.5. Augmentation concentration, as determined in (D) exceeds ±20 percent, the candidate of pollutant concentrations is not paragraph (g) of this section by the method passes the test for permitted, hence appropriate test sites average of the three reference method comparability. must be selected to provide the determinations, falls outside the range (3) If one or more of the percent minimum number of test measurement µ 3 of 0.5 to 4.0 g/m . All remaining filter differences (D) exceed ±20 percent, the sets to meet the requirements for PM2.5 pairs must be subjected to the tests for candidate method fails the test for concentrations in the ranges specified in precision and comparability in comparability. table C–4 of this subpart. Only one test paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section. At (4) The candidate method must pass site is required, and the site need only least five filter pairs must be within the both the precision test (paragraph (j) of meet the PM2.5 ambient concentration µ 3 0.5 to 4.0 g/m range for the tests to be this section) and the comparability test levels required by table C–4 of this valid. (paragraph (k) of this section) to qualify subpart and the requirements of (j) Test for precision. (1) Calculate the for designation as an equivalent method. § 53.30(b) of this subpart. A total of 10 precision (P) of the analysis (in percent) valid measurement sets is required. for each filter and for each method, as § 53.34 Test procedure for methods for (e) Collocated measurements. (1) Set the maximum minus the minimum PM10 and Class I methods for PM2.5. up three reference method samplers divided by the average of the three (a) Comparability. Comparability is collocated with three candidate method concentration values, using equation 4 shown for PM10 methods and for Class samplers or analyzers at each of the or equation 5 of this section: I methods for PM2.5 when the number of test sites specified in table C– relationship between: 4 of this subpart. Equation 4 (1) Measurements made by a (2) The ambient air intake points of all RR− candidate method, and the candidate and reference method = ii max min × (2) Measurements made by a collocated samplers or analyzers shall PRi 100% Ri ave corresponding reference method on be positioned at the same height above simultaneously collected samples (or the ground level, and between 2 meters or the same sample, if applicable) at each (1 meter for samplers or analyzers with Equation 5 of one or more test sites (as required) is flow rates less than 200 L/min) and 4 such that the linear regression meters apart. The samplers shall be CC− parameters (slope, intercept, and oriented in a manner that will minimize P = ii max min ×100% Ci C correlation coefficient) describing the spatial and wind directional effects on i ave relationship meet the requirements sample collection. where, i indicates the filter number. specified in table C–4 of this subpart. (3) At each site, obtain as many sets (2) If any reference method precision (b) Methods for PM10. Test of simultaneous PM10 or PM2.5 value (PRi) exceeds 15 percent, the measurements must be made, or derived measurements as necessary (see table C– precision of the reference method from particulate samples collected, at 4 of this subpart), each set consisting of analytical procedure is out-of-control. not less than two test sites, each of three reference method and three Corrective action must be taken to which must be located in a geographical candidate method measurements, all determine the source(s) of imprecision, area characterized by ambient obtained simultaneously. and the reference method particulate matter that is significantly (4) Candidate PM10 method determinations must be repeated different in nature and composition measurements shall be nominal 24-hour according to paragraph (f) of this from that at the other test site(s). (±1 hour) integrated measurements or section, or the entire test procedure Augmentation of pollutant shall be averaged to obtain the mean (starting with paragraph (d) of this concentrations is not permitted, hence concentration for a nominal 24-hour section) must be repeated. appropriate test sites must be selected to period. PM2.5 measurements may be (3) If any candidate method precision provide the minimum number of test either nominal 24-or 48-hour integrated value (PCi) exceeds 15 percent, the PM10 concentrations in the ranges measurements. All collocated candidate method fails the precision specified in table C–4 of this subpart. measurements in a measurement set test. The tests at the two sites may be must cover the same nominal 24-or 48- (4) The candidate method passes this conducted in different calendar seasons, hour time period. test if all precision values (i.e., all PRi’s if appropriate, to provide PM10 (5) For samplers, retrieve the samples and all PCi’s) are less than 15 percent. concentrations in the specified ranges. promptly after sample collection and (k) Test for comparability. (1) For each (c) PM10 methods employing the same analyze each sample according to the filter or analytical sample pair, calculate sampling procedure as the reference reference method or candidate method, all nine possible percent differences (D) method but a different analytical as appropriate, and determine the PM10 3 between the reference and candidate method. Candidate methods for PM10 or PM2.5 concentration in µg/m . If the methods, using all nine possible which employ a sampler and sample conditions of paragraph (c) of this combinations of the three collection procedure that are identical section apply, collect sample sets only

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.018 ER17OC06.019 ER17OC06.020 61282 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

with the three reference method site, table C–4 of this subpart specifies (b) Test sites and seasons. A summary samplers. Guidance for quality the minimum number of measurement of the test site and seasonal testing assurance procedures for PM2.5 methods sets required having R¯ j above and below requirements is presented in table C–5 is found in ‘‘Quality Assurance specified concentrations for 24- or 48- of this subpart. Document 2.12’’ (reference (2) in hour samples. Additional measurement (1) Test sites. Comparability testing is appendix A to this subpart). sets shall be obtained, as necessary, to required at each of the applicable U.S. (f) Sequential samplers. For provide the minimum number of test sites required by this paragraph (b). sequential samplers, the sampler shall acceptable measurement sets for each Each test site must also meet the general be configured for the maximum number category and the minimum total number test site requirements specified in of sequential samples and shall be set of acceptable measurement sets for each § 53.30(b). for automatic collection of all samples test site. If more than the minimum (i) PM2.5 Class II and Class III sequentially such that the test samples number of measurement sets are candidate methods. Test sites should be are collected equally, to the extent collected that meet the acceptability chosen to provide representative possible, among all available sequential criteria, all such measurement sets shall chemical and meteorological channels or utilizing the full available be used to demonstrate comparability. characteristics with respect to nitrates, sulfates, organic compounds, and sequential capability. (i) Candidate method average various levels of temperature, humidity, (g) Calculation of reference method concentration measurement. For each of wind, and elevation. For Class III averages and precisions. (1) For each of the acceptable measurement sets, methods, one test site shall be selected the measurement sets, calculate the calculate the average PM or PM 10 2.5 in each of the following four general average PM10 or PM2.5 concentration concentration measurements obtained locations (A, B, C, and D). For Class II obtained with the reference method with the candidate method samplers, methods, two test sites, one western site samplers, using equation 7 of this using equation 10 of this section: section: (A or B) and one midwestern or eastern Equation 10 site (C or D), shall be selected from these Equation 7 locations. 3 (A) Test site A shall be in the Los 3 ∑Cij, Angeles basin or California Central ∑ R = ij, C = i 1 Valley area in a location that is = i=1 j R j 3 characterized by relatively high PM2.5, 3 Where: nitrates, and semi-volatile organic Where: C = The concentration measurements from pollutants. R = The concentration measurements from the candidate methods; (B) Test site B shall be in a western the reference methods; i = The measurement number in the set; and city such as Denver, Salt Lake City, or i = The sampler number; and j = The measurement set number. Albuquerque in an area characterized by j = The measurement set number. cold weather, higher elevation, winds, (j) Test for comparability. (1) For each (2) For each of the measurement sets, and dust. calculate the precision of the reference site, plot all of the average PM10 or PM2.5 (C) Test site C shall be in a measurements obtained with the method PM10 or PM2.5 measurements as midwestern city characterized by candidate method (C¯ j) against the the standard deviation, PRj, using substantial temperature variation, high equation 8 of this section: corresponding average PM10 or PM2.5 nitrates, and wintertime conditions. measurements obtained with the (D) Test site D shall be in a ¯ Equation 8 reference method (Rj. For each site, northeastern or mid-Atlantic city that is calculate and record the linear seasonally characterized by high sulfate 3  3 2 regression slope and intercept, and the 2 − 1 concentrations and high relative ∑ RRij,, ∑ ij correlation coefficient. humidity. i=1 3  i=1  = (2) To pass the test for comparability, (ii) PM10¥2.5 Class II and Class III PRj 2 the slope, intercept, and correlation candidate methods. Test sites shall be (3) For each measurement set, also coefficient calculated under paragraph chosen to provide modest to high levels calculate the precision of the reference (j)(1) of this section must be within the of PM10¥2.5 representative of locations method PM10 or PM2.5 measurements as limits specified in table C–4 of this in proximity to urban sources of ¥ the relative standard deviation, RPRj, in subpart for all test sites. PM10 2.5 such as high-density traffic on percent, using equation 9 of this section: paved roads, industrial sources, and § 53.35 Test procedure for Class II and construction activities. For Class III Class III methods for PM and PM ¥ Equation 9 2.5 10 2.5. methods, one test site shall be selected (a) Overview. Class II and Class III in each of the four following general P Rj × candidate equivalent methods shall be locations (A, B, C, and D), and at least RPRj 100% tested for comparability of PM2.5 or one of the test sites shall have R j PM10¥2.5 measurements to characteristic wintertime temperatures (h) Acceptability of measurement sets. corresponding collocated PM2.5 or of 0° C or lower. For Class II methods, Each measurement set is acceptable and PM10¥2.5 reference method two test sites, one western site (A or B) valid only if the three reference method measurements at each of multiple field and one midwestern or eastern site (C or measurements and the three candidate sites, as required. Comparability is D), shall be selected from these method measurements are obtained and shown for the candidate method when locations. are valid, R¯ j falls within the acceptable simultaneous collocated measurements (A) Test site A shall be in the Los concentration range specified in table made by candidate and reference Angeles basin or the California Central C–4 of this subpart, and either PRj or methods meet the comparability Valley area in a location that is RPRj is within the corresponding limit requirements specified in this section characterized by relatively high PM2.5, for reference method precision specified § 53.35 and in table C–4 of this subpart nitrates, and semi-volatile organic in table C–4 of this subpart. For each at each of the required test sites. pollutants.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.021 ER17OC06.022 ER17OC06.023 ER17OC06.024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61283

(B) Test site B shall be in a western (2) in appendix A to this subpart). All averaged as appropriate to determine an city characterized by a high ratio of samplers or analyzers shall be placed so equivalent mean concentration PM10¥2.5 to PM2.5, with exposure to that they sample or measure air representative of the same time period windblown dust, such as Las Vegas or representative of the surrounding area as that of the concurrent integrated- Phoenix. (within one kilometer) and are not sample reference method (C) Test site C shall be in a unduly affected by adjacent buildings, measurements, such that all midwestern city characterized by air handling equipment, industrial measurements in a measurement set substantial temperature variation, high operations, traffic, or other local shall be representative of the same time nitrates, and wintertime conditions. influences. The ambient air inlet points period. In addition, hourly average (D) Test site D shall be in a large city of all samplers and analyzers shall be concentration measurements shall be east of the Mississippi River, having positioned at the same height above the obtained from each of the Class III characteristically high sulfate ground level and between 2 meters (1 candidate method analyzers for each concentrations and high humidity meter for instruments having sample valid measurement set and submitted as levels. inlet flow rates less than 200 L/min) and part of the application records. (2) Test seasons. (i) For PM2.5 and 4 meters apart. (6) In the following tests, all PM10¥2.5 Class III candidate methods, (2) A minimum of 23 valid and measurement sets obtained at a test campaigns are required in both acceptable measurement sets of PM2.5 or particular test site, from both seasonal summer and winter seasons at test site PM10¥2.5 24-hour (nominal) concurrent campaigns if applicable, shall be A, in the winter season only at test sites concentration measurements shall be combined and included in the test data B and C, and in the summer season only obtained during each test campaign at analysis for the site. Data obtained at at test site D. (A total of five test each test site. To be considered different test sites shall be analyzed campaigns is required.) The summer acceptable for the test, each separately. All measurements should be season shall be defined as the typically measurement set shall consist of at least reported as normally obtained, and no warmest three or four months of the two valid reference method measurement values should be rounded year at the site; the winter season shall measurements and at least two valid or truncated prior to data analysis. In be defined as the typically coolest three candidate method measurements, and particular, no negative measurement or four months of the year at the site. the PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 measured value, if otherwise apparently valid, (ii) For Class II PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5 concentration, as determined by the should be modified, adjusted, replaced, candidate methods, one test campaign is average of the reference method or eliminated merely because its value required at test site A or B and a second measurements, must fall within the is negative. Calculated mean test campaign at test site C or D (total acceptable concentration range specified concentrations or calculated of two test campaigns). in table C–4 of this subpart. Each intermediate quantities should retain at (3) Test concentrations. The test sites measurement set shall include all valid least one order-of-magnitude greater should be selected to provide ambient measurements obtained. For each resolution than the input values. All concentrations within the concentration measurement set containing fewer than measurement data and calculations limits specified in table C–4 of this three reference method measurements shall be recorded and submitted in subpart, and also to provide a wide or fewer than three candidate method accordance with § 53.30(g), including range of test concentrations. A narrow measurements, an explanation and hourly test measurements obtained from range of test concentrations may result appropriate justification shall be Class III candidate methods. in a low concentration coefficient of provided to account for the missing (d) Calculation of mean variation statistic for the test measurement or measurements. concentrations—(1) Reference method measurements, making the test for (3) More than 23 valid measurement outlier test. For each of the correlation coefficient more difficult to sets may be obtained during a particular measurement sets for each test site, pass (see paragraph (h) of this section, test campaign to provide a more check each reference method test for comparison correlation). advantageous range of concentrations, measurement to see if it might be an (4) Pre-approval of test sites. The EPA more representative conditions, anomalous value (outlier) as follows, recommends that the applicant seek additional higher or lower where Ri,j is the measurement of EPA approval of each proposed test site measurements, or to otherwise improve reference method sampler i on test day prior to conducting test measurements the comparison of the methods. All j. In the event that one of the reference at the site. To do so, the applicant valid data sets obtained during each test method measurements is missing or should submit a request for approval as campaign shall be submitted and shall invalid due to a specific, positively- described in § 53.30(b)(2). be included in the analysis of the data. identified physical cause (e.g., sampler (c) Collocated measurements. (1) For (4) The integrated-sample reference malfunction, operator error, accidental each test campaign, three reference method measurements shall be of at damage to the filter, etc.; see paragraph method samplers and three candidate least 22 hours and not more than 25 (c)(2) of this section), then substitute method samplers or analyzers shall be hours duration. Each reference method zero for the missing measurement, for installed and operated concurrently at sample shall be retrieved promptly after the purposes of this outlier test only. each test site within each required sample collection and analyzed (i) Calculate the quantities 2 × R1,j/(R1,j season (if applicable), as specified in according to the reference method to + R2,j) and 2 × R1,j/(R1,j + R3,j). If both paragraph (b) of this section. All determine the PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 quantities fall outside of the interval, µ 3 reference method samplers shall be of measured concentration in g/m . (0.93, 1.07), then R1,j is an outlier. single-filter design (not multi-filter, Guidance and quality assurance (ii) Calculate the quantities 2 × R2,j/ sequential sample design). Each procedures applicable to PM2.5 or (R2,j + R1,j) and 2 × R2,j/(R2,j + R3,j). If candidate method shall be setup and PM10¥2.5 reference methods are found in both quantities fall outside of the operated in accordance with its ‘‘Quality Assurance Document 2.12’’ interval, (0.93, 1.07), then R2,j is an associated manual referred to in (reference (2) in appendix A to this outlier. § 53.4(b)(3) and in accordance with subpart). (iii) Calculate the quantities 2 × R3,j/ applicable guidance in ‘‘Quality (5) Candidate method measurements (R3,j + R1,j) and 2 × R3,j/(R3,j + R2,j). If Assurance Document 2.12’’ (reference shall be timed or processed and both quantities fall outside of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61284 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

interval, (0.93, 1.07), then R3,j is an the reference method measurements, (g) Test for additive and outlier. RPj, using equation 13 of this section: multiplicative bias (comparative slope (iv) If this test indicates that one of and intercept). (1) For each test site, the reference method measurements in Equation 13 calculate the mean concentration ¯ the measurement set is an outlier, the 2 measured by the reference method, R, outlier measurement shall be eliminated n 1  n  using equation 17 of this section: ∑ R 2 − ∑ R from the measurement set, and the other ij,, ij 1 = n  =  two measurements considered valid. If RP = i 1 i 1 ×100% Equation 17 j R n −1 the test indicates that more than one j 1 J reference method measurement in the = (2) For each site, calculate an estimate R jj∑ R measurement set is an outlier, the entire J j=1 of reference method relative precision measurement set (both reference and for the site, RP, using the root mean candidate method measurements) shall (2) For each test site, calculate the square calculation of equation 14 of this be excluded from further data analysis mean concentration measured by the section: ¯ for the tests of this section. candidate method, C, using equation 18 of this section: (2) For each of the measurement sets Equation 14 for each test site, calculate the mean J Equation 18 concentration for the reference method 1 2 = () J measurements, using equation 11 of this RP ∑ RPj 1 J = = section: j 1 C ∑C j J j=1 Where, J is the total number of valid Equation 11 measurement sets for the site. (3) For each test site, calculate the n linear regression slope and intercept of = 1 (3) Verify that the estimate for R jij∑ R , reference method relative precision for the mean candidate method n i=1 ¯ the site, RP, is not greater than the value measurements (Cj) against the mean ¯ Where: specified for reference method precision reference method measurements (Rj), ¯ Rj = The mean concentration measured by in table C–4 of this subpart. A reference using equations 19 and 20 of this the reference method for the method relative precision greater than section, respectively: measurement set; the value specified in table C–4 of this Ri,j = The measurement of reference method subpart indicates that quality control for Equation 19 sampler i on test day j; and the reference method is inadequate, and J n = The number of valid reference method ()− ()− measurements in the measurement set corrective measures must be ∑ RRCCjj (normally 3). implemented before proceeding with = j=1 Slope J the test. 2 (3) Any measurement set for which R¯ j ()− (f) Test for candidate method ∑ RRj does not fall in the acceptable precision. (1) For each of the j=1 concentration range specified in table measurement sets, for each site, C–4 of this subpart is not valid, and the calculate an estimate for the relative entire measurement set (both reference precision of the candidate method Equation 20 /MATH> ER17OC06.032 ER17OC06.033 ER17OC06.034 ER17OC06.035 and candidate method measurements) measurements, CPj, using equation 15 of −× must be eliminated from further data this section: Intercept = C slope R analysis. (4) For each of the valid measurement Equation 15 (4) To pass this test, at each test site: sets at each test site, calculate the mean (i) The slope (calculated to at least 2 concentration for the candidate method m  m 2 decimal places) must be in the interval 2 − 1 measurements, using equation 12 of this ∑Cij,, ∑C ij specified for regression slope in table C– 1 = m  =  section. (The outlier test in paragraph CP = i 1 i 1 ×100% 4 of this subpart; and (d)(1) of this section shall not be applied j − C j m 1 (ii) The intercept (calculated to at to the candidate method measurements.) least 2 decimal places) must be in the (2) For each site, calculate an estimate interval specified for regression Equation 12 of candidate method relative precision intercept in table C–4 of this subpart. 1 n for the site, CP, using the root mean (iii) The slope and intercept limits are = square calculation of equation 16 of this C jij∑C , illustrated in figures C–2 and C–3 of this m i=1 section: subpart. Where: (h) Tests for comparison correlation. ¯ Equation 16 Cj = The mean concentration measured by (1) For each test site, calculate the the candidate method for the J 1 2 (Pearson) correlation coefficient, r (not measurement set; CP = ∑()CP the coefficient of determination, r2), C = The measurement of the candidate j i,j J j=1 using equation 21 of this section: method sampler or analyzer i on test day j; and Where, J is the total number of valid m = The number of valid candidate method measurement sets for the site. Equation 21 measurements in the measurement set (3) To pass the test for precision, the J (normally 3). ()RRCC− ()− mean candidate method relative ∑ jj = (e) Test for reference method precision at each site must not be r = j 1 J J precision. (1) For each of the greater than the value for candidate ()− 2 ()− 2 measurement sets for each site, calculate method precision specified in table C– ∑∑RRj CCj == an estimate for the relative precision of 4 of this subpart. j 1 j 1

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.025 ER17OC06.026 ER17OC06.027 ER17OC06.028 ER17OC06.029 ER17OC06.030 ER17OC06.031< Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61285

(2) For each test site, calculate the (3) To pass the test, the correlation concentration coefficient of variation, coefficient, r, for each test site must not CCV, using equation 22 of this section: be less than the values, for various values of CCV, specified for correlation Equation 22 in table C–4 of this subpart. These limits J are illustrated in figure C–4 of this − 2 ∑()RRj subpart. 1 j=1 CCV = Tables to Subpart C of Part 53 R J −1

TABLE C–1 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—TEST CONCENTRATION RANGES, NUMBER OF MEASUREMENTS REQUIRED, AND MAXIMUM DISCREPANCY SPECIFICATION

Simultaneous measurements required Maximum discrepancy Pollutant Concentration range, parts per million 1-hr 24-hr specification, First Second First Second parts per set set set set million

Ozone ...... Low 0.06 to 0.10 ...... 5 6 ...... 0.02 Med 0.15 to 0.25 ...... 5 6 ...... 03 High 0.35 to 0.45 ...... 4 6 ...... 04

Total ...... 14 ...... 18

Carbon monoxide ...... Low 7 to 11 ...... 5 6 ...... 1.5 Med 20 to 30 ...... 5 6 ...... 2.0 High 35 to 45 ...... 4 6 ...... 3.0 Total ...... 14 ...... 18

Sulfur dioxide ...... Low 0.02 to 0.05 ...... 3 3 0.02 Med 0.10 to 0.15 ...... 2 3 .03 High 0.30 to 0.50 ...... 7 8 2 2 .04 Total ...... 7 8 7 8 ......

Nitrogen dioxide ...... Low 0.02 to 0.08 ...... 3 3 0.02 Med 0.10 to 0.20 ...... 2 3 .03 High 0.25 to 0.35 ...... 2 2 .03 Total ...... 7 8 ......

TABLE C–2 TO SUBPART C OF PART TABLE C–2 TO SUBPART C OF PART TABLE C–3 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—SEQUENCE OF TEST MEASURE- 53.—SEQUENCE OF TEST MEASURE- 53.—TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR PB MENTS MENTS—Continued METHODS

Concentration range Concentration range Concentration range, µg/m3 ..... 0.5–4.0 Measurement Measurement Minimum number of 24-hr First set Second set First set Second set measurements ...... 5 1 ...... Low ...... Medium. 10 ...... Medium ...... Low. Maximum analytical precision, percent ...... 15 2 ...... High ...... High. 11 ...... High ...... Medium. 3 ...... Medium ...... Low. 12 ...... Low ...... High. Maximum analytical accuracy, percent ...... ± 5 4 ...... High ...... High. 13 ...... Medium ...... Medium. 5 ...... Low ...... Medium. 14 ...... Low ...... High. Maximum difference, percent of reference method ...... ± 20 6 ...... Medium ...... Low. 15 ...... Low. 16 ...... Medium. 7 ...... Low ...... Medium. 17 ...... Low. 8 ...... Medium ...... Low. 18 ...... High. 9 ...... High ...... High.

TABLE C–4 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR PM10, PM2.5 AND PMR10¥2.5 CANDIDATE EQUIVALENT METHODS

PM2.5 PM10¥2.5 Specification PM10 Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III

Acceptable concentration range 15–300 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 ...... 3–200 3 (Rj), µg/m . Minimum number of test sites .... 2 ...... 1 ...... 2 ...... 4 ...... 2 ...... 4 Minimum number of candidate 3 ...... 3 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 method samplers or analyzers per site.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.036 61286 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE C–4 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53.—TEST SPECIFICATIONS FOR PM10, PM2.5 AND PMR10¥2.5 CANDIDATE EQUIVALENT METHODS—Continued

PM2.5 PM10¥2.5 Specification PM10 Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III

Number of reference method 3 ...... 3 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 ...... 31 samplers per site. Minimum number of acceptable sample sets per site for PM10 methods: 3 Rj < 60 µg/m ...... 3 3 Rj > 60 µg/m ...... 3

Total ...... 10 Minimum number of acceptable sample sets per site for PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 candidate equiv- alent methods: 3 Rj < 30 µg/m for 24-hr or ...... 3 3 Rj < 20 µg/m for 48-hr samples. 3 Rj > 30 µg/m for 24-hr or ...... 3 3 Rj > 20 µg/m for 48-hr samples. Each season ...... 10 ...... 23 ...... 23 ...... 23 ...... 23 Total, each site ...... 10 ...... 23 ...... 23 (46 for two- 23 ...... 23 (46 for two- season sites). season sites) Precision of replicate reference 5 µg/m3 or 7% .. 2 µg/m3 or 5% 10%2 ...... 10%2 ...... 10%2 ...... 10%2 method measurements, PRj or RPRj′, respectively; RP for Class II or III PM2.5 or PM10–2.5′, maximum. 2 2 2 2 Precision of PM2.5 or PM10–2.5 ...... 10% ...... 15% ...... 15% ...... 15% candidate method, CP, each site. Slope of regression relationship 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.05 ...... 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.10 ...... 1±0.12 Intercept of regression relation- 0±5 ...... 0±1 ...... Between: Between: Between: Between: ship, µg/m3. 13.55–(15.05 15.05–(17.32 62.05–(70.5 × 70.50–(82.93 × slope), but × slope), but slope), but × slope), but not less than not less than not less than not less than ¥1.5; and ¥2.0; and ¥3.5; and ¥7.0; and 16.56–(15.05 15.05–(13.20 78.95–(70.5 × 70.50–(61.16 × slope), but × slope), but slope), but × slope), but not more than not more than not more than not more than + 1.5. + 2.0. + 3.5. + 7.0 Correlation of reference method ≥0.97 ...... ≥0.97. and candidate method meas- urements. 1 Some missing daily measurement values may be permitted; see test procedure. 2 Calculated as the root mean square over all measurement sets

TABLE C–5 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53—SUMMARY OF COMPARABILITY FIELD TESTING CAMPAIGN SITE AND SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS II AND III FEMS FOR PM10¥2.5 AND PM2.5

Candidate method Test site A B C D

PM2.5 ...... Test site location Los Angeles basin or Western city such as Midwestern city ...... Northeastern or mid- area. California Central Denver, Salt Lake Atlantic city. Valley. City, or Albu- querque. Test site characteris- Relatively high PM2.5, Cold weather, higher Substantial tempera- High sulfate and high tics. nitrates, and semi- elevation, winds, ture variation, high relative humidity. volatile organic pol- and dust. nitrates, wintertime lutants. conditions. Class III Field test Winter and summer .. Winter only ...... Winter only ...... Summer only. campaigns (Total: 5).

Class II Field test Site A or B, any season Site C or D, any season. campaigns (Total: 2).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61287

TABLE C–5 TO SUBPART C OF PART 53—SUMMARY OF COMPARABILITY FIELD TESTING CAMPAIGN SITE AND SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLASS II AND III FEMS FOR PM10¥2.5 AND PM2.5—Continued

Candidate method Test site A B C D

PM10¥2.5 ...... Test site location Los Angeles basin or Western city such as Midwestern city ...... Large city east of the area. California Central Las Vegas or Mississippi River. Valley. Phoenix.

Test site characteris- Relatively high PM2.5, High PM10¥2.5 to Substantial tempera- High sulfate and high tics. nitrates, and semi- PM2.5 ratio, wind- ture variation, high relative humidity. volatile organic pol- blown dust. nitrates, wintertime lutants. conditions. Class III Field test Winter and summer .. Winter only ...... Winter only ...... Summer only. campaigns (Total: 5).

Class II Field test Site A or B, any season Site C or D, any season. campaigns (Total: 2).

Figures to Subpart C of Part 53 Reference Method llllllllllll llllllllllllllll Figure C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53— Applicant Suggested Format for Reporting Test b First Set b Second Set b Type b b Results for Methods for SO2, CO, O3, 1 Hour 24 Hour NO2 Candidate Method llllllllllll

Concentration, ppm Concentration Date Time Difference Table C–1 Pass or fail range Candidate Reference spec.

Low 1

llll ppm 2

to llll ppm 3

4

5

6

Medium 1

llll ppm 2

to llll ppm 3

4

5

6

High 1

llll ppm 2

to llll ppm 3

4

5

6

7

8

Total Failures:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61288 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.057 ER17OC06.058 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61289

Appendix to Subpart C of Part 53 to demonstrate that a PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 part 53 as a FRM for PM2.5, or shown to Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 53— sampler associated with a candidate meet all requirements for designation as References reference method or Class I or Class II a FRM for PM2.5, in accordance with this equivalent method meets all design and part 53. (1) American National Standard Quality performance specifications set forth in (ii) The PM10C sampler of the Systems for Environmental Data and appendix L or O, respectively, of part 50 PM10¥2.5 sampler pair shall be verified Technology Programs—Requirements with of this chapter as well as additional to be of like manufacturer, design, guidance for use, ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. Available from American Society for Quality, requirements specified in this subpart E. configuration, and fabrication to the P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// Some or all of these tests may also be PM2.5 sampler of the PM10¥2.5 sampler qualitypress.asq.org). applicable to a candidate Class III pair, except for replacement of the (2) Quality Assurance Guidance Document equivalent method or analyzer, as may particle size separator specified in 2.12. Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using be determined under § 53.3(b)(3). section 7.3.4 of appendix L to part 50 of Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent (b) PM2.5 methods—(1) Reference this chapter with the downtube Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure method. A sampler associated with a extension as specified in Figure O–1 of Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, candidate reference method for PM2.5 appendix O to part 50 of this chapter. NC, November 1998 or later edition. shall be subject to the provisions, (iii) For samplers that meet the Currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ provisions of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. specifications, and test procedures prescribed in §§ 53.51 through 53.58. of this section, the candidate PM10¥2.5 Subpart E—Procedures for Testing (2) Class I method. A sampler reference method may be determined to Physical (Design) and Performance associated with a candidate Class I be a FRM without further testing. Characteristics of Reference Methods equivalent method for PM2.5 shall be (2) Class I method. A sampler and Class I and Class II Equivalent subject to the provisions, specifications, associated with a Class I candidate equivalent method for PM10¥2.5 shall Methods for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 and test procedures prescribed in all sections of this subpart. meet the requirements in this paragraph 7. The heading for subpart E is revised (3) Class II method. A sampler (c)(2). as set out above. associated with a candidate Class II (i) The PM2.5 sampler of the PM10¥2.5 8. Section 53.50 is revised to read as equivalent method for PM2.5 shall be sampler pair shall be verified to be follows: subject to the provisions, specifications, either currently designated under this and test procedures prescribed in all part 53 as a FRM or Class I FEM for § 53.50 General provisions. applicable sections of this subpart, as PM2.5, or shown to meet all (a) A candidate method for PM2.5 or specified in subpart F of this part or as requirements for designation as a FRM PM10¥2.5 described in an application for specified in § 53.3(a)(3). or Class I FEM for PM2.5, in accordance a FRM or FEM determination submitted (c) PM10¥2.5 methods—(1) Reference with this part 53. under § 53.4 shall be determined by the method. A sampler associated with a (ii) The PM10c sampler of the PM10¥2.5 EPA to be a FRM or a Class I, II, or III reference method for PM10¥2.5, as sampler pair shall be verified to be of FEM on the basis of the definitions for specified in appendix O to part 50 of similar design to the PM10¥2.5 sampler such methods given in § 53.1. This this chapter, shall be subject to the and to meet all requirements for subpart sets forth the specific tests that requirements in this paragraph (c)(1). designation as a FRM or Class I FRM for must be carried out and the test results, (i) The PM2.5 sampler of the PM10¥2.5 PM2.5, in accordance with this part 53, evidence, documentation, and other sampler pair shall be verified to be except for replacement of the particle materials that must be provided to EPA either currently designated under this size separator specified in section 7.3.4

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.059 61290 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

of appendix L to part 50 of this chapter test site. For candidate FEM samplers, facility and ISO-certified auditor are with the downtube extension as this test may be combined and carried found in § 53.1. An exception to the specified in Figure O–1 of appendix O out concurrently with the test for reliance by EPA on ISO-certified to part 50 of this chapter. comparability to the FRM specified auditors is the requirement for the (iii) For samplers that meet the under § 53.34, which requires collocated submission of the operation or provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) operation of three FRM samplers and instruction manual associated with the of this section, the candidate PM10¥2.5 three candidate FEM samplers. candidate method to EPA as part of the method may be determined to be a Class (g) All tests and collection of test data application. This manual is required I FEM without further testing. shall be performed in accordance with under § 53.4(b)(3). The EPA has (3) Class II method. A sampler the requirements of reference 1, section determined that acceptable technical associated with a Class II candidate 4.10.5 (ISO 9001) and reference 2, part judgment for review of this manual may equivalent method for PM10¥2.5 shall be B, (section 6) and Part C, (section 7) in not be assured by ISO-certified auditors, subject to the applicable requirements of appendix A of this subpart. All test data and approval of this manual will this subpart E, as described in and other documentation obtained therefore be performed by EPA. § 53.3(a)(5). specifically from or pertinent to these (b) ISO registration of manufacturing (d) The provisions of § 53.51 pertain tests shall be identified, dated, signed facility. The applicant must submit to test results and documentation by the analyst performing the test, and documentation verifying that the required to demonstrate compliance of a submitted to EPA in accordance with samplers identified and sold as part of candidate method sampler with the subpart A of this part. a designated PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 FRM or design specifications set forth in 40 CFR 9. Section 53.51 is revised to read as FEM will be manufactured in an ISO part 50, appendix L or O, as applicable. follows: 9001-registered facility and that the The test procedures prescribed in manufacturing facility is maintained in §§ 53.52 through 53.59 pertain to § 53.51 Demonstration of compliance with compliance with all applicable ISO performance tests required to design specifications and manufacturing 9001 requirements (reference 1 in and test requirements. demonstrate compliance of a candidate appendix A of this subpart). The method sampler with the performance (a) Overview. (1) Paragraphs (a) documentation shall indicate the date of specifications set forth in 40 CFR part through (f) of this section specify certain the original ISO 9001 registration for the 50, appendix L or O, as applicable, as documentation that must be submitted facility and shall include a copy of the well as additional requirements and tests that are required to most recent certification of continued specified in this subpart E. These latter demonstrate that samplers associated ISO 9001 facility registration. If the test procedures shall be used to test the with a designated FRM or FEM for PM2.5 manufacturer does not wish to initiate performance of candidate samplers or PM10¥2.5 are properly manufactured or complete ISO 9001 registration for against the performance specifications to meet all applicable design and the manufacturing facility, and requirements specified in each performance specifications and have documentation must be included in the procedure and summarized in been properly tested according to all application to EPA describing an table E–1 of this subpart. applicable test requirements for such alternative method to demonstrate that (e) Test procedures prescribed in designation. Documentation is required the facility meets the same general § 53.59 do not apply to candidate to show that instruments and requirements as required for registration reference method samplers. These components of a PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 to ISO–9001. In this case, the applicant procedures apply primarily to candidate sampler are manufactured in an ISO must provide documentation in the Class I or Class II equivalent method 9001-registered facility under a quality application to demonstrate, by required samplers for PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 that have system that meets ISO–9001 ISO-certified auditor’s inspections, that a sample air flow path configuration requirements for manufacturing quality a quality system is in place which is upstream of the sample filter that is control and testing. adequate to document and monitor that modified from that specified for the (2) In addition, specific tests are the sampler system components and FRM sampler, as set forth in 40 CFR part required by paragraph (d) of this section final assembled samplers all conform to 50, appendix L, Figures L–1 to L–29 or to verify that critical features of FRM the design, performance and other 40 CFR part 50 appendix O, Figure samplers—the particle size separator requirements specified in this part and O–1, if applicable, such as might be and the surface finish of surfaces in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. necessary to provide for sequential specified to be anodized—meet the (c) Sampler manufacturing quality sample capability. The additional tests specifications of 40 CFR part 50, control. The manufacturer must ensure determine the adequacy of aerosol appendix L or appendix O, as that all components used in the transport through any altered applicable. A checklist is required to manufacture of PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 components or supplemental devices provide certification by an ISO-certified samplers to be sold as part of a FRM or that are used in a candidate sampler auditor that all performance and other FEM and that are specified by design in upstream of the filter. In addition to the required tests have been properly and 40 CFR part 50, appendix L or O (as other test procedures in this subpart, appropriately conducted, based on a applicable), are fabricated or these test procedures shall be used to reasonable and appropriate sample of manufactured exactly as specified. If the further test the performance of such an the actual operations or their manufacturer’s quality records show equivalent method sampler against the documented records. Following that its quality control (QC) and quality performance specifications given in the designation of the method, another assurance (QA) system of standard procedure and summarized in table E– checklist is required initially to provide process control inspections (of a set 1 of this subpart. an ISO-certified auditor’s certification number and frequency of testing that is (f) A 10-day operational field test of that the sampler manufacturing process less than 100 percent) complies with the measurement precision is required is being implemented under an applicable QA provisions of section 4 of under § 53.58 for both FRM and Class I adequate and appropriate quality reference 4 in appendix A of this FEM samplers for PM2.5. This test system. subpart and prevents nonconformances, requires collocated operation of three (3) For the purposes of this section, 100 percent testing shall not be required candidate method samplers at a field the definitions of ISO 9001-registered until that conclusion is disproved by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61291

customer return or other independent Type II, Class I (reference 4 in appendix collecting PM samples, except that the manufacturer or customer test records. If A of this subpart) in the same way the sample air inlet shall be removed and problems are uncovered, inspection to sampler surfaces are finished, and the flow rate measurement adaptor shall verify conformance to the drawings, tested, prior to sealing, as specified in be installed on the sampler’s downtube. specifications, and tolerances shall be section 4.5.2 of reference 4 in appendix * * * * * performed. Refer also to paragraph (e) of A of this subpart. 11. Section 53.53 is amended by this section—final assembly and (e) Final assembly and inspection revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as inspection requirements. requirements. Each sampler shall be follows: (d) Specific tests and supporting tested after manufacture and before documentation required to verify delivery to the final user. Each § 53.53 Test for flow rate accuracy, conformance to critical component manufacturer shall document its post- regulation, measurement accuracy, and cut- specifications— (1) Verification of PM2.5 manufacturing test procedures. As a off. (WINS) impactor jet diameter. For minimum, each test shall consist of the * * * * * samplers utilizing the WINS impactor following: Tests of the overall integrity (e) Test setup. (1) Setup of the particle size separator specified in of the sampler, including leak tests; sampler shall be as required in this paragraphs 7.3.4.1, 7.3.4.2, and 7.3.4.3 calibration or verification of the paragraph (e) and otherwise as of appendix L to part 50 of this chapter, calibration of the flow measurement described in the sampler’s operation or the diameter of the jet of each impactor device, barometric pressure sensor, and instruction manual referred to in manufactured for a PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 temperature sensors; and operation of § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be sampler under the impactor design the sampler with a filter in place over installed upright and set up in its specifications set forth in 40 CFR part a period of at least 48 hours. The results normal configuration for collecting PM 50, appendix L, shall be verified against of each test shall be suitably samples. A sample filter and (or) the the tolerance specified on the drawing, documented and shall be subject to device for creating an additional 55 mm using standard, NIST-traceable ZZ go/no review by an ISO-certified auditor. Hg pressure drop shall be installed for go plug gages. This test shall be a final (f) Manufacturer’s audit checklists. the duration of these tests. The check of the jet diameter following all Manufacturers shall require an ISO- sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient fabrication operations, and a record certified auditor to sign and date a pressure, and flow rate measurement shall be kept of this final check. The statement indicating that the auditor is systems shall all be calibrated per the manufacturer shall submit evidence that aware of the appropriate manufacturing sampler’s operation or instruction this procedure is incorporated into the specifications contained in 40 CFR part manual within 7 days prior to this test. manufacturing procedure, that the test is 50, appendix L or O (as applicable), and * * * * * the test or verification requirements in or will be routinely implemented, and 12. Section 53.54 is amended by this subpart. Manufacturers shall also that an appropriate procedure is in revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as place for the disposition of units that require an ISO-certified auditor to follows: fail this tolerance test. complete the checklists, shown in (2) VSCC separator. For samplers figures E–1 and E–2 of this subpart, § 53.54 Test for proper sampler operation utilizing the BGI VSCCTM Very Sharp which describe the manufacturer’s following power interruptions. Cut Cyclone particle size separator ability to meet the requirements of the * * * * * specified in paragraph 7.3.4.4 of standard for both designation testing (d) Test setup. (1) Setup of the appendix L to part 50 of this chapter, and product manufacture. sampler shall be performed as required the VSCC manufacturer shall identify (1) Designation testing checklist. The in this paragraph (d) and otherwise as the critical dimensions and completed statement and checklist as described in the sampler’s operation or manufacturing tolerances for the device, shown in figure E–1 of this subpart shall instruction manual referred to in develop appropriate test procedures to be submitted with the application for § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be verify that the critical dimensions and FRM or FEM determination. installed upright and set up in its tolerances are maintained during the (2) Product manufacturing checklist. normal configuration for collecting PM manufacturing process, and carry out Manufacturers shall require an ISO- samples. A sample filter and (or) the those procedures on each VSCC certified auditor to complete a Product device for creating an additional 55 mm manufactured to verify conformance of Manufacturing Checklist (figure E–2 of Hg pressure drop shall be installed for the manufactured products. The this subpart), which evaluates the the duration of these tests. The manufacturer shall also maintain manufacturer on its ability to meet the sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient records of these tests and their results requirements of the standard in pressure, and flow measurement and submit evidence that this procedure maintaining quality control in the systems shall all be calibrated per the is incorporated into the manufacturing production of FRM or FEM devices. The sampler’s operating manual within 7 procedure, that the test is or will be completed checklist shall be submitted days prior to this test. routinely implemented, and that an with the application for FRM or FEM * * * * * appropriate procedure is in place for the determination. 13. Section 53.33 is amended by: disposition of units that fail this 10. Section 53.52 is amended by a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) tolerance test. revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as (3) Verification of surface finish. The introductory text and (a)(2). follows: anodization process used to treat b. Revising paragraph (e)(1). c. Revising paragraph (g)(5)(i) to read surfaces specified to be anodized shall § 53.52 Leak check test. as follows. be verified by testing treated specimen * * * * * surfaces for weight and corrosion (e) Test setup. (1) The test sampler § 53.55 Test for effect of variations in resistance to ensure that the coating shall be set up for testing as described power line voltage and ambient obtained conforms to the coating in the sampler’s operation or instruction temperature. specification. The specimen surfaces manual referred to in § 53.4(b)(3). The (a) Overview. (1) This test procedure shall be finished in accordance with sampler shall be installed upright and is a combined procedure to test various military standard specification 8625F, set up in its normal configuration for performance parameters under

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

variations in power line voltage and § 53.56 Test for effect of variations in 1 of this subpart. Each performance ambient temperature. Tests shall be ambient pressure. parameter tested, as described or conducted in a temperature-controlled (a) * * * determined in the test procedure, must environment over four 6-hour time (2) The performance parameters tested meet or exceed the associated periods during which reference under this procedure, the corresponding performance specification to temperature and flow rate minimum performance specifications, successfully pass this test. measurements shall be made at intervals and the applicable test conditions are (b) Technical definition. Filter not to exceed 5 minutes. Specific summarized in table E–1 of this subpart. temperature control during sampling is parameters to be evaluated at line Each performance parameter tested, as the ability of a sampler to maintain the voltages of 105 and 125 volts and described or determined in the test temperature of the particulate matter temperatures of ¥20 °C and +40 °C are procedure, must meet or exceed the sample filter within the specified as follows: associated performance specification deviation (5 °C) from ambient * * * * * given. The candidate sampler must meet temperature during any active sampling (2) The performance parameters tested all specifications for the associated period. Post-sampling temperature under this procedure, the corresponding PM2.5 or PM10¥2.5 method (as control is the ability of a sampler to minimum performance specifications, applicable) to pass this test procedure. maintain the temperature of the and the applicable test conditions are * * * * * particulate matter sample filter within summarized in table E–1 of this subpart. (e) * * * (1) Setup of the sampler the specified deviation from ambient Each performance parameter tested, as shall be performed as required in this temperature during the period from the described or determined in the test paragraph (e) and otherwise as end of active sample collection by the procedure, must meet or exceed the described in the sampler’s operation or sampler until the filter is retrieved from associated performance specification instruction manual referred to in the sampler for laboratory analysis. given. The candidate sampler must meet § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be * * * * * all specifications for the associated installed upright and set up in the (e) * * * (1) Setup of the sampler PM2.5 or PM10–2.5 method (as applicable) pressure-controlled chamber in its shall be performed as required in this to pass this test procedure. normal configuration for collecting PM paragraph (e) and otherwise as * * * * * samples. A sample filter and (or) the described in the sampler’s operation or (e) * * * (1) Setup of the sampler device for creating an additional 55 mm instruction manual referred to in shall be performed as required in this Hg pressure drop shall be installed for § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be paragraph (e) and otherwise as the duration of these tests. The installed upright and set up in the solar described in the sampler’s operation or sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient radiation environmental chamber in its instruction manual referred to in pressure, and flow measurement normal configuration for collecting PM § 53.4(b)(3). The sampler shall be systems shall all be calibrated per the samples (with the inlet installed). The installed upright and set up in the sampler’s operating manual within 7 sampler’s ambient and filter temperature-controlled chamber in its days prior to this test. temperature measurement systems shall normal configuration for collecting PM * * * * * be calibrated per the sampler’s operating manual within 7 days prior to this test. samples. A sample filter and (or) the 15. Section 53.57 is amended by A sample filter shall be installed for the device for creating an additional 55 mm revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e)(1) to duration of this test. For sequential Hg pressure drop shall be installed for read as follows: the duration of these tests. The samplers, a sample filter shall also be sampler’s ambient temperature, ambient § 53.57 Test for filter temperature control installed in each available sequential pressure, and flow measurement during sampling and post-sampling channel or station intended for systems shall all be calibrated per the periods. collection of a sequential sample (or at sampler’s operating manual within 7 (a) Overview. This test is intended to least five additional filters for magazine- days prior to this test. measure the candidate sampler’s ability type sequential samplers) as directed by * * * * * to prevent excessive overheating of the the sampler’s operation or instruction (g) * * * PM sample collection filter (or filters) manual. (5) * * * (i) Calculate the absolute under conditions of elevated solar * * * * * value of the difference between the insolation. The test evaluates radiative 16. Section 53.58 is revised to read as mean ambient air temperature indicated effects on filter temperature during a 4- follows: by the test sampler and the mean hour period of active sampling as well ambient (chamber) air temperature as during a subsequent 4-hour non- § 53.58 Operational field precision and measured with the ambient air sampling time period prior to filter blank test. temperature recorder as: retrieval. Tests shall be conducted in an (a) Overview. This test is intended to environmental chamber which provides determine the operational precision of Equation 16 the proper radiant wavelengths and the candidate sampler during a =− energies to adequately simulate the minimum of 10 days of field operation, TTdiff ind,, ave T ref ave sun’s radiant effects under clear using three collocated test samplers. Where: conditions at sea level. For additional Measurements of PM are made at a test Tind,ave = The mean ambient air temperature guidance on conducting solar radiative site with all of the samplers and then indicated by the test sampler, °C; and tests under controlled conditions, compared to determine replicate Tref,ave = The mean ambient air temperature consult military standard specification precision. Candidate sequential measured by the reference temperature 810–E (reference 6 in appendix A of this samplers are also subject to a test for ° instrument, C. subpart). The performance parameters possible deposition of particulate matter * * * * * tested under this procedure, the on inactive filters during a period of 14. Section 53.56 is amended by corresponding minimum performance storage in the sampler. This procedure revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e)(1) to specifications, and the applicable test is applicable to both reference and read as follows: conditions are summarized in table E– equivalent methods. In the case of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.037 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61293

equivalent methods, this test may be sampler for normal sample collection. unacceptable, and an additional sample combined and conducted concurrently Set identical sample collection start and collection set must be obtained to with the comparability test for stop times for each sampler. For replace the unacceptable data. equivalent methods (described in sequential samplers, install a (3)(i) Calculate and record the subpart C of this part), using three conditioned, preweighed specified filter precision for each of the 10 test periods, reference method samplers collocated in each available channel or station as the standard deviation, using with three candidate equivalent method intended for automatic sequential equation 27 of this section: samplers and meeting the applicable sample filter collection (or at least five site and other requirements of subpart C additional filters for magazine-type Equation 27

of this part. sequential samplers), as directed by the 2 (b) Technical definition. (1) Field 3  3  sampler’s operation or instruction 2 − 1 precision is defined as the standard manual. Since the inactive sequential ∑∑CCij,, ij ==3   deviation or relative standard deviation = i 1 i 1 channels are used for the storage Pj of a set of PM measurements obtained deposition part of the test, they may not 2 concurrently with three or more be used to collect the active PM test (ii) For each of the 10 test periods, collocated samplers in actual ambient samples. also calculate and record the precision air field operation. (2) Collect either a nominal 24-hour or as the relative standard deviation, in (2) Storage deposition is defined as 48-hour atmospheric PM sample percent, using equation 28 of this the mass of material inadvertently simultaneously with each of the three section: deposited on a sample filter that is test samplers. stored in a sequential sampler either (3) Following sample collection, Equation 28 prior to or subsequent to the active retrieve the collected sample from each sampler. For sequential samplers, Pj sample collection period. RP =×100% (c) Test site. Any outdoor test site retrieve the additional stored (blank, j Cave, j having PM2.5 (or PM10¥2.5, as unsampled) filters after at least 5 days applicable) concentrations that are (120 hours) storage in the sampler if the (h) Test results. (1) The candidate reasonably uniform over the test area active samples are 24-hour samples, or method passes the precision test if and that meet the minimum level after at least 10 days (240 hours) if the either Pj or RPj is less than or equal to requirement of paragraph (g)(2) of this active samples are 48-hour samples. the corresponding specification in table section is acceptable for this test. (4) Determine the measured PM mass E–1 of this subpart for all 10 test (d) Required facilities and equipment. concentration for each sample in periods. (1) An appropriate test site and suitable accordance with the applicable (2) The candidate sequential sampler electrical power to accommodate three procedures prescribed for the candidate passes the blank filter storage deposition test samplers are required. method in appendix L or appendix O, test if the average net storage deposition (2) Teflon sample filters, as specified as applicable, of part 50 of this chapter, weight gain of each set of blank filters in section 6 of 40 CFR part 50, appendix and in accordance with the associated (total of the net weight gain of each L, conditioned and preweighed as manual referred to in § 53.4(b)(3) and blank filter divided by the number of required by section 8 of 40 CFR part 50, supplemental guidance in reference 2 in filters in the set) from each test sampler appendix L, as needed for the test appendix A of this subpart. For (six sets in all) is less than 50 µg. samples. sequential samplers, also similarly 17. Section 53.59 is amended by (e) Test setup. (1) Three identical test determine the storage deposition as the revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(5) to read samplers shall be installed at the test net weight gain of each blank, as follows: site in their normal configuration for unsampled filter after the 5-day (or 10- collecting PM samples in accordance day) period of storage in the sampler. § 53.59 Aerosol transport test for Class I with the instructions in the associated (5) Repeat this procedure to obtain a equivalent method samplers. manual referred to in § 53.4(b)(3) and total of 10 sets of any combination of (a) Overview. This test is intended to also in accordance with applicable (nominal) 24-hour or 48-hour PM verify adequate aerosol transport supplemental guidance provided in measurements over 10 test periods. For through any modified or air flow reference 3 in appendix A of this sequential samplers, repeat the 5-day (or splitting components that may be used subpart. The test samplers’ inlet 10-day) storage test of additional blank in a Class I candidate equivalent method openings shall be located at the same filters once for a total of two sets of sampler such as may be necessary to height above ground and between 2 (1 blank filters. achieve sequential sampling capability. for samplers with flow rates less than (g) Calculations. (1) Record the PM This test is applicable to all Class I 200 L/min.) and 4 meters apart concentration for each test sampler for candidate samplers in which the aerosol horizontally. The samplers shall be each test period as Ci,j, where i is the flow path (the flow path through which arranged or oriented in a manner that sampler number (i = 1,2,3) and j is the sample air passes upstream of sample will minimize the spatial and wind test period (j = 1,2, * * * 10). collection filter) differs significantly directional effects on sample collection (2)(i) For each test period, calculate from that specified for reference method of one sampler on any other sampler. and record the average of the three samplers as specified in 40 CFR part 50, (2) Each test sampler shall be measured PM concentrations as Cave,j appendix L or appendix O, as successfully leak checked, calibrated, where j is the test period using equation applicable. The test requirements and and set up for normal operation in 26 of this section: performance specifications for this test accordance with the instruction manual are summarized in table E–1 of this and with any applicable supplemental Equation 26 subpart. guidance provided in reference 3 in 3 (b) * * * =×1 appendix A of this subpart. CCave,, j∑ 1 j (5) An added component is any (f) Test procedure. (1) Install a 3 i=1 physical part of the sampler which is 3 conditioned, preweighed filter in each (ii) If Cave,j < 3 µg/m for any test different in some way from that test sampler and otherwise prepare each period, data from that test period are specified for a reference method

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.038 ER17OC06.039 ER17OC06.040 61294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

sampler in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L aerosol to be routed to one of several 18. Table E–1 to subpart E is revised or appendix O, as applicable, such as a channels. to read as follows: device or means to allow or cause the * * * * *

TABLE E–1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND CLASS I EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR PM2.5 AND PM10–2.5

Part 50, appendix L ref- Subpart E procedure Performance test Performance specification Test conditions erence

§ 53.52 Sample leak check Sampler leak check facility External leakage: 80 mL/ Controlled leak flow rate of Sec. 7.4.6. test. min, max. 80 mL/min. Internal leakage: 80 mL/ min, max. § 53.53 Base flow rate test Sample flow rate ...... 1. 16.67 ? 5% L/min ...... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test plus flow Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... rate cut-off test. Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas accuracy ...... 4. 0.3%, max ...... (b) Normal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.4 4. CV accuracy ...... 5. Flow rate cut-off if flow (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5. 5. Cut-off ...... rate deviates more than pressure drop to simu- 10% from design flow late loaded filter. rate for >60 ± ?30 sec- (d) Variable flow restriction onds. used for cut-off test. § 53.54 Power interruption Sample flow rate: ...... 1. 16.67 ?± 5% L/Min ...... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, test. 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test. Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (b) Nominal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas. accuracy ...... 4. 0.3% max ...... (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5 4. CV accuracy ...... 5. ? ± 2 min if >60 seconds pressure drop to simu- Sec. 7.4.12 5. Occurrence time of 6. ? ± 20 seconds ...... late loaded filter. Sec. 7.4.13 power interruptions. 7. ± ?2%, max ...... (d) 6 power interruptions of Sec. 7.4.15.4 6. Elapsed sample time .... various durations. Sec. 7.4.15.5. 7. Sample volume ...... § 53.55 Temperature and Sample flow rate ...... 1. 16.6 ±? 5% L/min ...... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, line voltage test. 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test. Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (b) Normal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas. accuracy ...... 4. 0.3% max ...... (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5 4. CV accuracy ...... 5. 2 °C ...... pressure drop to simu- Sec. 7.4.8 5. Temperature meas. ac- late loaded filter. Sec. 7.4.15.1. curacy. (d) Ambient temperature at 6. Proper operation ...... ¥20 and +40 °C. (e) Line voltage: 105 Vac to 125 Vac. § 53.56 Barometric pres- Sample flow rate ...... 1. 16.67 ?± ? 5% L/min .... (a) 6-hour normal oper- Sec. 7.4.1, sure effect test. 1. Mean ...... 2. 2%, max ...... ational test. Sec. 7.4.2 2. Regulation ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (b) Normal conditions ...... Sec. 7.4.3 3. Meas. accuracy ...... 3. 2%, max ...... (c) Additional 55 mm Hg Sec. 7.4.5 4. CV accuracy ...... 4. 0.3%, max ...... pressure drop to simu- Sec. 7.4.9. 5. Pressure meas. accu- 5. 10 mm Hg ...... late loaded filter. racy. (d) Barometric pressure at 6. Proper operation ...... 600 and 800 mm Hg. § 53.57 Filter tempera- 1. Filter temp meas. accu- 1. 2 °C ...... (a) 4-hour simulated solar Sec. 7.4.8 ture control test. racy. 2. 2 °C ...... radiation, sampling. Sec. 7.4.10 2. Ambient temp. meas. 3. Not more than 5 °C (b) 4-hour simulated solar Sec. 7.4.11. accuracy. above ambient temp. for radiation, non-sampling. 3. Filter temp. control ac- more than 30 min.. (c) Solar flux of 1000 ?50 curacy, sampling and W/m2. non-sampling. 3 § 53.58 Field precision test 1. Measurement precision 1. Pj < 2 µg/m or RPj < (a) 3 collocated samplers Sec. 5.1 2. Storage deposition test 5%. at 1 site for at least 10 Sec. 7.3.5 for sequential samplers. 2. 50 µg max. average days;. Sec. 8 3 weight gain/blank filter. (b) PM2.5 conc. > 3 µg/m Sec. 9 (c) 24- or 48-hour samples Sec. 10. (d) 5- or 10-day storage period for inactive stored filters.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61295

TABLE E–1 TO SUBPART E OF PART 53.—SUMMARY OF TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR REFERENCE AND CLASS I EQUIVALENT METHODS FOR PM2.5 AND PM10–2.5—Continued

Part 50, appendix L ref- Subpart E procedure Performance test Performance specification Test conditions erence

The Following Requirement Is Applicable to Class I Candidate Equivalent Methods Only

§ 53.59 Aerosol transport Aerosol transport ...... 97%, min. for all channels Determine aerosol trans- test. port through any new or modified components with respect to the ref- erence method sampler before the filter for each channel.

19. References (1), (2), (3), and (5) in § 53.60 General provisions. loaded by sampling a test environment appendix A to subpart E of part 53 are * * * * * containing aerosolized, standard test revised to read as follows: (b) A candidate method described in dust. The duration of the loading phase is dependent on both the time between Appendix A to Subpart E of Part 53— an application for a FRM or FEM cleaning as specified by the candidate References determination submitted under § 53.4 shall be determined by the EPA to be a method and the aerosol mass (1) American National Standard Quality Class II candidate equivalent method on concentration in the test environment. Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in the basis of the definition of a Class II After loading, the candidate’s Design, Development, Production, FEM in § 53.1. performance must then be evaluated by Installation, and Servicing, ANSI/ISO/ASQC (c) Any sampler associated with a § 53.62 (full wind tunnel evaluation), Q9001–1994. Available from American Society for Quality, P.O. Box 3005, Class II candidate equivalent method § 53.63 (wind tunnel inlet aspiration Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// (Class II sampler) must meet all test), or § 53.64 (static fractionator test). qualitypress.asq.org). applicable requirements for FRM If the results of the appropriate test meet (2) American National Standard Quality samplers or Class I FEM samplers the criteria presented in table F–1 of this Systems for Environmental Data and specified in subpart E of this part, as subpart, then the candidate sampler Technology Programs—Requirements with appropriate. Except as provided in passes the loading test under the guidance for use, ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. § 53.3(a)(3), a Class II PM2.5 sampler condition that it be cleaned at least as Available from American Society for Quality, must meet the additional requirements often as the cleaning frequency P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53202 (http:// as specified in paragraph (d) of this proposed by the candidate method and qualitypress.asq.org). (3) Quality Assurance Guidance Document section. that has been demonstrated to be (d) Except as provided in paragraphs acceptable by this test. 2.12. Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using Designated Reference or Class I Equivalent (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, all * * * * * Class II samplers are subject to the Methods. U.S. EPA, National Exposure 21. The section heading of § 53.61 is Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, additional tests and performance revised to read as follows: NC, November 1998 or later edition. requirements specified in § 53.62 (full Currently available at http://www.epa.gov/ wind tunnel test), § 53.65 (loading test), § 53.61 Test conditions. ttn/amtic/pmqainf.html. and § 53.66 (volatility test). Alternative * * * * * * * * * * tests and performance requirements, as (5) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air described in paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and 22. Section 53.66 is amended by Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV: (3) of this section, are optionally revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii) to read as Meteorological Measurements. Revised available for certain Class II samplers follows: March, 1995. EPA–600/R–94–038d. Available from National Technical Information Service, which meet the requirements for § 53.66 Test procedure: Volatility test. Springfield, VA 22161, (800–553–6847, reference method or Class I equivalent * * * * * method samplers given in 40 CFR part http://www.ntis.gov). NTIS number PB95– (e) * * * 199782INZ. 50, appendix L, and in subpart E of this (2) * * * * * * * * part, except for specific deviations of the inlet, fractionator, or filter. (iii) Operate the candidate and the reference samplers such that they Subpart F—[Amended] * * * * * simultaneously sample the test aerosol (f) * * * for 2 hours for a candidate sampler 20. Section 53.60 is amended by: (4) Loading test. The loading test is operating at 16.7 L/min or higher, or a. Revising paragraph (b); conducted to ensure that the proportionately longer for a candidate b. Revising paragraph (c); performance of a candidate sampler is sampler operating at a lower flow rate. c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory not significantly affected by the amount text; and of particulate deposited on its interior * * * * * d. Revising paragraph (f)(4) to read as surfaces between periodic cleanings. 23. Table F–1 to subpart F is revised follows: The candidate sampler is artificially to read as follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61296 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE F–1 TO SUBPART F OF PART 53.—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PM2.5 CLASS II EQUIVALENT SAMPLERS

Performance test Specifications Acceptance criteria

§ 53.62 Full Tunnel Evaluation ...... Solid VOAG produced aerosol at 2 km/hr and Dp50 2.5 µm ± 0.2 µm Numerical Analysis Re- 24 km/hr. sults: 95% ≤ ? Rc ≤ ? 105% § 53.63 Wind Tunnel Inlet Aspriation Test ...... Liquid VOAG produced aerosol at 2 km/hr Relative Aspiration: 95% ≤ ? A ≤ ? 105% and 24 km/hr. § 53.64 Static Fractionator Test ...... Evaluation of the fractionator under static con- Dp50 = 2.5 µm ? 0.2 µm Numerical Analysis ditions. Results: 95% ? ≤ Rc ? ≤ 105% § 53.65 Loading Test ...... Loading of the clean candidate under labora- Acceptance criteria as specified in the post- tory conditions. loading evaluation test (§ 53.62, § 53.63, or § 53.64) § 53.66 Volatility Test ...... Polydisperse liquid aerosol produced by air Regression Parameters Slope = 1 ± 0.1, Inter- nebulization of A.C.S. reagent grade glyc- cept = 0 ± ? 0.15mg r ≥ 0.97. erol, 99.5% minimum purity.

24. In Figure E–1 to subpart F, the geographical area consisting of two or When the pollutant concentration figure number ‘‘E–1’’ is revised to read more adjacent Core Based Statistical measured by the analyzer in such a test ‘‘F–1.’’ Areas (CBSA) with employment includes both the pollutant interchange of at least 15 percent. concentration in the test cell and the PART 58—[AMENDED] Combination is automatic if the concentration in the atmosphere, the employment interchange is 25 percent atmospheric pollutant concentration 25. The authority citation for part 58 and determined by local opinion if more must be subtracted from the test is revised to read as follows: than 15 but less than 25 percent (http:// measurement to obtain the corrected Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7410, 7601(a), www.census.gov/population/estimates/ concentration test result. The corrected 7611, and 7619. metro-city/List6.txt). concentration is equal to the measured Community monitoring zone (CMZ) concentration minus the average of the 26. Subpart A is revised to read as means an optional averaging area with atmospheric pollutant concentrations follows: established, well defined boundaries, measured (without the test cell) Subpart A—General Provisions such as county or census block, within immediately before and immediately Sec. an MPA that has relatively uniform after the test. 58.1 Definitions. concentrations of annual PM2.5 as Design value means the calculated 58.2 Purpose. defined by appendix N of part 50 of this concentration according to the 58.3 Applicability. chapter. Two or more community- applicable appendix of part 50 of this oriented SLAMS monitors within a chapter for the highest site in an Subpart A—General Provisions CMZ that meet certain requirements as attainment or nonattainment area. § 58.1 Definitions. set forth in appendix N of part 50 of this EDO means environmental data chapter may be averaged for making operations. As used in this part, all terms not comparisons to the annual PM2.5 Effective concentration pertains to defined herein have the meaning given NAAQS. testing an open path analyzer with a them in the Act. Core-based statistical area (CBSA) is high-concentration calibration or audit Act means the Clean Air Act as defined by the U.S. Office of standard gas contained in a short test amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) Management and Budget, as a statistical cell inserted into the optical Additive and multiplicative bias geographic entity consisting of the measurement beam of the instrument. means the linear regression intercept county or counties associated with at Effective concentration is the equivalent and slope of a linear plot fitted to least one urbanized area/urban cluster ambient-level concentration that would corresponding candidate and reference of at least 10,000 population, plus produce the same spectral absorbance method mean measurement data pairs. adjacent counties having a high degree over the actual atmospheric monitoring Administrator means the of social and economic integration. path length as produced by the high- Administrator of the Environmental Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) concentration gas in the short test cell. Protection Agency (EPA) or his or her and micropolitan statistical areas are the Quantitatively, effective concentration authorized representative. two categories of CBSA (metropolitan is equal to the actual concentration of Air Quality System (AQS) means areas have populations greater than the gas standard in the test cell EPA’s computerized system for storing 50,000; and micropolitan areas have multiplied by the ratio of the path and reporting of information relating to populations between 10,000 and length of the test cell to the actual ambient air quality data. 50,000). In the case of very large cities atmospheric monitoring path length. Approved regional method (ARM) where two or more CBSAs are Federal equivalent method (FEM) means a continuous PM2.5 method that combined, these larger areas are referred means a method for measuring the has been approved specifically within a to as combined statistical areas (CSAs) concentration of an air pollutant in the State or local air monitoring network for (http://www.census.gov/population/ ambient air that has been designated as purposes of comparison to the NAAQS estimates/metro-city/List1.txt). an equivalent method in accordance and to meet other monitoring objectives. Corrected concentration pertains to with part 53 of this chapter; it does not AQCR means air quality control the result of an accuracy or precision include a method for which an region. assessment test of an open path analyzer equivalent method designation has been CO means carbon monoxide. in which a high-concentration test or canceled in accordance with § 53.11 or Combined statistical area (CSA) is audit standard gas contained in a short § 53.16 of this chapter. defined by the U.S. Office of test cell is inserted into the optical Federal reference method (FRM) Management and Budget as a measurement beam of the instrument. means a method of sampling and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61297

analyzing the ambient air for an air convenience, those portions of a State equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as pollutant that is specified as a reference that are not associated with CBSAs can measured by a reference method based method in an appendix to part 50 of this be considered as a single MPA. on appendix L of part 50 of this chapter chapter, or a method that has been NATTS means the national air toxics and designated in accordance with part designated as a reference method in trends stations. This network provides 53 of this chapter, by an equivalent accordance with this part; it does not hazardous air pollution ambient data. method designated in accordance with include a method for which a reference NCore means the National Core part 53 of this chapter, or by an method designation has been canceled multipollutant monitoring stations. approved regional method designated in in accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16 of Monitors at these sites are required to accordance with appendix C to this part. this chapter. measure particles (PM2.5, speciated PM10 means particulate matter with HNO3 means nitric acid. PM2.5, PM10–2.5), O3, SO2, CO, nitrogen an aerodynamic diameter less than or Local agency means any local oxides (NO/NO2/NOy), Pb, and basic equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as government agency, other than the State meteorology. measured by a reference method based agency, which is charged by a State with Network means all stations of a given on appendix J of part 50 of this chapter the responsibility for carrying out a type or types. and designated in accordance with part portion of the plan. NH3 means ammonia. 53 of this chapter or by an equivalent Meteorological measurements means NO2 means nitrogen dioxide. NO method designated in accordance with measurements of wind speed, wind means nitrogen oxide. NOX means part 53 of this chapter. direction, barometric pressure, oxides of nitrogen and is defined as the PM10C means particulate matter with temperature, relative humidity, solar sum of the concentrations of NO2 and an aerodynamic diameter less than or radiation, ultraviolet radiation, and/or NO. equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as precipitation. NOy means the sum of all total measured by a reference method based Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) reactive nitrogen oxides, including NO, on appendix O of part 50 of this chapter means a CBSA associated with at least NO2, and other nitrogen oxides referred and designated in accordance with part one urbanized area of 50,000 population to as NOZ. 53 of this chapter or by an equivalent or greater. The central county plus O3 means ozone. method designated in accordance with Open path analyzer means an adjacent counties with a high degree of part 53 of this chapter. automated analytical method that integration comprise the area. PM10¥2.5 means particulate matter Monitor means an instrument, measures the average atmospheric with an aerodynamic diameter less than sampler, analyzer, or other device that pollutant concentration in situ along or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers one or more monitoring paths having a measures or assists in the measurement and greater than a nominal 2.5 monitoring path length of 5 meters or of atmospheric air pollutants and which micrometers as measured by a reference more and that has been designated as a is acceptable for use in ambient air method based on appendix O to part 50 reference or equivalent method under surveillance under the applicable of this chapter and designated in the provisions of part 53 of this chapter. accordance with part 53 of this chapter provisions of appendix C to this part. Optical measurement path length Monitoring agency means a State or or by an equivalent method designated means the actual length of the optical local agency responsible for meeting the in accordance with part 53 of this beam over which measurement of the requirements of this part. chapter. Monitoring organization means a pollutant is determined. The path- Point analyzer means an automated integrated pollutant concentration State, local, or other monitoring analytical method that measures measured by the analyzer is divided by organization responsible for operating a pollutant concentration in an ambient the optical measurement path length to monitoring site for which the quality air sample extracted from the determine the path-averaged assurance regulations apply. atmosphere at a specific inlet probe concentration. Generally, the optical Monitoring path for an open path point and that has been designated as a analyzer means the actual path in space measurement path length is: (1) Equal to the monitoring path reference or equivalent method in between two geographical locations over length for a (bistatic) system having a accordance with part 53 of this chapter. which the pollutant concentration is Population-oriented monitoring (or transmitter and a receiver at opposite measured and averaged. sites) means residential areas, ends of the monitoring path; Monitoring path length of an open (2) Equal to twice the monitoring path commercial areas, recreational areas, path analyzer means the length of the length for a (monostatic) system having industrial areas where workers from monitoring path in the atmosphere over a transmitter and receiver at one end of more than one company are located, and which the average pollutant the monitoring path and a mirror or other areas where a substantial number concentration measurement (path- retroreflector at the other end; or of people may spend a significant averaged concentration) is determined. (3) Equal to some multiple of the fraction of their day. See also, optical measurement path monitoring path length for more Primary quality assurance length. complex systems having multiple passes organization means a monitoring Monitoring planning area (MPA) of the measurement beam through the organization or other organization that means a contiguous geographic area monitoring path. is responsible for a set of stations that with established, well defined PAMS means photochemical monitor the same pollutant and for boundaries, such as a CBSA, county or assessment monitoring stations. which data quality assessments can be State, having a common area that is Pb means lead. pooled. Each criteria pollutant sampler/ used for planning monitoring locations Plan means an implementation plan monitor at a monitoring station in the for PM2.5. An MPA may cross State approved or promulgated pursuant to SLAMS and SPM networks must be boundaries, such as the Philadelphia section 110 of the Act. associated with one, and only one, PA–NJ MSA, and be further subdivided PM means PM10, PM110C, PM2.5, primary quality assurance organization. into community monitoring zones. PM10¥2.5, or particulate matter of Probe means the actual inlet where an MPAs are generally oriented toward unspecified size range. air sample is extracted from the CBSAs or CSAs with populations PM2.5 means particulate matter with atmosphere for delivery to a sampler or greater than 200,000, but for an aerodynamic diameter less than or point analyzer for pollutant analysis.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61298 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

PSD station means any station by the method described in appendix B 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan and operated for the purpose of establishing of part 50 of this chapter. periodic network assessment. the effect on air quality of the emissions Urbanized area means an area with a 58.11 Network technical requirements. from a proposed source for purposes of minimum residential population of at 58.12 Operating schedules. 58.13 Monitoring network completion. prevention of significant deterioration least 50,000 people and which generally 58.14 System modification. as required by § 51.24(n) of this chapter. includes core census block groups or 58.15 Annual air monitoring data Regional Administrator means the blocks that have a population density of certification. Administrator of one of the ten EPA at least 1,000 people per square mile 58.16 Data submittal and archiving Regional Offices or his or her authorized and surrounding census blocks that requirements. representative. have an overall density of at least 500 Reporting organization means an people per square mile. The Census Subpart B—Monitoring Network entity, such as a State, local, or Tribal Bureau notes that under certain § 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan monitoring agency, that collects and conditions, less densely settled territory and periodic network assessment. reports air quality data to EPA. may be part of each Urbanized Area. Site means a geographic location. One VOC means volatile organic (a)(1) Beginning July 1, 2007, the or more stations may be at the same site. compounds. State, or where applicable local, agency shall adopt and submit to the Regional SLAMS means State or local air § 58.2 Purpose. Administrator an annual monitoring monitoring stations. The SLAMS make network plan which shall provide for up the ambient air quality monitoring (a) This part contains requirements for the establishment and maintenance of sites that are primarily needed for measuring ambient air quality and for an air quality surveillance system that NAAQS comparisons, but may serve reporting ambient air quality data and consists of a network of SLAMS other data purposes. SLAMS exclude related information. The monitoring monitoring stations including FRM, special purpose monitor (SPM) stations criteria pertain to the following areas: FEM, and ARM monitors that are part of and include NCore, PAMS, and all other (1) Quality assurance procedures for SLAMS, NCore stations, STN stations, State or locally operated stations that monitor operation and data handling. State speciation stations, SPM stations, have not been designated as SPM (2) Methodology used in monitoring and/or, in serious, severe and extreme stations. stations. ozone nonattainment areas, PAMS SO means sulfur dioxide. (3) Operating schedule. 2 stations, and SPM monitoring stations. Special purpose monitor (SPM) (4) Siting parameters for instruments The plan shall include a statement of station means a monitor included in an or instrument probes. purposes for each monitor and evidence agency’s monitoring network that the (5) Minimum ambient air quality that siting and operation of each agency has designated as a special monitoring network requirements used monitor meets the requirements of purpose monitor station in its to provide support to the State appendices A, C, D, and E of this part, monitoring network plan and in the Air implementation plans (SIP), national air where applicable. The annual Quality System, and which the agency quality assessments, and policy monitoring network plan must be made does not count when showing decisions. These minimums are available for public inspection for at compliance with the minimum described as part of the network design least 30 days prior to submission to requirements of this subpart for the requirements, including minimum EPA. number and siting of monitors of numbers and placement of monitors of various types. each type. (2) Any annual monitoring network (6) Air quality data reporting, and State agency means the air pollution plan that proposes SLAMS network requirements for the daily reporting of control agency primarily responsible for modifications including new monitoring an index of ambient air quality. development and implementation of a sites is subject to the approval of the (b) The requirements pertaining to plan under the Act. EPA Regional Administrator, who shall provisions for an air quality surveillance State speciation site means a provide opportunity for public comment system in the SIP are contained in this supplemental PM speciation station and shall approve or disapprove the 2.5 part. that is not part of the speciation trends plan and schedule within 120 days. If (c) This part also acts to establish a network. the State or local agency has already national ambient air quality monitoring Station means a single monitor, or a provided a public comment opportunity network for the purpose of providing group of monitors with a shared on its plan and has made no changes timely air quality data upon which to objective, located at a particular site. subsequent to that comment base national assessments and policy STN station means a PM speciation opportunity, the Regional Administrator 2.5 decisions. station designated to be part of the is not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment. speciation trends network. This network § 58.3 Applicability. provides chemical species data of fine (3) The plan for establishing required This part applies to: NCore multipollutant stations shall be particulate. (a) State air pollution control Traceable means that a local standard submitted to the Administrator not later agencies. than July 1, 2009. The plan shall has been compared and certified, either (b) Any local air pollution control directly or via not more than one provide for all required stations to be agency to which the State has delegated operational by January 1, 2011. intermediate standard, to a National authority to operate a portion of the Institute of Standards and Technology State’s SLAMS network. (b) The annual monitoring network (NIST)-certified primary standard such (c) Owners or operators of proposed plan must contain the following as a NIST-traceable Reference Material sources. information for each existing and proposed site: (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas 27. Subpart B is revised to read as (1) The AQS site identification Manufacturer’s Internal Standard follows: (GMIS). number. TSP (total suspended particulates) Subpart B—Monitoring Network (2) The location, including street means particulate matter as measured Sec. address and geographical coordinates.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61299

(3) The sampling and analysis annual monitoring network plans and SLAMS station on the following method(s) for each measured parameter. periodic network assessments are operational schedules: (4) The operating schedules for each subject to approval according to § 58.14. (a) For continuous analyzers, monitor. consecutive hourly averages must be (5) Any proposals to remove or move § 58.11 Network technical requirements. collected except during: a monitoring station within a period of (a)(1) State and local governments (1) Periods of routine maintenance, 18 months following plan submittal. shall follow the applicable quality (2) Periods of instrument calibration, (6) The monitoring objective and assurance criteria contained in or spatial scale of representativeness for appendix A to this part when operating (3) Periods or monitoring seasons each monitor as defined in appendix D the SLAMS networks. exempted by the Regional to this part. (2) Beginning January 1, 2009, State Administrator. (7) The identification of any sites that and local governments shall follow the (b) For Pb manual methods, at least are suitable and sites that are not quality assurance criteria contained in one 24-hour sample must be collected suitable for comparison against the appendix A to this part that apply to every 6 days except during periods or annual PM2.5 NAAQS as described in SPM sites when operating any SPM site seasons exempted by the Regional § 58.30. which uses a FRM, FEM, or ARM and Administrator. (8) The MSA, CBSA, CSA or other meets the requirements of appendix E to (c) For PAMS VOC samplers, samples area represented by the monitor. this part, unless the Regional must be collected as specified in section (c) The annual monitoring network Administrator approves an alternative to 5 of appendix D to this part. Area- plan must document how States and the requirements of appendix A with specific PAMS operating schedules local agencies provide for the review of respect to such SPM sites because must be included as part of the PAMS changes to a PM2.5 monitoring network meeting those requirements would be network description and must be that impact the location of a violating physically and/or financially approved by the Regional PM2.5 monitor or the creation/change to impractical due to physical conditions Administrator. a community monitoring zone, at the monitoring site and the (d) For manual PM2.5 samplers: including a description of the proposed requirements are not essential to (1) Manual PM2.5 samplers at SLAMS use of spatial averaging for purposes of achieving the intended data objectives stations other than NCore stations must making comparisons to the annual PM2.5 of the SPM site. Alternatives to the operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule NAAQS as set forth in appendix N to requirements of appendix A may be at sites without a collocated part 50 of this chapter. The affected approved for an SPM site as part of the continuously operating PM2.5 monitor. State or local agency must document the approval of the annual monitoring plan, For SLAMS PM2.5 sites with both process for obtaining public comment or separately. manual and continuous PM2.5 monitors and include any comments received (3) The owner or operator of an operating, the monitoring agency may through the public notification process existing or a proposed source shall request approval for a reduction to 1-in- within their submitted plan. follow the quality assurance criteria in 6 day PM2.5 sampling at SLAMS stations (d) The State, or where applicable appendix A to this part that apply to or for seasonal sampling from the EPA local, agency shall perform and submit PSD monitoring when operating a PSD Regional Administrator. The EPA to the EPA Regional Administrator an site. Regional Administrator may grant assessment of the air quality (b) State and local governments must sampling frequency reductions after surveillance system every 5 years to follow the criteria in appendix C to this consideration of factors, including but determine, at a minimum, if the network part to determine acceptable monitoring not limited to the historical PM2.5 data meets the monitoring objectives defined methods or instruments for use in quality assessments, the location of in appendix D to this part, whether new SLAMS networks. Appendix C criteria current PM2.5 design value sites, and sites are needed, whether existing sites are optional at SPM stations. their regulatory data needs. Sites that are no longer needed and can be (c) State and local governments must have design values that are within plus terminated, and whether new follow the network design criteria or minus 10 percent of the NAAQS; and technologies are appropriate for contained in appendix D to this part in sites where the 24-hour values exceed incorporation into the ambient air designing and maintaining the SLAMS the NAAQS for a period of 3 years are monitoring network. The network stations. The final network design and required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day assessment must consider the ability of all changes in design are subject to sampling frequency. Sites that have a existing and proposed sites to support approval of the Regional Administrator. design value within plus or minus 5 air quality characterization for areas NCore, STN, and PAMS network design percent of the daily PM2.5 NAAQS must with relatively high populations of and changes are also subject to approval have an FRM or FEM operate on a daily susceptible individuals (e.g., children of the Administrator. Changes in SPM schedule. with asthma), and, for any sites that are stations do not require approvals, but a (2) Manual PM2.5 samplers at NCore being proposed for discontinuance, the change in the designation of a stations and required regional effect on data users other than the monitoring site from SLAMS to SPM background and regional transport sites agency itself, such as nearby States and requires approval of the Regional must operate on at least a 1-in-3 day Tribes or health effects studies. For Administrator. sampling frequency. PM2.5, the assessment also must identify (d) State and local governments must (3) Manual PM2.5 speciation samplers needed changes to population-oriented follow the criteria contained in at STN stations must operate on a 1-in- sites. The State, or where applicable appendix E to this part for siting 3 day sampling frequency. local, agency must submit a copy of this monitor inlets, paths or probes at (e) For PM10 samplers’a 24-hour 5-year assessment, along with a revised SLAMS stations. Appendix E adherence sample must be taken from midnight to annual network plan, to the Regional is optional for SPM stations. midnight (local time) to ensure national Administrator. The first assessment is consistency. The minimum monitoring due July 1, 2010. § 58.12 Operating schedules. schedule for the site in the area of (e) All proposed additions and State and local governments shall expected maximum concentration shall discontinuations of SLAMS monitors in collect ambient air quality data at any be based on the relative level of that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61300 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring site concentration with described in ‘‘Guideline for the from which to estimate current air respect to the 24-hour standard as Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality quality status and to provide stability to illustrated in Figure 1. If the operating Standards,’’ EPA–450/479–003, U.S. the network. This multiyear agency demonstrates by monitoring data Environmental Protection Agency, consideration reduces the possibility of that during certain periods of the year Research Triangle Park, NC, January an anomalous year biasing a site conditions preclude violation of the 1979, should be used. Adjustments to selected for accelerated sampling. If the PM10 24-hour standard, the increased the monitoring schedule must be made maximum concentration site based on sampling frequency for those periods or on the basis of the 5-year network the most current year is not selected for seasons may be exempted by the assessment. The site having the highest the more frequent operating schedule, Regional Administrator and permitted concentration in the most current year documentation of the justification for to revert back to once in six days. The must be given first consideration when selection of an alternative site must be minimum sampling schedule for all selecting the site for the more frequent other sites in the area remains once sampling schedule. Other factors such submitted to the Regional Office for approval during the 5-year network every six days. No less frequently than as major change in sources of PM10 as part of each 5-year network emissions or in sampling site assessment process. Minimum data assessment, the most recent year of data characteristics could influence the completeness criteria, number of years must be considered to estimate the air location of the expected maximum of data and sampling frequency for quality status at the site near the area of concentration site. Also, the use of the judging attainment of the NAAQS are maximum concentration. Statistical most recent 3 years of data might, in discussed in appendix K of part 50 of models such as analysis of some cases, be justified in order to this chapter. concentration frequency distributions as provide a more representative database

(f) For manual PM10–2.5 samplers: appendices A, C, D, E, and G to this available to the public for 30 days prior

(1) Manual PM10–2.5 samplers at NCore part. to submission to the EPA Regional stations must operate on at least a 1-in- (b) Where existing networks are not in Administrator. The final plan and 3 day schedule at sites without a conformance with required numbers of schedule with respect to the SLAMS collocated continuously operating monitors specified in this part, network are subject to the approval of additional required monitors must be federal equivalent PM10–2.5 method that the EPA Regional Administrator. Plans has been designated in accordance with operated by January 1, 2008. containing modifications to NCore part 53 of this chapter. § 58.14 System modification. Stations or PAMS Stations shall be submitted to the Administrator. The (2) Manual PM10–2.5 speciation (a) The State, or where appropriate samplers at NCore stations must operate local, agency shall develop and Regional Administrator shall provide on at least a 1-in-3 day sampling implement a plan and schedule to opportunity for public comment and frequency. modify the ambient air quality shall approve or disapprove submitted monitoring network that complies with plans and schedules within 120 days. § 58.13 Monitoring network completion. the findings of the network assessments (b) Nothing in this section shall (a) The network of NCore required every 5 years by § 58.10(e). The preclude the State, or where appropriate multipollutant sites must be physically State or local agency shall consult with local, agency from making modifications established no later than January 1, the EPA Regional Administrator during to the SLAMS network for reasons other 2011, and at that time, operating under the development of the schedule to than those resulting from the periodic all of the requirements of this part, modify the monitoring program, and network assessments. These including the requirements of shall make the plan and schedule modifications must be reviewed and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.060 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61301

approved by the Regional higher reading of the two monitors collected at all SLAMS and at SPM Administrator. Each monitoring being compared. stations using FRM, FEM, or ARMs. The network may make or be required to (3) For any pollutant, any SLAMS annual report(s) shall be submitted for make changes between the 5-year monitor in a county (or portion of a data collected from January 1 to assessment periods, including for county within a distinct attainment, December 31 of the previous year. The example, site relocations or the addition nonattainment, or maintenance area, as annual summary report(s) must contain of PAMS networks in bumped-up ozone applicable) provided the monitor has all information and data required by the nonattainment areas. These not measured violations of the State’s approved plan and must be modifications must address changes applicable NAAQS in the previous five submitted on the same schedule as the invoked by a new census and changes years, and the approved SIP provides for certification letter, unless an approved due to changing air quality levels. The a specific, reproducible approach to alternative date is included in the plan. State, or where appropriate local, representing the air quality of the The annual summary serves as the agency shall provide written affected county in the absence of actual record of the specific data that is the communication describing the network monitoring data. object of the certification letter. changes to the Regional Administrator (4) A PM2.5 SLAMS monitor which (c) Along with each certification for review and approval as these EPA has determined cannot be letter, the State shall submit to the changes are identified. compared to the relevant NAAQS Administrator (through the appropriate (c) State, or where appropriate, local because of the siting of the monitor, in Regional Office) a summary of the agency requests for SLAMS monitor accordance with § 58.30. precision and accuracy data for all station discontinuation, subject to the (5) A SLAMS monitor that is designed ambient air quality data collected at all review of the Regional Administrator, to measure concentrations upwind of an SLAMS and at SPM stations using FRM, will be approved if any of the following urban area for purposes of FEM, or ARMs. The summary of criteria are met and if the requirements characterizing transport into the area precision and accuracy shall be of appendix D to this part, if any, and that has not recorded violations of submitted for data collected from continue to be met. Other requests for the relevant NAAQS in the previous five January 1 to December 31 of the discontinuation may also be approved years, if discontinuation of the monitor previous year. The summary of on a case-by-case basis if is tied to start-up of another station also precision and accuracy must be discontinuance does not compromise characterizing transport. submitted on the same schedule as the data collection needed for (6) A SLAMS monitor not eligible for certification letter, unless an approved implementation of a NAAQS and if the removal under any of the criteria in alternative date is included in the plan. requirements of appendix D to this part, paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this if any, continue to be met. § 58.16 Data submittal and archiving section may be moved to a nearby requirements. (1) Any PM2.5, O3, CO, PM10, SO2, Pb, location with the same scale of (a) The State, or where appropriate, or NO2 SLAMS monitor which has representation if logistical problems local agency, shall report to the shown attainment during the previous beyond the State’s control make it Administrator, via AQS all ambient air five years, that has a probability of less impossible to continue operation at its quality data and associated quality than 10 percent of exceeding 80 percent current site. of the applicable NAAQS during the assurance data for SO2; CO; O3; NO2; next three years based on the levels, § 58.15 Annual air monitoring data NO; NOY; NOX; Pb; PM10 mass trends, and variability observed in the certification. concentration; PM2.5 mass past, and which is not specifically (a) The State, or where appropriate concentration; for filter-based PM2.5 required by an attainment plan or local, agency shall submit to the EPA FRM/FEM the field blank mass, maintenance plan. In a nonattainment Regional Administrator an annual air sampler-generated average daily or maintenance area, if the most recent monitoring data certification letter to temperature, and sampler-generated attainment or maintenance plan adopted certify data collected at all SLAMS and average daily pressure; chemically by the State and approved by EPA at all FRM, FEM, and ARM SPM speciated PM2.5 mass concentration contains a contingency measure to be stations that meet criteria in appendix A data; PM10–2.5 mass concentration; triggered by an air quality concentration to this part from January 1 to December chemically speciated PM10–2.5 mass and the monitor to be discontinued is 31 of the previous year. The senior air concentration data; meteorological data the only SLAMS monitor operating in pollution control officer in each agency, from NCore and PAMS sites; and the nonattainment or maintenance area, or his or her designee, shall certify that metadata records and information the monitor may not be discontinued. the previous year of ambient specified by the AQS Data Coding (2) Any SLAMS monitor for CO, PM10, concentration and quality assurance Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/ SO2, or NO2 which has consistently data are completely submitted to AQS airsaqs/manuals/manuals.htm). Such measured lower concentrations than and that the ambient concentration data air quality data and information must be another monitor for the same pollutant are accurate to the best of her or his submitted directly to the AQS via in the same county (or portion of a knowledge, taking into consideration electronic transmission on the specified county within a distinct attainment the quality assurance findings. quarterly schedule described in area, nonattainment area, or (1) Through 2009, the annual data paragraph (b) of this section. maintenance area, as applicable) during certification letter is due by July 1 of (b) The specific quarterly reporting the previous five years, and which is not each year. periods are January 1–March 31, April specifically required by an attainment (2) Beginning in 2010, the annual data 1–June 30, July 1–September 30, and plan or maintenance plan, if control certification letter is due by May 1 of October 1–December 31. The data and measures scheduled to be implemented each year. information reported for each reporting or discontinued during the next five (b) Along with each certification period must contain all data and years would apply to the areas around letter, the State shall submit to the information gathered during the both monitors and have similar effects Administrator (through the appropriate reporting period, and be received in the on measured concentrations, such that Regional Office) an annual summary AQS within 90 days after the end of the the retained monitor would remain the report of all the ambient air quality data quarterly reporting period. For example,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61302 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

the data for the reporting period January plan shall include a statement of 29. Subpart D is revised to read as 1–March 31 are due on or before June purposes for each SPM monitor and follows: 30 of that year. evidence that operation of each monitor (c) Air quality data submitted for each meets the requirements of appendix A Subpart D—Comparability of Ambient reporting period must be edited, or an approved alternative as provided Data to NAAQS validated, and entered into the AQS by § 58.11(a)(2) where applicable. The § 58.30 Special considerations for data (within the time limits specified in monitoring agency may designate a comparisons to the NAAQS. paragraph (b) of this section) pursuant monitor as an SPM after January 1, 2007 to appropriate AQS procedures. The only if it is a new monitor, i.e., a (a) Comparability of PM2.5 data. (1) procedures for editing and validating SLAMS monitor that is not included in There are two forms of the PM2.5 data are described in the AQS Data the currently applicable monitoring NAAQS described in part 50 of this Coding Manual and in each monitoring plan or, for a monitor included in the chapter. The PM2.5 monitoring site agency’s quality assurance project plan. monitoring plan prior to January 1, characteristics (see appendix D to this (d) The State shall report VOC and if 2007, if the Regional Administrator has part, section 4.7.1) impact how the collected, carbonyl, NH3, and HNO3 approved the discontinuation of the resulting PM2.5 data can be compared to data, from PAMS sites to AQS within 6 monitor as a SLAMS site. the annual PM2.5 NAAQS form. PM2.5 months following the end of each (b) Any SPM data collected by an air data that are representative, not of quarterly reporting period listed in monitoring agency using a Federal areawide but rather, of relatively unique paragraph (b) of this section. reference method (FRM), Federal population-oriented microscale, or (e) The State shall also submit any equivalent method (FEM), or approved localized hot spot, or unique portion or all of the SLAMS and SPM regional method (ARM) must meet the population-oriented middle-scale data to the appropriate Regional requirements of § 58.11, § 58.12, and impact sites are only eligible for Administrator upon request. appendix A to this part or an approved comparison to the 24-hour PM2.5 (f) The State, or where applicable, alternative to appendix A to this part. NAAQS. For example, if the PM2.5 local agency shall archive all PM2.5, Compliance with appendix E to this part monitoring site is adjacent to a unique PM10, and PM10¥2.5 filters from manual is optional but encouraged except when dominating local PM2.5 source or can be low-volume samplers (samplers having the monitoring agency’s data objectives shown to have average 24-hour flow rates less than 200 liters/minute) are inconsistent with those concentrations representative of a from all SLAMS sites for a minimum requirements. Data collected at an SPM smaller than neighborhood spatial scale, period of 1 year after collection. These using a FRM, FEM, or ARM meeting the then data from a monitor at the site filters shall be made available during requirements of appendix A must be would only be eligible for comparison to the course of that year for supplemental submitted to AQS according to the the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. analyses at the request of EPA or to requirements of § 58.16. Data collected (2) There are cases where certain provide information to State and local by other SPMs may be submitted. The population-oriented microscale or agencies on particulate matter monitoring agency must also submit to middle scale PM2.5 monitoring sites are composition. Other Federal agencies AQS an indication of whether each SPM determined by the Regional may request access to filters for reporting data to AQS monitor meets the Administrator to collectively identify a purposes of supporting air quality requirements of appendices A and E to larger region of localized high ambient management or community health— this part. PM2.5 concentrations. In those cases, such as biological assay—through the (c) All data from an SPM using an data from these population-oriented applicable EPA Regional Administrator. FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated sites would be eligible for comparison to The filters shall be archived according for more than 24 months is eligible for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. to procedures approved by the comparison to the relevant NAAQS, Administrator. The EPA recommends (b) [Reserved] subject to the conditions of § 58.30, that particulate matter filters be unless the air monitoring agency Subpart E—[Removed and Reserved] archived for longer periods, especially demonstrates that the data came from a for key sites in making NAAQS related particular period during which the 30. Subpart E of part 58 is removed decisions or for supporting health- requirements of appendix A or an and reserved. related air pollution studies. approved alternative, appendix C, or 28. Subpart C is revised to read as appendix E were not met in practice. Subpart F—[Amended] follows: (d) If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or 31. Section 58.50 is revised to read as Subpart C—Special Purpose Monitors ARM is discontinued within 24 months of start-up, the Administrator will not follows: § 58.20 Special purpose monitors (SPM). base a NAAQS violation determination § 58.50 Index reporting. (a) An SPM is defined as any monitor for the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS solely on included in an agency’s monitoring data from the SPM. (a) The State or where applicable, network that the agency has designated (e) If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or local agency shall report to the general as a special purpose monitor in its ARM is discontinued within 24 months public on a daily basis through annual monitoring network plan and in of start-up, the Administrator will not prominent notice an air quality index AQS, and which the agency does not designate an area as nonattainment for that complies with the requirements of appendix G to this part. count when showing compliance with the CO, SO2, NO2, Pb, or 24-hour PM10 the minimum requirements of this NAAQS solely on the basis of data from (b) Reporting is required for all subpart for the number and siting of the SPM. Such data are eligible for use individual MSA with a population monitors of various types. Any SPM in determinations of whether a exceeding 350,000. operated by an air monitoring agency nonattainment area has attained one of (c) The population of a MSA for must be included in the periodic these NAAQS. purposes of index reporting is the most assessments and annual monitoring (f) Prior approval from EPA is not recent decennial U.S. census network plan required by § 58.10. The required for discontinuance of an SPM. population.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61303

Subpart G—[Amended] similarities and differences of the objective is sometimes referred to the Data requirements for SLAMS and PSD. Both Quality Objectives Process. Data quality 32. Sections 58.60 and 58.61 are programs require: indicators associated with measurement revised to read as follows: (a) The development, documentation, and uncertainty include: implementation of an approved quality (a) Precision. A measurement of mutual § 58.60 Federal monitoring. system; agreement among individual measurements The Administrator may locate and (b) The assessment of data quality; of the same property usually under operate an ambient air monitoring site if (c) The use of reference, equivalent, or prescribed similar conditions, expressed approved methods. The requirements of this generally in terms of the standard deviation. the State or local agency fails to locate, appendix do not apply to a SPM that does (b) Bias. The systematic or persistent or schedule to be located, during the not use a FRM, FEM, or ARM; distortion of a measurement process which initial network design process, or as a (d) The use of calibration standards causes errors in one direction. result of the 5-year network assessments traceable to NIST or other primary standard; (c) Accuracy. The degree of agreement required in § 58.10, a SLAMS station at (e) Performance evaluations and systems. between an observed value and an accepted a site which is necessary in the 1.1.1 The monitoring and quality reference value. Accuracy includes a judgment of the Regional Administrator assurance responsibilities for SLAMS are combination of random error (imprecision) to meet the objectives defined in with the State or local agency, hereafter and systematic error (bias) components called the monitoring organization, whereas appendix D to this part. which are due to sampling and analytical for PSD they are with the owner/operator operations. § 58.61 Monitoring other pollutants. seeking the permit. The monitoring duration (d) Completeness. A measure of the for SLAMS is indefinite, whereas for PSD the The Administrator may promulgate amount of valid data obtained from a duration is usually 12 months. Whereas the measurement system compared to the criteria similar to that referenced in reporting period for precision and accuracy amount that was expected to be obtained subpart B of this part for monitoring a data is on an annual or calendar quarter basis under correct, normal conditions. pollutant for which an NAAQS does not for SLAMS, it is on a continuing sampler (e) Detectability. The low critical range exist. Such an action would be taken quarter basis for PSD, since the monitoring value of a characteristic that a method whenever the Administrator determines may not commence at the beginning of a specific procedure can reliably discern. that a nationwide monitoring program is calendar quarter. 1.3 Measurement Quality Checks. The necessary to monitor such a pollutant. 1.1.2 The annual performance SLAMS measurement quality checks evaluations (described in section 3.2.2 of this 33. Appendix A to part 58 is revised described in sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this appendix) for PSD must be conducted by appendix shall be reported to AQS and are to read as follows: personnel different from those who perform included in the data required for Appendix A to Part 58—Quality routine span checks and calibrations, certification. The PSD network is required to Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, whereas for SLAMS, it is the preferred but implement the measurement quality checks not the required condition. For PSD, the SPMs and PSD Air Monitoring and submit this information quarterly along evaluation rate is 100 percent of the sites per with assessment information to the permit- 1. General Information reporting quarter whereas for SLAMS it is 25 granting authority. 2. Quality System Requirements percent of the sites or instruments quarterly. 1.4 Assessments and Reports. Periodic 3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements Monitoring for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and assessments and documentation of data 4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for PSD must be done quality are required to be reported to EPA or 5. Reporting Requirements with automated analyzers—the manual to the permit granting authority (PSD). To 6. References bubbler methods are not permitted. provide national uniformity in this 1.1.3 The requirements for precision assessment and reporting of data quality for 1. General Information assessment for the automated methods are all networks, specific assessment and This appendix specifies the minimum the same for both SLAMS and PSD. However, reporting procedures are prescribed in detail quality system requirements applicable to for manual methods, only one collocated site in sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix. On SLAMS air monitoring data and PSD data for is required for PSD. the other hand, the selection and extent of the pollutants SO2, NO2, O3, CO, PM2.5, PM10 1.1.4 The precision, accuracy and bias the quality assurance and quality control and PM10¥2.5 submitted to EPA. This data for PSD are reported separately for each activities used by a monitoring organization appendix also applies to all SPM stations sampler (site), whereas for SLAMS, the report depend on a number of local factors such as using FRM, FEM, or ARM methods which may be by sampler (site), by primary quality field and laboratory conditions, the also meet the requirements of Appendix E of assurance organization, or nationally, objectives for monitoring, the level of data this part. Monitoring organizations are depending on the pollutant. SLAMS data are quality needed, the expertise of assigned encouraged to develop and maintain quality required to be reported to the AQS, PSD data personnel, the cost of control procedures, systems more extensive than the required are required to be reported to the permit- pollutant concentration levels, etc. Therefore, minimums. The permit-granting authority for granting authority. Requirements in this quality system requirements in section 2 of PSD may require more frequent or more appendix, with the exception of the this appendix are specified in general terms stringent requirements. Monitoring differences discussed in this section, and in to allow each monitoring organization to organizations may, based on their quality Table A–1 of this appendix will be expected develop a quality system that is most objectives, develop and maintain quality to be followed by both SLAMS and PSD efficient and effective for its own systems beyond the required minimum. networks unless directly specified in a circumstances while achieving the data Additional guidance for the requirements particular section. quality objectives required for the SLAMS reflected in this appendix can be found in the 1.2 Measurement Uncertainty. sites. ‘‘Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Measurement uncertainty is a term used to Pollution Measurement Systems’’, volume II, describe deviations from a true concentration 2. Quality System Requirements part 1 (see reference 10 of this appendix) and or estimate that are related to the A quality system is the means by which an at a national level in references 1, 2, and 3 measurement process and not to spatial or organization manages the quality of the of this appendix. temporal population attributes of the air monitoring information it produces in a 1.1 Similarities and Differences Between being measured. Monitoring organizations systematic, organized manner. It provides a SLAMS and PSD Monitoring. In most cases, must develop quality assurance project plans framework for planning, implementing, the quality assurance requirements for (QAPP) which describe how the organization assessing and reporting work performed by SLAMS, SPMs if applicable, and PSD are the intends to control measurement uncertainty an organization and for carrying out required same. Affected SPMs are subject to all the to an appropriate level in order to achieve the quality assurance and quality control SLAMS requirements, even where not objectives for which the data are collected. activities. specifically stated in each section. Table A– The process by which one determines the 2.1 Quality Management Plans and 1 of this appendix summarizes the major quality of data needed to meet the monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plans. All

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

monitoring organizations must develop a allocation of resources and other systematic award to the monitoring organization for quality system that is described and planning activities (e.g., planning, monitoring activities, will be deemed by EPA approved in quality management plans implementation, assessing and reporting) to meet this requirement. For clarification (QMP) and quality assurance project plans pertaining to the quality system. The quality and to participate, monitoring organizations (QAPP) to ensure that the monitoring results: assurance management function must have should contact either the appropriate EPA (a) Meet a well-defined need, use, or sufficient technical expertise and Regional Quality Assurance (QA) purpose; management authority to conduct Coordinator at the appropriate EPA Regional (b) Provide data of adequate quality for the independent oversight and assure the Office location, or the NPAP Coordinator, intended monitoring objectives; implementation of the organization’s quality Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division (c) Satisfy stakeholder expectations; system relative to the ambient air quality (D205–02), U.S. Environmental Protection (d) Comply with applicable standards monitoring program and should be Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. specifications; organizationally independent of 2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. (e) Comply with statutory (and other) environmental data generation activities. Technical systems audits of each ambient air requirements of society; and 2.3. Data Quality Performance monitoring organization shall be conducted (f) Reflect consideration of cost and Requirements. at least every 3 years by the appropriate EPA economics. 2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives. Data Regional Office and reported to the AQS. 2.1.1 The QMP describes the quality quality objectives (DQO) or the results of Systems audit programs are described in system in terms of the organizational other systematic planning processes are reference 10 of this appendix. For further structure, functional responsibilities of statements that define the appropriate type of instructions, monitoring organizations management and staff, lines of authority, and data to collect and specify the tolerable levels should contact the appropriate EPA Regional required interfaces for those planning, of potential decision errors that will be used QA Coordinator. implementing, assessing and reporting as a basis for establishing the quality and 2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit activities involving environmental data quantity of data needed to support the Standards. operations (EDO). The QMP must be suitably objectives of the SLAMS stations. DQO will 2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration documented in accordance with EPA be developed by EPA to support the primary standards (permeation devices or cylinders of requirements (reference 2 of this appendix), SLAMS objectives for each criteria pollutant. compressed gas) used to obtain test and approved by the appropriate Regional As they are developed they will be added to concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), Administrator, or his or her representative. the regulation. DQO or the results of other sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen oxide (NO), The quality system will be reviewed during systematic planning processes for PSD or 2 and nitrogen dioxide (NO ) must be traceable the systems audits described in section 2.5 of other monitoring will be the responsibility of 2 to either a National Institute of Standards and this appendix. Organizations that implement the monitoring organizations. The quality of Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference long-term monitoring programs with EPA the conclusions made from data funds should have a separate QMP interpretation can be affected by population Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas document. Smaller organizations or uncertainty (spatial or temporal uncertainty) Manufacturer’s Internal Standard (GMIS), organizations that do infrequent work with and measurement uncertainty (uncertainty certified in accordance with one of the EPA funds may combine the QMP with the associated with collecting, analyzing, procedures given in reference 4 of this QAPP based on negotiations with the funding reducing and reporting concentration data). appendix. Vendors advertising certification agency. Additional guidance on this process This appendix focuses on assessing and with the procedures provided in reference 4 can be found in reference 10 of this controlling measurement uncertainty. of this appendix and distributing gasses as appendix. Approval of the recipient’s QMP 2.3.1.1 Measurement Uncertainty for ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must participate in the EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not by the appropriate Regional Administrator or Automated and Manual PM2.5 Methods. The his or her representative, may allow goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of advertising. delegation of the authority to review and is defined as 10 percent coefficient of 2.6.2 Test concentrations for ozone (O3) approve the QAPP to the recipient, based on variation (CV) for total precision and plus or must be obtained in accordance with the adequacy of quality assurance procedures minus 10 percent for total bias. ultra violet photometric calibration described and documented in the QMP. The 2.3.1.2 Measurement Uncertainty for procedure specified in appendix D to part 50 QAPP will be reviewed by EPA during Automated Ozone Methods. The goal for of this chapter, or by means of a certified O3 systems audits or circumstances related to acceptable measurement uncertainty is transfer standard. Consult references 7 and 8 data quality. defined for precision as an upper 90 percent of this appendix for guidance on primary and 2.1.2 The QAPP is a formal document confidence limit for the coefficient variation transfer standards for O3. describing, in sufficient detail, the quality (CV) of 7 percent and for bias as an upper 95 2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be system that must be implemented to ensure percent confidence limit for the absolute bias made by a flow measuring instrument that is that the results of work performed will satisfy of 7 percent. traceable to an authoritative volume or other the stated objectives. The quality assurance 2.3.1.3 Measurement Uncertainty for applicable standard. Guidance for certifying policy of the EPA requires every PM10–2.5 Methods. The goal for acceptable some types of flowmeters is provided in environmental data operation (EDO) to have measurement uncertainty is defined for reference 10 of this appendix. a written and approved QAPP prior to the precision as an upper 90 percent confidence 2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. start of the EDO. It is the responsibility of the limit for the coefficient variation (CV) of 15 Requirements and guidance documents for monitoring organization to adhere to this percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent developing the quality system are contained policy. The QAPP must be suitably confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15 in references 1 through 10 of this appendix, documented in accordance with EPA percent. which also contain many suggested requirements (reference 3 of this appendix). 2.4 National Performance Evaluation procedures, checks, and control 2.1.3 The monitoring organization’s Programs. Monitoring plans or the QAPP specifications. Reference 10 of this appendix quality system must have adequate resources shall provide for the implementation of a describes specific guidance for the both in personnel and funding to plan, program of independent and adequate audits development of a quality system for SLAMS. implement, assess and report on the of all monitors providing data for SLAMS Many specific quality control checks and achievement of the requirements of this and PSD including the provision of adequate specifications for methods are included in appendix and its approved QAPP. resources for such audit programs. A the respective reference methods described 2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance. monitoring plan (or QAPP) which provides in part 50 of this chapter or in the respective The monitoring organization must provide for monitoring organization participation in equivalent method descriptions available for a quality assurance management function- EPA’s National Performance Audit Program from EPA (reference 6 of this appendix). that aspect of the overall management system (NPAP) and the PM Performance Evaluation Similarly, quality control procedures related of the organization that determines and Program (PEP) program and which indicates to specifically designated reference and implements the quality policy defined in a the consent of the monitoring organization equivalent method analyzers are contained in monitoring organization’s QMP. Quality for EPA to apply an appropriate portion of the respective operation or instruction management includes strategic planning, the grant funds, which EPA would otherwise manuals associated with those analyzers.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61305

3. Measurement Quality Check 3.2 Measurement Quality Checks of appropriate, reflecting devices should be Requirements Automated Methods. Table A–2 of this used during the test and the normal This section provides the requirements for appendix provides a summary of the types monitoring configuration of the instrument primary quality assurance organizations and frequency of the measurement quality should be altered as little as possible to (PQAOs) to perform the measurement quality checks that will be described in this section. accommodate the test cell for the test. checks that can be used to assess data 3.2.1 One-Point Quality Control Check for However, if permitted by the associated quality. With the exception of the flow rate SO2, NO2, O3, and CO. A one-point quality operation or instruction manual, an alternate verifications (sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2 of this control (QC) check must be performed at local light source or an alternate optical path appendix), data from these checks are least once every 2 weeks on each automated that does not include the normal atmospheric analyzer used to measure SO , NO , O and required to be submitted to the AQS within 2 2 3 monitoring path may be used. The actual CO. The frequency of QC checks may be the same time frame as routine ambient concentration of the QC check gas in the test reduced based upon review, assessment and concentration data. Section 3.2 of this cell must be selected to produce an effective approval of the EPA Regional Administrator. appendix describes checks of automated or concentration in the range specified earlier in However, with the advent of automated continuous instruments while section 3.3 calibration systems more frequent checking is this section. Generally, the QC test describe checks associated with manual encouraged. See Reference 10 of this concentration measurement will be the sum sampling instruments. Other quality control appendix for guidance on the review of the atmospheric pollutant concentration samples are identified in the various procedure. The QC check is made by and the QC test concentration. If so, the references described earlier and can be used challenging the analyzer with a QC check gas result must be corrected to remove the to control certain aspects of the measurement of known concentration (effective atmospheric concentration contribution. The system. concentration for open path analyzers) corrected concentration is obtained by 3.1 Primary Quality Assurance between 0.01 and 0.10 parts per million subtracting the average of the atmospheric Organization. A primary quality assurance (ppm) for SO , NO , and O , and between 1 concentrations measured by the open path organization is defined as a monitoring 2 2 3 and 10 ppm for CO analyzers. The ranges instrument under test immediately before organization or a coordinated aggregation of allow for appropriate check gas selection for and immediately after the QC test from the such organizations that is responsible for a SLAMS sites that may be sampling for QC check gas concentration measurement. If set of stations that monitors the same different objectives, i.e., trace gas monitoring the difference between these before and after pollutant and for which data quality vs. comparison to National Ambient Air measurements is greater than 20 percent of assessments can logically be pooled. Each Quality Standards (NAAQS). The QC check the effective concentration of the test gas, criteria pollutant sampler/monitor at a gas concentration selected should be related discard the test result and repeat the test. If monitoring station in the SLAMS network to the routine concentrations normally possible, open path analyzers should be must be associated with one, and only one, measured at sites within the monitoring primary quality assurance organization. tested during periods when the atmospheric network in order to appropriately reflect the pollutant concentrations are relatively low 3.1.1 Each primary quality assurance precision and bias at these routine organization shall be defined such that and steady. concentration ranges. To check the precision 3.2.1.3 Report the audit concentration measurement uncertainty among all stations and bias of SLAMS analyzers operating at in the organization can be expected to be (effective concentration for open path ranges either above or below the levels analyzers) of the QC gas and the reasonably homogeneous, as a result of identified, use check gases of appropriate common factors. Common factors that should corresponding measured concentration concentrations as approved by the (corrected concentration, if applicable, for be considered by monitoring organizations in appropriate EPA Regional Administrator or defining primary quality assurance open path analyzers) indicated by the their designee. The standards from which analyzer. The percent differences between organizations include: check concentrations are obtained must meet (a) Operation by a common team of field these concentrations are used to assess the the specifications of section 2.6 of this precision and bias of the monitoring data as operators according to a common set of appendix. described in sections 4.1.2 (precision) and procedures; 3.2.1.1 Except for certain CO analyzers 4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix. (b) Use of a common QAPP or standard described below, point analyzers must 3.2.2 Annual performance evaluation for operating procedures; operate in their normal sampling mode SO , NO , O , or CO. Each calendar quarter (c) Common calibration facilities and during the QC check, and the test atmosphere 2 2 3 standards; must pass through all filters, scrubbers, (during which analyzers are operated), (d) Oversight by a common quality conditioners and other components used evaluate at least 25 percent of the SLAMS assurance organization; and during normal ambient sampling and as analyzers that monitor for SO2, NO2, O3, or (e) Support by a common management, much of the ambient air inlet system as is CO such that each analyzer is evaluated at laboratory or headquarters. practicable. If permitted by the associated least once per year. If there are fewer than 3.1.2 Primary quality assurance operation or instruction manual, a CO point four analyzers for a pollutant within a organizations are not necessarily related to analyzer may be temporarily modified during primary quality assurance organization, it is the organization reporting data to the AQS. the QC check to reduce vent or purge flows, suggested to randomly evaluate one or more Monitoring organizations having difficulty in or the test atmosphere may enter the analyzer analyzers so that at least one analyzer for that defining the primary quality assurance at a point other than the normal sample inlet, pollutant is evaluated each calendar quarter. organizations or in assigning specific sites to provided that the analyzer’s response is not The evaluation should be conducted by a primary quality assurance organizations likely to be altered by these deviations from trained experienced technician other than the should consult with the appropriate EPA the normal operational mode. If a QC check routine site operator. Regional Office. All definitions of primary is made in conjunction with a zero or span 3.2.2.1 (a) The evaluation is made by quality assurance organizations shall be adjustment, it must be made prior to such challenging the analyzer with audit gas subject to final approval by the appropriate zero or span adjustments. standard of known concentration (effective EPA Regional Office during scheduled 3.2.1.2 Open path analyzers are tested by concentration for open path analyzers) from network reviews or systems audits. inserting a test cell containing a QC check gas at least three consecutive audit levels. The 3.1.3 Data quality assessment results shall concentration into the optical measurement audit levels selected should represent or be reported as specified in section 5 of this beam of the instrument. If possible, the bracket 80 percent of ambient concentrations appendix. normally used transmitter, receiver, and as measured by the analyzer being evaluated:

Concentration range, ppm Audit level O3 SO2 NO2 CO

1 ...... 0.02–0.05 0.0003–0.005 0.0002–0.002 0.08–0.10 2 ...... 0.06–0.10 0.006–0.01 0.003–0.005 0.50–1.00

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Concentration range, ppm Audit level O3 SO2 NO2 CO

3 ...... 0.11–0.20 0.02–0.10 0.006–0.10 1.50–4.00 4 ...... 0.21–0.30 0.11–0.40 0.11–0.30 5–15 5 ...... 0.31–0.90 0.41–0.90 0.31–0.60 20–50

(b) An additional 4th level is encouraged not include the normal atmospheric transfer standard and the corresponding flow for those monitors that have the potential for monitoring path may be used. The actual rate measured (indicated) by the analyzer. exceeding the concentration ranges described concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell The percent differences between the audit by the initial three selected. must be selected to produce effective and measured flow rates are used to assess 3.2.2.2 (a) NO2 audit gas for concentrations in the evaluation level ranges the bias of the monitoring data as described chemiluminescence-type NO2 analyzers must specified in this section of this appendix. in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow also contain at least 0.08 ppm NO. NO Generally, each evaluation concentration rates in lieu of concentrations). concentrations substantially higher than 0.08 measurement result will be the sum of the 3.2.4 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for ppm, as may occur when using some gas atmospheric pollutant concentration and the Particulate Matter. Every 6 months, audit the phase titration (GPT) techniques, may lead to evaluation test concentration. If so, the result flow rate of the PM10, PM10¥2.5 and PM2.5 evaluation errors in chemiluminescence must be corrected to remove the atmospheric particulate analyzers. Where possible, EPA analyzers due to inevitable minor NO–NOX concentration contribution. The corrected strongly encourages more frequent auditing. channel imbalance. Such errors may be concentration is obtained by subtracting the The audit should (preferably) be conducted atypical of routine monitoring errors to the average of the atmospheric concentrations by a trained experienced technician other extent that such NO concentrations exceed measured by the open path instrument under than the routine site operator. The audit is typical ambient NO concentrations at the test immediately before and immediately made by measuring the analyzer’s normal site. These errors may be minimized by after the evaluation test (or preferably before operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer modifying the GPT technique to lower the and after each evaluation concentration level) standard certified in accordance with section NO concentrations remaining in the NO2 from the evaluation concentration 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard audit gas to levels closer to typical ambient measurement. If the difference between the used for auditing must not be the same flow NO concentrations at the site. before and after measurements is greater than rate standard used to calibrate the analyzer. (b) To evaluate SLAMS analyzers operating 20 percent of the effective concentration of However, both the calibration standard and on ranges higher than 0 to 1.0 ppm for SO2, the test gas standard, discard the test result the audit standard may be referenced to the NO2, and O3 or 0 to 50 ppm for CO, use audit for that concentration level and repeat the same primary flow rate or volume standard. gases of appropriately higher concentration test for that level. If possible, open path Great care must be used in auditing the flow as approved by the appropriate EPA Regional analyzers should be evaluated during periods rate to be certain that the flow measurement Administrator or the Administrator’s when the atmospheric pollutant device does not alter the normal operating designee. concentrations are relatively low and steady. flow rate of the analyzer. Report the audit 3.2.2.3 The standards from which audit Also, if the open path instrument is not flow rate of the transfer standard and the gas test concentrations are obtained must installed in a permanent manner, the corresponding flow rate measured (indicated) meet the specifications of section 2.6 of this monitoring path length must be reverified to by the analyzer. The percent differences appendix. The gas standards and equipment within plus or minus 3 percent to validate between these flow rates are used to validate used for evaluations must not be the same as the evaluation, since the monitoring path the one-point flow rate verification checks the standards and equipment used for length is critical to the determination of the used to estimate bias as described in section calibration or calibration span adjustments. effective concentration. 4.2.3 of this appendix. For SLAMS sites, the auditor should not be 3.2.2.6 Report both the evaluation 3.2.5 Collocated Sampling Procedures for the operator or analyst who conducts the concentrations (effective concentrations for PM2.5. For each pair of collocated monitors, routine monitoring, calibration, and analysis. open path analyzers) of the audit gases and designate one sampler as the primary For PSD sites the auditor must not be the the corresponding measured concentration monitor whose concentrations will be used to operator or analyst who conducts the routine (corrected concentrations, if applicable, for report air quality for the site, and designate monitoring, calibration, and analysis. open path analyzers) indicated or produced the other as the audit monitor. 3.2.2.4 For point analyzers, the by the analyzer being tested. The percent 3.2.5.1 Each EPA designated Federal evaluation shall be carried out by allowing differences between these concentrations are reference method (FRM) or Federal the analyzer to analyze the audit gas test used to assess the quality of the monitoring equivalent method (FEM) within a primary atmosphere in its normal sampling mode data as described in section 4.1.4 of this quality assurance organization must: such that the test atmosphere passes through appendix. (a) Have 15 percent of the monitors all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other 3.2.3 Flow Rate Verification for collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round sample inlet components used during normal Particulate Matter. A one-point flow rate up); and ambient sampling and as much of the verification check must be performed at least (b) Have at least 1 collocated monitor (if ambient air inlet system as is practicable. The once every month on each automated the total number of monitors is less than 3). exception provided in section 3.2.1 of this analyzer used to measure PM10, PM10¥2.5 and The first collocated monitor must be a appendix for certain CO analyzers does not PM2.5. The verification is made by checking designated FRM monitor. apply for evaluations. the operational flow rate of the analyzer. If 3.2.5.2 In addition, monitors selected for 3.2.2.5 Open path analyzers are evaluated the verification is made in conjunction with collocation must also meet the following by inserting a test cell containing the various a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior requirements: audit gas concentrations into the optical to such flow rate adjustment. Randomization (a) A primary monitor designated as an measurement beam of the instrument. If of the flow rate verification with respect to EPA FRM shall be collocated with an audit possible, the normally used transmitter, time of day, day of week, and routine service monitor having the same EPA FRM method receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting and adjustments is encouraged where designation. devices should be used during the possible. For the standard procedure, use a (b) For each primary monitor model evaluation, and the normal monitoring flow rate transfer standard certified in designated as an EPA FEM used by the configuration of the instrument should be accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix PQAO, 50 percent of the monitors designated modified as little as possible to accommodate to check the analyzer’s normal flow rate. Care for collocation shall be collocated with an the test cell for the evaluation. However, if should be used in selecting and using the audit monitor having the same method permitted by the associated operation or flow rate measurement device such that it designation and 50 percent of the monitors instruction manual, an alternate local light does not alter the normal operating flow rate shall be collocated with an FRM audit source or an alternate optical path that does of the analyzer. Report the flow rate of the monitor. If the primary quality assurance

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61307

organization only has one FEM monitor it sampler as the primary monitor whose (1) Have each method designation shall be collocated with an FRM audit concentrations will be used to report air evaluated each year; and, monitor. If there are an odd number of quality for the site, and designate the other (2) Have all FRM or FEM samplers subject collocated monitors required, the additional as the audit monitor. to a PEP audit at least once every six years; monitor shall be an FRM audit monitor. An 3.2.6.1 The EPA shall ensure that each which equates to approximately 15 percent of example of this procedure is found in Table EPA designated FEM within the national the monitoring sites audited each year. A–3 of this appendix. PM10¥2.5 monitoring network must: (b) Additional information concerning the 3.2.5.3 The collocated monitors should be (a) Have 15 percent of the monitors Performance Evaluation Program is contained deployed according to the following protocol: collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round in reference 10 of this appendix. The (a) 80 percent of the collocated audit up); and calculations for evaluating bias between the monitors should be deployed at sites with (b) Have at least 2 collocated monitors (if primary monitor and the performance annual average or daily concentrations the total number of monitors is less than 10). evaluation monitor for PM2.5 are described in estimated to be within ±20 percent of the The first collocated monitor must be a section 4.3.2 of this appendix. applicable NAAQS and the remainder at designated FRM monitor and the second 3.2.8 PM10¥2.5 Performance Evaluation what the monitoring organizations designate must be a monitor of the same method Program. For the PM10¥2.5 network, all as high value sites; designation. Both collocated FRM and FEM automated methods will be designated as (b) If an organization has no sites with monitors can be located at the same site. federal equivalent methods (FEMs). One annual average or daily concentrations 3.2.6.2 The Regional Administrator for performance evaluation audit, as described in within ± 20 percent of the annual NAAQS (or the EPA Regions where the FEMs are section 3.2.7 must be performed at one 24-hour NAAQS if that is affecting the area), implemented will select the sites for PM10¥2.5 site in each primary quality 60 percent of the collocated audit monitors collocated monitoring. The site selection assurance organization each year. The should be deployed at those sites with the process shall consider giving priority to sites calculations for evaluating bias between the annual mean concentrations (or 24-hour at primary quality assurance organizations or primary monitor(s) and the performance NAAQS if that is affecting the area) among States with more than one PM10¥2.5 site, sites evaluation monitors for PM10¥2.5 are the highest 25 percent for all sites in the considered important from a regional described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix. network. perspective, and sites needed for an 3.3 Measurement Quality Checks of 3.2.5.4 In determining the number of appropriate distribution among rural and Manual Methods. Table A–2 of this appendix collocated sites required for PM2.5, urban NCore sites. Depending on the speed provides a summary of the types and monitoring networks for visibility at which the PM10¥2.5 network is deployed, frequency of the measurement quality checks assessments should not be treated the first sites implementing FEMs shall be that will be described in this section. independently from networks for particulate required to perform collocation until there is 3.3.1 Collocated Sampling Procedures for matter, as the separate networks may share a larger distribution of FEM monitors PM10. For each network of manual PM10 one or more common samplers. However, for implemented in the network. methods, select 15 percent (or at least one) Class I visibility areas, EPA will accept 3.2.6.3 The two collocated monitors must of the monitoring sites within the primary visibility aerosol mass measurement instead be within 4 meters of each other and at least quality assurance organization for collocated of a PM2.5 measurement if the latter 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 sampling. For purposes of precision measurement is unavailable. Any PM2.5 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for assessment, networks for measuring total monitoring site which does not have a samplers having flow rates less than 200 suspended particulate (TSP) and PM10 shall monitor which is an EPA FRM, FEM or ARM liters/min to preclude airflow interference. be considered separately from one another. is not required to be included in the number Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be However, PM10 samplers used in the PM10–2.5 of sites which are used to determine the the same for both collocated samplers and network, may be counted along with the number of collocated monitors. the same as for all other samplers in the PM10 samplers in the PM10 network as long 3.2.5.5 For each PSD monitoring network, network. as the PM10 samplers in both networks are one site must be collocated. A site with the 3.2.6.4 Sample the collocated audit the same method designation. PM10 and TSP predicted highest 24-hour pollutant monitor for SLAMS sites on a 12-day sites having annual mean particulate matter concentration must be selected. schedule. Report the measurements from concentrations among the highest 25 percent 3.2.5.6 The two collocated monitors must both primary and collocated audit monitors of the annual mean concentrations for all the be within 4 meters of each other and at least at each collocated sampling site. The sites in the network must be selected or, if 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 calculations for evaluating precision between such sites are impractical, alternative sites liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for the two collocated monitors are described in approved by the EPA Regional Administrator samplers having flow rates less than 200 section 4.3.1 of this appendix. may be selected. liters/min to preclude airflow interference. 3.2.7 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation 3.3.1.1 In determining the number of Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be Program (PEP) Procedures. The PEP is an collocated sites required for PM10, the same for both collocated samplers and independent assessment used to estimate monitoring networks for lead (Pb) should be the same as for all other samplers in the total measurement system bias. These treated independently from networks for network. evaluations will be performed under the PM particulate matter (PM), even though the 3.2.5.7 Sample the collocated audit Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) separate networks may share one or more monitor for SLAMS sites on a 12-day (section 2.4 of this appendix) or a comparable common samplers. However, a single pair of schedule; sample PSD sites on a 6-day program. Performance evaluations will be samplers collocated at a common-sampler schedule or every third day for PSD daily performed on the SLAMS monitors annually monitoring site that meets the requirements monitors. If a primary quality assurance within each primary quality assurance for both a collocated Pb site and a collocated organization has only one collocated organization. For primary quality assurance PM site may serve as a collocated site for monitor, higher sampling frequencies than organizations with less than or equal to five both networks. the 12-day schedule may be needed in order monitoring sites, five valid performance 3.3.1.2 The two collocated monitors must to produce about 25 valid sample pairs a evaluation audits must be collected and be within 4 meters of each other and at least year. Report the measurements from both reported each year. For primary quality 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 primary and collocated audit monitors at assurance organizations with greater than liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for each collocated sampling site. The five monitoring sites, eight valid performance samplers having flow rates less than 200 calculations for evaluating precision between evaluation audits must be collected and liters/min to preclude airflow interference. the two collocated monitors are described in reported each year. A valid performance Calibration, sampling, analysis and section 4.3.1 of this appendix. evaluation audit means that both the primary verification/validation procedures must be 3.2.6 Collocated Sampling Procedures for monitor and PEP audit concentrations are the same for both collocated samplers and 3 PM10¥2.5. For the PM10¥2.5 network, all valid and above 3 µg/m . Additionally, each the same as for all other samplers in the automated methods must be designated as year, every designated FRM or FEM within network. Federal equivalent methods (FEMs). For each a primary quality assurance organization 3.3.1.3 For each pair of collocated pair of collocated monitors, designate one must: samplers, designate one sampler as the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

primary sampler whose samples will be used percent differences between the audit and assure that flow patterns are not perturbed at to report air quality for the site, and designate measured flow rates are used to assess the the point of flow sensing. the other as the audit sampler. Sample bias of the monitoring data as described in 3.3.4 Pb Methods. SLAMS sites on a 12-day schedule; sample section 4.2.2 of this appendix. 3.3.4.1 Annual Flow Rate. For the Pb PSD sites on a 6-day schedule or every third 3.3.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Reference Method (40 CFR part 50, appendix day for PSD daily samplers. If a primary Particulate Matter. Follow the same G), the flow rates of the high-volume Pb quality assurance organization has only one procedure as described in section 3.2.4 of samplers shall be verified and audited using collocated monitor, higher sampling the same procedures described in sections this appendix for PM2.5, PM10, PM10¥2.5 and frequencies than the 12-day schedule may be TSP instruments. The percent differences 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of this appendix. needed in order to produce approximately 25 between these flow rates are used to validate 3.3.4.2 Pb Strips. Each calendar quarter or valid sample pairs a year. Report the sampling quarter (PSD), audit the Pb the one-point flow rate verification checks measurements from both samplers at each Reference Method analytical procedure using used to estimate bias as described in section collocated sampling site. The calculations for glass fiber filter strips containing a known 4.2.3 of this appendix. Great care must be evaluating precision between the two quantity of Pb. These audit sample strips are collocated samplers are described in section used in auditing high-volume particulate prepared by depositing a Pb solution on 4.2.1 of this appendix. matter samplers having flow regulators unexposed glass fiber filter strips of 3.3.2 Flow Rate Verification for because the introduction of resistance plates dimensions 1.9 centimeters (cm) by 20.3 cm Particulate Matter. Follow the same in the audit flow standard device can cause (3⁄4 inch by 8 inch) and allowing them to dry procedure as described in section 3.2.3 of abnormal flow patterns at the point of flow thoroughly. The audit samples must be this appendix for PM2.5, PM10 (low-volume sensing. For this reason, the flow audit prepared using batches of reagents different instruments), and PM10¥2.5. High-volume standard should be used with a normal filter from those used to calibrate the Pb analytical PM10 and TSP instruments can also follow in place and without resistance plates in equipment being audited. Prepare audit the procedure in section 3.2.3 but the audits auditing flow-regulated high-volume samples in the following concentration are required to be conducted quarterly. The samplers, or other steps should be taken to ranges:

Range Pb concentration, µg/strip Equivalent ambient Pb concentration, µg/m31

1 ...... 100–300 0.5–1.5 2 ...... 400–1,000 3.0–5.0 1 Equivalent ambient Pb concentration in µ/m3 is based on sampling at 1.7 m3/min for 24 hours on a 20.3 cm × 25.4 cm (8 inch × 10 inch) glass fiber filter.

(a) Audit samples must be extracted using (b) Have at least 2 collocated monitors (if the primary monitor(s) and the performance the same extraction procedure used for the total number of monitors is less than 10). evaluation monitors for PM10–2.5 are exposed filters. The first collocated monitor must be a described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix. (b) Analyze three audit samples in each of designated FRM monitor and the second 4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment the two ranges each quarter samples are must be a monitor of the same method analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be designation. Both collocated FRM and FEM (a) Calculations of measurement distributed as much as possible over the monitors can be located at the same site. uncertainty are carried out by EPA according entire calendar quarter. 3.3.6.2 The Regional Administrator for to the following procedures. Primary quality (c) Report the audit concentrations (in µg the EPA Region where the FRM or FEMs are assurance organizations should report the Pb/strip) and the corresponding measured implemented will select the sites for data for all appropriate measurement quality concentrations (in µg Pb/strip) using AQS collocated monitoring. The collocation site checks as specified in this appendix even though they may elect to perform some or all unit code 077. The relative percent selection process shall consider sites at of the calculations in this section on their differences between the concentrations are primary quality assurance organizations or own. used to calculate analytical accuracy as States with more than one PM10–2.5 site; primary quality assurance organizations (b) The EPA will provide annual described in section 4.4.2 of this appendix. already monitoring for PM and PM using assessments of data quality aggregated by site (d) The audits of an equivalent Pb method 10 2.5 FRMs or FEMs; and an appropriate and primary quality assurance organization are conducted and assessed in the same distribution among rural and urban NCore for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO and by primary manner as for the reference method. The flow sites. Monitoring organizations implementing quality assurance organization for PM10, auditing device and Pb analysis audit PM10 samplers and PM2.5 FRM samplers of PM2.5, PM10–2.5 and Pb. samples must be compatible with the specific the same method designation as the PM10–2.5 (c) At low concentrations, agreement requirements of the equivalent method. FRM can include the PM10–2.5 monitors in between the measurements of collocated 3.3.5 Collocated Sampling Procedures for their respective PM10 and PM2.5 count. samplers, expressed as relative percent PM2.5. Follow the same procedure as Follow the same procedures as described in difference or percent difference, may be described in section 3.2.5 of this appendix. sections 3.2.6.2 and 3.2.6.3 of this appendix. relatively poor. For this reason, collocated PM2.5 samplers used in the PM10–2.5 network, 3.3.7 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation measurement pairs are selected for use in the may be counted along with the PM2.5 Program (PEP) Procedures. Follow the same precision and bias calculations only when samplers in the PM2.5 network as long as the procedure as described in section 3.2.7 of both measurements are equal to or above the PM2.5 samplers in both networks are the same this appendix. following limits: µ 3 method designation. 3.3.8 PM10–2.5 Performance Evaluation (1) TSP: 20 g/m . 3.3.6 Collocated Sampling Procedures for Program (PEP) Procedures. One performance (2) Pb: 0.15 µg/m3. µ 3 PM10–2.5. All designated FRMs within the evaluation audit, as described in section 3.2.7 (3) PM10 (Hi-Vol): 15 g/m . µ 3 PM10–2.5 monitoring network must have 15 of this appendix must be performed at one (4) PM10 (Lo-Vol): 3 g/m . µ 3 percent of the monitors collocated (values of PM10–2.5 site in each primary quality (5) PM10–2.5 and PM2.5: 3 g/m . 0.5 and greater round up) at the PM10–2.5 assurance organization each year. Monitoring 4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC sites. All FRM method designations can be organizations implementing PM2.5 FRM Checks for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO. aggregated. samplers of the same method designation in 4.1.1 Percent Difference. All 3.3.6.1 The EPA shall ensure that each both the PM2.5 and the PM10–2.5 networks can measurement quality checks start with a designated FEM within the PM10–2.5 include the PM10–2.5 performance evaluation comparison of an audit concentration or monitoring network must: audit in their respective PM2.5 performance value (flowrate) to the concentration/value (a) Have 15 percent of the monitors evaluation count as long as the performance measured by the analyzer and use percent collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round evaluation is conducted at the PM10–2.5 site. difference as the comparison statistic as up); and The calculations for evaluating bias between described in equation 1 of this section. For

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61309

each single point check, calculate the percent the QC check samples from a given site for this appendix. For each collocated data pair, difference, di, as follows: a particular assessment interval. calculate the relative percent difference, di, 4.1.3.2 Calculate the 25th and 75th using equation 10 of this appendix: Equation 1 percentiles of the percent differences for each − site. The absolute bias upper bound should Equation 10 = meas audit × be flagged as positive if both percentiles are di 100 positive and negative if both percentiles are XY− audit d = ii⋅100 negative. The absolute bias upper bound i ()+ where, meas is the concentration indicated would not be flagged if the 25th and 75th XYii/2 by the monitoring organization’s instrument percentiles are of different signs. where, Xi is the concentration from the and audit is the audit concentration of the 4.1.4 Validation of Bias Using the one- primary sampler and Yi is the standard used in the QC check being point QC Checks. The annual performance measured. concentration value from the audit evaluations for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO sampler. The coefficient of variation 4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision described in section 3.2.2 of this appendix estimate is used to assess the one-point QC upper bound is calculated using the are used to verify the results obtained from equation 11 of this appendix: checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in the one-point QC checks and to validate section 3.2.1 of this appendix. The precision those results across a range of concentration Equation 11 estimator is the coefficient of variation upper levels. To quantify this annually at the site bound and is calculated using equation 2 of level and at the 3-year primary quality 2 this section: n  n  assurance organization level, probability nd⋅−2 d limits will be calculated from the one-point ∑∑i  i  ==  n −1 Equation 2 QC checks using equations 6 and 7 of this CV = i 11i ⋅ ()− 2 appendix: 21nn X01.,n− 1 n  n 2 ER17OC06.049 ⋅−2 where, n is the number of valid data pairs ˆ nd∑∑i  di  Equation 6 ==  n −1 being aggregated, and X 2 is the CV = i 11i ⋅ =+ ⋅ 0.1.n–1 nn()−1 X2 UpperPr obability Limit m196 . S 10th percentile of a chi-squared 01.,n− 1 distribution with n1 degrees of freedom. 2 where, X 0.1,n–1 is the 10th percentile of a chi- The factor of 2 in the denominator

adjusts for the fact that each di is ER17OC06.048 squared distribution with n–1 degrees of ˆ freedom. Equation 7 calculated from two values with error. 4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is Lower Probability Limit = m -1.96 S 4.2.2 Bias Estimate Using One-Point Flow calculated using the one-point QC checks for Rate Verifications. For each one-point SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section where, m is the mean (equation 8 of this flow rate verification described in 3.2.1 of this appendix and the performance appendix): sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2 of this appendix, ER17OC06.047 evaluation program for PM10–2.5 described in calculate the percent difference in ˆ sections 3.2.8 and 3.3.8 of this appendix. The Equation 8 volume using equation 1 of this bias estimator is an upper bound on the mean appendix where meas is the value 1 k absolute value of the percent differences as m =⋅∑d indicated by the sampler’s volume described in equation 3 of this section: i measurement and audit is the actual k = i 1 volume indicated by the auditing flow ER17OC06.046 Equation 3 where, k is the total number of one point QC meter. The absolute volume bias upper ˆ checks for the interval being evaluated bound is then calculated using equation =+ ⋅AS and S is the standard deviation of the 3, where n is the number of flow rate AB AB t 095.,n− 1 percent differences (equation 9 of this n audits being aggregated; t0.95,n–1 is the appendix) as follows: 95th quantile of a t-distribution with n- where, n is the number of single point checks 1 degrees of freedom, the quantity AB is being aggregated; t0.95,n–1 is the 95th quantile Equation 9 the mean of the absolute values of the of a t-distribution with n–1 degrees of 2 di’s and is calculated using equation 4 of freedom; the quantity AB is the mean of the k  k  this appendix , and the quantity AS in ⋅−2 absolute values of the di’s and is calculated kd∑∑i  di  equation 3 of this appendix is the using equation 4 of this section: i==11 i  standard deviation of the absolute values

= ER17OC06.064 ER17OC06.065 S ˆ kk()−1 if the di’s and is calculated using Equation 4 equation 5 of this n 4.1.5 Percent Difference. Percent 4.2.3 Assessment Semi-Annual Flow Rate =⋅1 differences for the performance evaluations, Audits. The flow rate audits described in AB ∑ di n i=1 calculated using equation 1 of this appendix sections 3.2.4 and 3.3.3 of this appendix are can be compared to the probability intervals used to assess the results obtained from the and the quantity AS is the standard deviation for the respective site or at the primary one-point flow rate verifications and to of the absolute value of the di’s and is quality assurance organization level. Ninety- provide an estimate of flow rate acceptability. calculated using equation 5 of this section: five percent of the individual percent For each flow rate audit, calculate the differences (all audit concentration levels) for percent difference in volume using equation Equation 5 the performance evaluations should be 1 of this appendix where meas is the value captured within the probability intervals for indicated by the sampler’s volume n 2  n 2 ⋅− the primary quality assurance organization. measurement and audit is the actual volume nd∑∑i  di  4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10. indicated by the auditing flow meter. To ==  AS = i 1 i 1 4.2.1 Precision Estimate from Collocated quantify this annually and at the 3-year nn()−1 Samplers. Precision is estimated via primary quality assurance organization level, duplicate measurements from collocated probability limits are calculated from the 4.1.3.1 Assigning a sign (positive/ samplers of the same type. It is recommended percent differences using equations 6 and 7 negative) to the bias estimate. Since the bias that the precision be aggregated at the of this appendix where m is the mean statistic as calculated in equation 3 of this primary quality assurance organization level described in equation 8 of this appendix and appendix uses absolute values, it does not quarterly, annually, and at the 3-year level. k is the total number of one-point flow rate have a tendency (negative or positive bias) The data pair would only be considered valid verifications for the year and S is the associated with it. A sign will be designated if both concentrations are greater than the standard deviation of the percent differences by rank ordering the percent differences of minimum values specified in section 4(c) of as described in equation 9 of this appendix.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.041 ER17OC06.042 ER17OC06.043 ER17OC06.044 ER17OC06.045 61310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

4.2.4 Percent Difference. Percent perform an estimate of bias when the primary sometimes aggregating over samplers, and differences for the annual flow rate audit monitor is an FEM and the collocated sometimes aggregating over both time and concentration, calculated using equation 1 of monitor is an FRM. Follow the procedure samplers. These various levels of aggregation this appendix, can be compared to the described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix in are achieved using the same basic statistic. probability intervals for the one-point flow order to provide an estimate of bias using the 4.3.2.1 This statistic averages the rate verifications for the respective primary collocated data. individual biases described in equation 1 of quality assurance organization. Ninety-five 4.3.2 Bias Estimate. Follow the procedure this appendix to the desired level of percent of the individual percent differences described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix aggregation using equation 12 of this (all audit concentration levels) for the for the bias estimate of PM10–2.5. The PM2.5 appendix: performance evaluations should be captured bias estimate is calculated using the paired within the probability intervals for primary routine and the PEP monitor data described Equation 12 quality assurance organization. in section 3.2.6 of this appendix. Calculate 1 n j 4.3 Statistics for the Assessment of PM2.5 the percent difference, di, using equation 1 of D =⋅∑d and PM this appendix, where meas is the measured i 10–2.5. n = 4.3.1 Precision Estimate. Precision for concentration from agency’s primary monitor j i 1 collocated instruments for PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 and audit is the concentration from the PEP where, nj is the number of pairs and d1, d2, may be estimated where both the primary monitor. The data pair would only be dnj are the biases for each of the pairs to be and collocated instruments are the same considered valid if both concentrations are averaged. method designation and when the method greater than the minimum values specified in 4.3.2.2 Confidence intervals can be designations are not similar. Follow the section 4(c) of this appendix. Estimates of constructed for these average bias estimates procedure described in section 4.2.1 of this bias are presented for various levels of in equation 12 of this appendix using appendix. In addition, one may want to aggregation, sometimes aggregating over time, equations 13 and 14 of this appendix:

Equation 13 =+ ⋅s Upper 90% Confidence Interval D t095.,df n j

Equation 14 =− ⋅s Lower90% Confidence Interval D t095.,df n j

Where, t0.95,df is the 95th quantile of a t- 4.4 Statistics for the Assessment of Pb. consistent with the formulas for the gases, distribution with degrees of freedom 4.4.1 Precision Estimate. Follow the same the recommended procedures are to work ¥ df = nj 1 and s is an estimate of the procedures as described for PM10 in section with relative errors of the lead variability of the average bias calculated 4.2.1 of this appendix using the data from the measurements. The relative error in the using equation 15 of this appendix: collocated instruments. The data pair would concentration is related to the relative error only be considered valid if both in the volume and the relative error in the concentrations are greater than the minimum Equation 15 mass measurements using equation 16 of this values specified in section 4(c) of this n appendix: j appendix. ()− 2 ∑ dDi 4.4.2 Bias Estimate. In order to estimate s = i=1 bias, the information from the flow rate n −1 audits and the Pb strip audits needs to be j combined as described below. To be

Equation 16 ()measured concentration− audit concentrattion rel. error = audit concentration  1  =  ()rel. mass error − rel. volumeerror 1.+ rel error 

As with the gases, an upper bound for the (concentration) error is bounded by equation absolute bias is desired. Using equation 16 17 of this appendix: above, the absolute value of the relative

Equation 17 relative mass error+ relative volumeerror rel. error ≤ 1− relative volumeerror

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.050 ER17OC06.051 ER17OC06.052 ER17OC06.053 ER17OC06.054 ER17OC06.055 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61311

The quality indicator data collected are is the mean of the absolute values of the di’s aggregated; t0.95,n–1 is the 95th quantile of a then used to bound each part of equation 17 and is calculated using equation 4, and the t-distribution with n–1 degrees of freedom; separately. quantity AS in equation 3 of this appendix the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute 4.4.2.1 Flow rate calculations. For each is the standard deviation of the absolute values of the di’s and is calculated using flow rate audit, calculate the percent values of the di’s and is calculated using equation 4 of this appendix and the quantity difference in volume by equation 1 of this equation 5 of this appendix. AS in equation 3 of this appendix is the appendix where meas is the value indicated 4.4.2.2 Lead strip calculations. Similarly standard deviation of the absolute values of by the sampler’s volume measurement and for each lead strip audit, calculate the audit is the actual volume indicated by the percent difference in mass by equation 1 the di’s and is calculated using equation 5 of auditing flow meter. The absolute volume where meas is the value indicated by the this appendix. bias upper bound is then calculated using mass measurement and audit is the actual 4.4.2.3 Final bias calculation. Finally, the equation 3 of this appendix where n is the lead mass on the audit strip. The absolute absolute bias upper bound is given by number of flow rate audits being aggregated; mass bias upper bound is then calculated combining the absolute bias estimates of the t0.95,n–1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution using equation 3 of this appendix where n is flow rate and Pb strips using equation 18 of with n–1 degrees of freedom; the quantity AB the number of lead strip audits being this appendix:

Equation 18 mass bias+ vol. bias bias = ⋅100 100 − vol. bias

where, the numerator and denominator have year, EPA will calculate and report the B–06/001. February, 2006. Office of been multiplied by 100 since everything is measurement uncertainty for the entire Environmental Information, Washington DC expressed as a percentage. calendar year. 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/ 4.5 Time Period for Audits. The statistics 5.2 PSD Reporting Requirements. At the g4-final.pdf. in this section assume that the mass and flow end of each sampling quarter, the (6) List of Designated Reference and rate audits represent the same time period. organization must report the appropriate Equivalent Methods. Available from U.S. Since the two types of audits are not statistical assessments in section 4 of this Environmental Protection Agency, National performed at the same time, the audits need appendix for the pollutants measured. All to be grouped by common time periods. data used to calculate reported estimates of Exposure Research Laboratory, Human Consequently, the absolute bias estimates precision and bias including span checks, Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences should be done on annual and 3-year levels. collocated sampler and audit results must be Division, MD-D205–03, Research Triangle The flow rate audits are site-specific, so the made available to the permit granting Park, NC 27711. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ absolute bias upper bound estimate can be authority upon request. amtic/criteria.html. done and treated as a site-level statistic. (7) McElroy, F.F. Transfer Standards for the 6.0 References Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring 5. Reporting Requirements (1) American National Standard— Analyzers for Ozone. EPA–600/4–79–056. 5.1 SLAMS Reporting Requirements. For Specifications and Guidelines for Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, each pollutant, prepare a list of all Systems for Environmental Data Collection Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, monitoring sites and their AQS site and Environmental Technology Programs. September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ identification codes in each primary quality ANSI/ASQC E4–2004. February 2004. amtic/cpreldoc.html. assurance organization and submit the list to Available from American Society for Quality the appropriate EPA Regional Office, with a Control, 611 East Wisconsin Avenue, (8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical copy to AQS. Whenever there is a change in Milwaukee, WI 53202. Assistance Document for the Calibration of this list of monitoring sites in a primary (2) EPA Requirements for Quality Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA–600/4–79– quality assurance organization, report this Management Plans. EPA QA/R–2. EPA/240/ 057. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, change to the EPA Regional Office and to B–01/002. March 2001. Office of Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, AQS. Environmental Information, Washington DC September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 5.1.1 Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/ amtic/cpreldoc.html. each primary quality assurance organization r2-final.pdf. (9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air shall report to AQS directly (or via the (3) EPA Requirements for Quality Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 1— appropriate EPA Regional Office for Assurance Project Plans for Environmental A Field Guide to Environmental Quality organizations not direct users of AQS) the Data Operations. EPA QA/R–5. EPA/240/B– Assurance. EPA–600/R–94/038a. April 1994. results of all valid measurement quality 01/003. March 2001. Office of Environmental Available from U.S. Environmental checks it has carried out during the quarter. Information, Washington DC 20460. http:// Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, The quarterly reports must be submitted www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf. Center for Environmental Research consistent with the data reporting (4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and requirements specified for air quality data as Certification of Gaseous Calibration Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther set forth in § 58.16. The EPA strongly Standards. EPA–600/R–97/121. September King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. http:// encourages early submission of the quality 1997. Available from U.S. Environmental www.epa.gov/ ttn/amtic/qabook.html. assurance data in order to assist the Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, (10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air monitoring organizations control and Center for Environmental Research Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II: evaluate the quality of the ambient air data. Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther Part 1—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 5.1.2 Annual Reports. King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268. Program Quality System Development. EPA– 5.1.2.1 When the monitoring organization (5) Guidance for the Data Quality 454/R–98–004. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ has certified relevant data for the calendar Objectives Process. EPA QA/G–4. EPA/240/ amtic/qabook.html.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.056 61312 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE A–1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58. DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SLAMS AND PSD REQUIREMENTS

Topic SLAMS PSD

Requirements ...... 1. The development, documentation, and implementation of an approved quality system. 2. The assessment of data quality ...... 3. The use of reference, equivalent, or approved methods .. 4. The use of calibration standards traceable to NIST or other primary standard. 5. The participation in EPA performance evaluations and the permission for EPA to conduct system audits. Monitoring and QA Responsibility ...... State/local agency via the ‘‘primary quality assurance orga- Source owner/operator. nization’’. Monitoring Duration ...... Indefinitely ...... Usually up to 12 months. Annual Performance Evaluation (PE) ..... Standards and equipment different from those used for Personnel, standards and equipment spanning, calibration, and verifications. Prefer different different from those used for span- personnel. ning, calibration, and verifications. PE audit rate: —Automated ...... 100% per year ...... 100% per quarter. —Manual ...... Varies depending on pollutant. See Table A–2 of this ap- 100% per quarter. pendix. Precision Assessment: —Automated ...... One-point QC check biweekly but data quality dependent ... One point QC check biweekly. —Manual ...... Varies depending on pollutant. See Table A–2 of this ap- One site: 1 every 6 days or every third pendix. day for daily monitoring (TSP and Pb). Reporting —Automated ...... By site—EPA performs calculations annually ...... By site—source owner/operator per- forms calculations each sampling quarter. —Manual ...... By reporting organization—EPA performs calculations an- By site—source owner/operator per- nually. forms calculations each sampling quarter.

TABLE A–2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58. MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SLAMS SITES

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum frequency Parameters reported

Automated Methods

1 1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, Response check at con- Each analyzer ...... Once per 2 weeks ...... Audit concentration and O3, CO. centration 0.01–0.1 ppm measured concentra- 2 SO2, NO2, O3, and 1–10 tion . ppm CO. Annual performance eval- See section 3.2.2 of this Each analyzer ...... Once per year ...... Audit concentration 1 and uation for SO2, NO2, O3, appendix. measured concentra- CO. tion 2 for each level. Flow rate verification PM10, Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every month ...... Audit flow rate and meas- PM2.5, PM10–2.5. ured flow rate indicated by the sampler. Semi-annual flow rate audit Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every 6 ...... Audit flow rate and meas- PM10, PM2.5, PM10–2.5. using independent ured flow rate indicated standard. by the sampler. Collocated sampling PM2.5, Collocated samplers ...... 15% ...... Every 12 days ...... Primary sampler con- PM10–2.5. centration and duplicate sampler concentration. Performance evaluation Collocated samplers ...... 1. 5 valid audits for pri- Over all 4 quarters ...... Primary sampler con- program PM2.5, PM10–2.5. mary QA orgs, with ≤ 5 centration and perform- sites. ance evaluation sampler 2. 8 valid audits for pri- concentration. mary QA orgs, with > 5 sites. 3. All samplers in 6 years

Manual Methods

Collocated sampling PM10, Collocated samplers ...... 15% ...... Every 12 days PSD— Primary sampler con- TSP, PM10–2.5, PM2.5. every 6 days. centration and duplicate sampler concentration. Flow rate verification PM10 Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every month ...... Audit flow rate and meas- (low Vol), PM10–2.5, PM2.5. ured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61313

TABLE A–2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58. MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SLAMS SITES—Continued

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum frequency Parameters reported

Flow rate verification PM10 Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler ...... Once every quarter ...... Audit flow rate and meas- (High-Vol), TSP. ured flow rate indicated by the sampler. Semi-annual flow rate audit Check of sampler flow rate Each sampler, all locations Once every 6 months ...... Audit flow rate and meas- PM10, TSP, PM10–2.5, using independent ured flow rate indicated PM2.5. standard. by the sampler. Manual Methods Lead ...... 1. Check of sample flow 1. Each sampler ...... 1. Include with TSP ...... 1. Same as for TSP. rate as for TSP. 2. Analytical ...... 2. Each quarter ...... 2. Actual concentration. 2. Check of analytical sys- tem with Pb audit strips. Performance evaluation Collocated samplers ...... 1. 5 valid audits for pri- Over all 4 quarters ...... Primary sampler con- program PM2.5, PM10–2.5. mary QA orgs, with ≤ 5 centration and perform- sites. ance evaluation sampler 2. 8 valid audits for pri- concentration. mary QA orgs, with ≥ 5 sites. 3. All samplers in 6 years 1 Effective concentration for open path analyzers. 2 Corrected concentration, if applicable, for open path analyzers.

TABLE A–3 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58.—SUMMARY OF PM2.5 NUMBER AND TYPE OF COLLOCATION (15% COLLOCATION REQUIREMENT) NEEDED AS AN EXAMPLE OF A PRIMARY QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS 54 MON- ITORS AND PROCURED FRMS AND THREE OTHER EQUIVALENT METHOD TYPES

Primary sam- No. of collocated monitors of pler method Total no. of monitors Total no. collocated No. of collocated FRM same method designation as designation primary

FRM ...... 20 3 3 n/a FEM (A) ...... 20 3 2 1 FEM (C)...... 2 1 1 0 FEM (D) ...... 12 2 1 1

Appendix B—[Removed and Reserved] under § 53.11 or § 53.16 of this chapter may Statistical Area. There shall be no be used at a SLAMS site following requirement for tests at any other sites. 34. Appendix B to part 58 is removed cancellation for a reasonable period of time 2.4.1.2 For purposes of this section, a full and reserved to be determined by the Administrator. year of testing may begin and end in any 35. Appendix C to part 58 is revised to 2.4 Approval of Non-designated season, so long as all seasons are covered. read as follows: Continuous PM2.5 Methods as Approved 2.4.1.3 No PM10 samplers shall be Regional Methods (ARMs) Operated Within a required for the test, as determination of the Appendix C to Part 58—Ambient Air Network of Sites. A method for PM2.5 that has PM2.5/PM10 ratio at the test site shall not be Quality Monitoring Methodology not been designated as an FRM or FEM as required. 1.0 Purpose defined in § 50.1 of this chapter may be 2.4.1.4 The test specification for PM2.5 2.0 SLAMS Ambient Air Monitoring Stations approved as an ARM for purposes of section Class III equivalent method precision defined 3.0 NCore Ambient Air Monitoring Stations 2.1 of this appendix at a particular site or in subpart C of part 53 of this chapter 4.0 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring network of sites under the following applies; however, there is no specific Stations (PAMS) stipulations. requirement that collocated continuous 5.0 Particulate Matter Episode Monitoring 2.4.1 The candidate ARM must be monitors be operated for purposes of 6.0 References demonstrated to meet the requirements for generating a statistic for coefficient of PM2.5 Class III equivalent methods as defined variation (CV). To provide an estimate of 1.0 Purpose in subpart C of part 53 of this chapter. precision that meets the requirement This appendix specifies the criteria Specifically the requirements for precision, identified in subpart C of part 53 of this pollutant monitoring methods (manual correlation, and additive and multiplicative chapter, agencies may cite peer-reviewed methods or automated analyzers) which must bias apply. For purposes of this section 2.4, published data or data in AQS that can be be used in SLAMS and NCore stations that the following requirements shall apply: presented demonstrating the candidate ARM are a subset of SLAMS. 2.4.1.1 The candidate ARM shall be operated will produce data that meets the tested at the site(s) in which it is intended specification for precision of Class III PM2.5 2.0 SLAMS Ambient Air Monitoring to be used. For a network of sites operated methods. Network by one reporting agency or primary quality 2.4.1.5 A minimum of 90 valid sample 2.1 Except as otherwise provided in this assurance organization, the testing shall pairs per site for the year with no less than appendix, a criteria pollutant monitoring occur at a subset of sites to include one site 20 valid sample pairs per season must be method used for making NAAQS decisions at in each MSA/CSA, up to the first 2 highest generated for use in demonstrating that a SLAMS site must be a reference or population MSA/CSA and at least one rural additive bias, multiplicative bias and equivalent method as defined in § 50.1 of this area or Micropolitan Statistical Area site. If correlation meet the comparability chapter. the candidate ARM for a network is already requirements specified in subpart C of part 2.2 Reserved approved for purposes of this section in 53 of this chapter. A valid sample pair may 2.3 Any manual method or analyzer another agency’s network, subsequent testing be generated with as little as one valid FRM purchased prior to cancellation of its shall minimally occur at one site in a MSA/ and one valid candidate ARM measurement reference or equivalent method designation CSA and one rural area or Micropolitan per day.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61314 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

2.4.1.6 For purposes of determining bias, 2.4.4.2 All collocated FRM/FEM samplers 2.5 [Reserved] FRM data with concentrations less than 3 must maintain a sample frequency of at least 2.6 Use of Methods With Higher, micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) may be 1 in 6 sample days; Nonconforming Ranges in Certain excluded. Exclusion of data does not result 2.4.4.3 Collocated FRM/FEM samplers Geographical Areas. in failure of sample completeness specified shall be located at the design value site, with 2.6.1 [Reserved] in this section. the required FRM/FEM samplers deployed 2.6.2 An analyzer may be used 2.4.1.7 Data transformations are allowed among the largest MSA/CSA in the network, (indefinitely) on a range which extends to to be used to demonstrate meeting the until all required FRM/FEM are deployed; concentrations higher than two times the comparability requirements specified in and upper limit specified in table B–1 of part 53 subpart C of part 53 of this chapter. Data 2.4.4.4 Data from collocated FRM/FEM of this chapter if: transformation may be linear or non-linear, are to be substituted for any calendar quarter 2.6.2.1 The analyzer has more than one but must be applied in the same way to all that an ARM method has incomplete data. selectable range and has been designated as sites used in the testing. 2.4.4.5 Collocation with an ARM under a reference or equivalent method on at least 2.4.2 The monitoring agency wishing to this part for purposes of determining the one of its ranges, or has been approved for use an ARM must develop and implement coefficient of variation of the method shall be use under section 2.5 (which applies to appropriate quality assurance procedures for conducted at a minimum of 7.5 percent of the analyzers purchased before February 18, the method. Additionally, the following sites with a minimum of 1 per network. This 1975); procedures are required for the method: is consistent with the requirements in 2.6.2.2 The pollutant intended to be 2.4.2.1 The ARM must be consistently appendix A to this part for one-half of the measured with the analyzer is likely to occur operated throughout the network. Exceptions required collocation of FRM/FEM (15 in concentrations more than two times the to a consistent operation must be approved percent) to be collocated with the same upper range limit specified in table B–1 of according to section 2.8 of this appendix; method. part 53 of this chapter in the geographical 2.4.2.2 The ARM must be operated on an 2.4.4.6 Assessments of bias with an area in which use of the analyzer is hourly sampling frequency capable of independent audit of the total measurement proposed; and providing data suitable for aggregation into system shall be conducted with the same 2.6.2.3 The Administrator determines daily 24-hour average measurements; frequency as an FEM as identified in that the resolution of the range or ranges for 2.4.2.3 The ARM must use an inlet and appendix A to this part. which approval is sought is adequate for its separation device, as needed, that are already 2.4.5 Request for approval of a candidate intended use. For purposes of this section approved in either the reference method ARM, that is not already approved in another (2.6), ‘‘resolution’’ means the ability of the identified in appendix L to part 50 of this agency’s network under this section, must analyzer to detect small changes in meet the general submittal requirements of chapter or under part 53 of this chapter as concentration. section 2.7 of this appendix. Requests for approved for use on a PM reference or 2.6.3 Requests for approval under section 2.5 approval under this section when an ARM is equivalent method. The only exceptions to 2.6.2 of this appendix must meet the already approved in another agency’s this requirement are those methods that by submittal requirements of section 2.7. Except network are to be submitted to the EPA their inherent measurement principle may as provided in section 2.7.3 of this appendix, Regional Administrator. Requests for not need an inlet or separation device that each request must contain the information approval under section 2.4 of this appendix segregates the aerosol; and must include the following requirements: specified in section 2.7.2 in addition to the 2.4.2.4 The ARM must be capable of 2.4.5.1 A clear and unique description of following: providing for flow audits, unless by its the site(s) at which the candidate ARM will 2.6.3.1 The range or ranges proposed to inherent measurement principle, measured be used and tested, and a description of the be used; flow is not required. These flow audits are to nature or character of the site and the 2.6.3.2 Test data, records, calculations, be performed on the frequency identified in particulate matter that is expected to occur and test results as specified in section 2.7.2.2 appendix A to this part. there. of this appendix for each range proposed to 2.4.2.5 If data transformations are used, 2.4.5.2 A detailed description of the be used; they must be described in the monitoring method and the nature of the sampler or 2.6.3.3 An identification and description agencies Quality Assurance Project plan (or analyzer upon which it is based. of the geographical area in which use of the addendum to QAPP). The QAPP shall 2.4.5.3 A brief statement of the reason or analyzer is proposed; describe how often (e.g., quarterly, yearly) rationale for requesting the approval. 2.6.3.4 Data or other information and under what provisions the data 2.4.5.4 A detailed description of the demonstrating that the pollutant intended to transformation will be updated. For example, quality assurance procedures that have been be measured with the analyzer is likely to not meeting the data quality objectives for a developed and that will be implemented for occur in concentrations more than two times site over a season or year may be cause for the method. the upper range limit specified in table B–1 recalculating a data transformation, but by 2.4.5.5 A detailed description of the of part 53 of this chapter in the geographical itself would not be cause for invalidating the procedures for assessing the precision and area in which use of the analyzer is data. Data transformations must be applied accuracy of the method that will be proposed; and prospectively, i.e., in real-time or near real- implemented for reporting to AQS. 2.6.3.5 Test data or other information time, to the data output from the PM2.5 2.4.5.6 Test results from the demonstrating the resolution of each continuous method. See reference 7 of this comparability tests as required in section proposed range that is broader than that appendix. 2.4.1 through 2.4.1.4 of this appendix. permitted by section 2.5 of this appendix. 2.4.3 The monitoring agency wishing to 2.4.5.7 Such further supplemental 2.6.4 Any person who has obtained use the method must develop and implement information as may be necessary or helpful approval of a request under this section appropriate procedures for assessing and to support the required statements and test (2.6.2) shall assure that the analyzer for reporting the precision and accuracy of the results. which approval was obtained is used only in method comparable to the procedures set 2.4.6 Within 120 days after receiving a the geographical area identified in the forth in appendix A of this part for request for approval of the use of an ARM at request and only while operated in the range designated reference and equivalent a particular site or network of sites under or ranges specified in the request. methods. section 2.4 of this appendix, the 2.7 Requests for Approval; Withdrawal of 2.4.4 Assessments of data quality shall Administrator will approve or disapprove the Approval. follow the same frequencies and calculations method by letter to the person or agency 2.7.1 Requests for approval under as required under section 3 of appendix A to requesting such approval. When appropriate sections 2.4, 2.6.2, or 2.8 of this appendix this part with the following exceptions: for methods that are already approved in must be submitted to: Director, National 2.4.4.1 Collocation of ARM with FRM/ another SLAMS network, the EPA Regional Exposure Research Laboratory (MD–D205– FEM samplers must be maintained at a Administrator has approval/disapproval 03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, minimum of 30 percent of the required authority. In either instance, additional Research Triangle Park, North Carolina SLAMS sites with a minimum of 1 per information may be requested to assist with 27711. For ARM that are already approved in network; the decision. another agency’s network, subsequent

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61315

requests for approval under section 2.4 are to 2.8.3.1 A description, in such detail as monitors intended for comparison with be submitted to the applicable EPA Regional may be appropriate, of the desired applicable NAAQS. Administrator. modification; 3.2 If alternative SO2, CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, 2.7.2 Except as provided in section 2.7.3 2.8.3.2 A brief statement of the purpose(s) or PM10¥2.5 monitoring methodologies are of this appendix, each request must contain: of the modification, including any reasons for proposed for monitors not intended for 2.7.2.1 A statement identifying the considering it necessary or advantageous; NAAQS comparison, such techniques must analyzer (e.g., by serial number) and the 2.8.3.3 A brief statement of belief be detailed in the network description method of which the analyzer is concerning the extent to which the required by § 58.10 and subsequently representative (e.g., by manufacturer and modification will or may affect the approved by the Administrator. Examples of model number); and performance characteristics of the method; locations that are not intended to be 2.7.2.2 Test data, records, calculations, and compared to the NAAQS may be rural and test results for the analyzer (or the 2.8.3.4 Such further information as may background and transport sites or areas method of which the analyzer is be necessary to explain and support the where the concentration of the pollutant is so representative) as specified in subpart B, statements required by sections 2.8.3.2 and low that it would be more useful to operate subpart C, or both (as applicable) of part 53 2.8.3.3. a higher sensitivity method that is not an of this chapter. 2.8.4 The Administrator will approve or FRM or FEM. 2.7.3 A request may concern more than disapprove the modification by letter to the person or agency requesting such approval 4.0 Photochemical Assessment Monitoring one analyzer or geographical area and may Stations (PAMS) incorporate by reference any data or other within 75 days after receiving a request for information known to EPA from one or more approval under this section and any further 4.1 Methods used for O3 monitoring at of the following: information that the applicant may be asked PAMS must be automated reference or 2.7.3.1 An application for a reference or to provide. equivalent methods as defined in § 50.1 of equivalent method determination submitted 2.8.5 A temporary modification that this chapter. to EPA for the method of which the analyzer could alter the performance characteristics of 4.2 Methods used for NO, NO2 and NOX is representative, or testing conducted by the a reference, equivalent, or ARM may be made monitoring at PAMS should be automated applicant or by EPA in connection with such without prior approval under this section if reference or equivalent methods as defined an application; the method is not functioning or is for NO2 in § 50.1 of this chapter. If alternative 2.7.3.2 Testing of the method of which malfunctioning, provided that parts NO, NO2 or NOX monitoring methodologies the analyzer is representative at the initiative necessary for repair in accordance with the are proposed, such techniques must be of the Administrator under § 53.7 of this applicable operation manual cannot be detailed in the network description required by § 58.10 and subsequently approved by the chapter; or obtained within 45 days. Unless such temporary modification is later approved Administrator. 2.7.3.3 A previous or concurrent request under section 2.8.4 of this appendix, the 4.3 Methods for meteorological for approval submitted to EPA under this temporarily modified method shall be measurements and speciated VOC section (2.7). repaired in accordance with the applicable monitoring are included in the guidance 2.7.4 To the extent that such operation manual as quickly as practicable provided in references 2 and 3 of this incorporation by reference provides data or but in no event later than 4 months after the appendix. If alternative VOC monitoring information required by this section (2.7) or temporary modification was made, unless an methodology (including the use of new or by sections 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6 of this appendix, extension of time is granted by the innovative technologies), which is not independent data or duplicative information Administrator. Unless and until the included in the guidance, is proposed, it need not be submitted. temporary modification is approved, air must be detailed in the network description 2.7.5 After receiving a request under this quality data obtained with the method as required by § 58.10 and subsequently section (2.7), the Administrator may request temporarily modified must be clearly approved by the Administrator. such additional testing or information or identified as such when submitted in 5.0 Particulate Matter Episode Monitoring conduct such tests as may be necessary in his accordance with § 58.16 and must be judgment for a decision on the request. accompanied by a report containing the 5.1 For short-term measurements of PM10 2.7.6 If the Administrator determines, on information specified in section 2.8.3 of this during air pollution episodes (see § 51.152 of the basis of any available information, that appendix. A request that the Administrator this chapter) the measurement method must any of the determinations or statements on approve a temporary modification may be be: which approval of a request under this submitted in accordance with sections 2.8.1 5.1.1 Either the ‘‘Staggered PM10’’ method section was based are invalid or no longer through 2.8.4 of this appendix. In such cases or the ‘‘PM10 Sampling Over Short Sampling valid, or that the requirements of section 2.4, the request will be considered as if a request Times’’ method, both of which are based on 2.5, or 2.6, as applicable, have not been met, for prior approval had been made. the reference method for PM10 and are he/she may withdraw the approval after 2.9 Use of IMPROVE Samplers at a described in reference 1: or affording the person who obtained the SLAMS Site. ‘‘IMPROVE’’ samplers may be 5.1.2 Any other method for measuring approval an opportunity to submit used in SLAMS for monitoring of regional PM10: information and arguments opposing such background and regional transport 5.1.2.1 Which has a measurement range action. concentrations of fine particulate matter. The or ranges appropriate to accurately measure 2.8 Modifications of Methods by Users. IMPROVE samplers were developed for use air pollution episode concentration of PM10, 2.8.1 Except as otherwise provided in this in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected 5.1.2.2 Which has a sample period section, no reference method, equivalent Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network to appropriate for short-term PM10 method, or ARM may be used in a SLAMS characterize all of the major components and measurements, and network if it has been modified in a manner many trace constituents of the particulate 5.1.2.3 For which a quantitative that could significantly alter the performance matter that impair visibility in Federal Class relationship to a reference or equivalent characteristics of the method without prior I Areas. Descriptions of the IMPROVE method for PM10 has been established at the approval by the Administrator. For purposes samplers and the data they collect are use site. Procedures for establishing a of this section, ‘‘alternative method’’ means available in references 4, 5, and 6 of this quantitative site-specific relationship are an analyzer, the use of which has been appendix. contained in reference 1. approved under section 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6 of this 5.2 PM10 methods other than the appendix or some combination thereof. 3.0 NCore Ambient Air Monitoring Stations reference method are not covered under the 2.8.2 Requests for approval under this 3.1 Methods employed in NCore quality assessment requirements of appendix section (2.8) must meet the submittal multipollutant sites used to measure SO2, to this part. Therefore, States must develop requirements of sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2.1 of CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, or PM10¥2.5 must be and implement their own quality assessment this appendix. reference or equivalent methods as defined in procedures for those methods allowed under 2.8.3 Each request submitted under this § 50.1 of this chapter, or an ARM as defined this section 4. These quality assessment section (2.8) must include: in section 2.4 of this appendix, for any procedures should be similar or analogous to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61316 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

those described in section 3 of appendix A appendix also describes specific (f) Sites located to measure air pollution to this part for the PM10 reference method. requirements for the number and location of impacts on visibility, vegetation damage, or FRM, FEM, and ARM sites for specific other welfare-based impacts. 6.0 References pollutants, NCore multipollutant sites, PM10 1.1.2 This appendix contains criteria for 1. Pelton, D. J. Guideline for Particulate mass sites, PM2.5 mass sites, chemically- the basic air monitoring requirements. The Episode Monitoring Methods, GEOMET speciated PM2.5 sites, and O3 precursor total number of monitoring sites that will Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared measurements sites (PAMS). These criteria serve the variety of data needs will be for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will be used by EPA in evaluating the substantially higher than these minimum Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract adequacy of the air pollutant monitoring requirements provide. The optimum size of No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–83–005. networks. a particular network involves trade-offs February 1983. 1.1 Monitoring Objectives. The ambient among data needs and available resources. 2. Technical Assistance Document For air monitoring networks must be designed to This regulation intends to provide for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. meet three basic monitoring objectives. These national air monitoring needs, and to lend Atmospheric Research and Exposure basic objectives are listed below. The support for the flexibility necessary to meet data collection needs of area air quality Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental appearance of any one objective in the order managers. The EPA, State, and local agencies Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, of this list is not based upon a prioritized will periodically collaborate on network NC 27711. EPA 600/8–91–215. October 1991. scheme. Each objective is important and 3. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air design issues through the network must be considered individually. assessment process outlined in § 58.10. Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. (a) Provide air pollution data to the general Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric 1.1.3 This appendix focuses on the public in a timely manner. Data can be relationship between monitoring objectives, Research and Exposure Assessment presented to the public in a number of Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection site types, and the geographic location of attractive ways including through air quality monitoring sites. Included are a rationale and Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. maps, newspapers, Internet sites, and as part EPA 600/4–90–0003. August 1989. set of general criteria for identifying of weather forecasts and public advisories. candidate site locations in terms of physical 4. Eldred, R.A., Cahill, T.A., Wilkenson, (b) Support compliance with ambient air L.K., et al., Measurements of fine particles characteristics which most closely match a quality standards and emissions strategy specific monitoring objective. The criteria for and their chemical components in the development. Data from FRM, FEM, and more specifically locating the monitoring IMPROVE/NPS networks, in Transactions of ARM monitors for NAAQS pollutants will be site, including spacing from roadways and the International Specialty Conference on used for comparing an area’s air pollution vertical and horizontal probe and path Visibility and Fine Particles, Air and Waste levels against the NAAQS. Data from placement, are described in appendix E to Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, monitors of various types can be used in the this part. 1990; pp. 187–196. development of attainment and maintenance 1.2 Spatial Scales. (a) To clarify the 5. Sisler, J.F., Huffman, D., and Latimer, plans. SLAMS, and especially NCore station nature of the link between general D.A.; Spatial and temporal patterns and the data, will be used to evaluate the regional air monitoring objectives, site types, and the chemical composition of the haze in the quality models used in developing emission physical location of a particular monitor, the United States: An analysis of data from the strategies, and to track trends in air pollution concept of spatial scale of representativeness IMPROVE network, 1988–1991, ISSN No. abatement control measures’ impact on is defined. The goal in locating monitors is 0737–5253–26, National Park Service, Ft. improving air quality. In monitoring to correctly match the spatial scale Collins, CO, 1993. locations near major air pollution sources, represented by the sample of monitored air 6. Eldred, R.A., Cahill, T.A., Pitchford, M., with the spatial scale most appropriate for and Malm, W.C.; IMPROVE—a new remote source-oriented monitoring data can provide insight into how well industrial sources are the monitoring site type, air pollutant to be area particulate monitoring system for measured, and the monitoring objective. visibility studies, Proceedings of the 81st controlling their pollutant emissions. (c) Support for air pollution research (b) Thus, spatial scale of representativeness Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control is described in terms of the physical Association, Dallas, Paper 88–54.3, 1988. studies. Air pollution data from the NCore network can be used to supplement data dimensions of the air parcel nearest to a 7. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for monitoring site throughout which actual Relating Federal Reference Method (FRM) collected by researchers working on health effects assessments and atmospheric pollutant concentrations are reasonably and Continuous PM2.5 Measurements to processes, or for monitoring methods similar. The scales of representativeness of Report an Air Quality Index (AQI). Office of most interest for the monitoring site types development work. Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. described above are as follows: 1.1.1 In order to support the air quality Environmental Protection Agency, Research (1) Microscale—Defines the concentrations management work indicated in the three Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 454/B–02– in air volumes associated with area basic air monitoring objectives, a network 2002. November 2002. dimensions ranging from several meters up to must be designed with a variety of types of about 100 meters. 36. Appendix D to part 58 is revised to monitoring sites. Monitoring sites must be read as follows: (2) Middle scale—Defines the capable of informing managers about many concentration typical of areas up to several Appendix D to Part 58—Network things including the peak air pollution levels, city blocks in size with dimensions ranging typical levels in populated areas, air from about 100 meters to 0.5 kilometer. Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality pollution transported into and outside of a Monitoring (3) Neighborhood scale—Defines city or region, and air pollution levels near concentrations within some extended area of 1. Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales specific sources. To summarize some of these the city that has relatively uniform land use 2. General Monitoring Requirements sites, here is a listing of six general site types: with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers 3. Design Criteria for NCore Sites (a) Sites located to determine the highest range. The neighborhood and urban scales 4. Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for concentrations expected to occur in the area listed below have the potential to overlap in SLAMS Sites covered by the network. applications that concern secondarily formed 5. Design Criteria for Photochemical (b) Sites located to measure typical or homogeneously distributed air pollutants. Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) concentrations in areas of high population (4) Urban scale—Defines concentrations 6. References density. within an area of city-like dimensions, on the (c) Sites located to determine the impact of order of 4 to 50 kilometers. Within a city, the 1. Monitoring Objectives and Spatial Scales significant sources or source categories on air geographic placement of sources may result The purpose of this appendix is to describe quality. in there being no single site that can be said monitoring objectives and general criteria to (d) Sites located to determine general to represent air quality on an urban scale. be applied in establishing the required background concentration levels. (5) Regional scale—Defines usually a rural SLAMS ambient air quality monitoring (e) Sites located to determine the extent of area of reasonably homogeneous geography stations and for choosing general locations regional pollutant transport among populated without large sources, and extends from tens for additional monitoring sites. This areas; and in support of secondary standards. to hundreds of kilometers.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61317

(6) National and global scales—These TABLE D–1 OF APPENDIX D TO PART Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). A CBSA measurement scales represent concentrations 58. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SITE associated with at least one urbanized cluster characterizing the nation and the globe as a of at least 10,000 population or greater is whole. TYPES AND SCALES OF REPRESENT- termed a Micropolitan Statistical Area. CSA (c) Proper siting of a monitor requires ATIVENESS—Continued consist of two or more adjacent CBSA. In this specification of the monitoring objective, the appendix, the term MSA is used to refer to types of sites necessary to meet the objective, Site type Appropriate siting a Metropolitan Statistical Area. By definition, and then the desired spatial scale of scales both MSA and CSA have a high degree of representativeness. For example, consider the integration; however, many such areas cross case where the objective is to determine 4. General/back- Urban, regional. State or other political boundaries. MSA and NAAQS compliance by understanding the ground & regional CSA may also cross more than one air shed. maximum ozone concentrations for an area. transport. The EPA recognizes that State or local Such areas would most likely be located 5. Welfare-related Urban, regional. agencies must consider MSA/CSA downwind of a metropolitan area, quite impacts. boundaries and their own political likely in a suburban residential area where boundaries and geographical characteristics children and other susceptible individuals 2. General Monitoring Requirements in designing their air monitoring networks. are likely to be outdoors. Sites located in (a) The National ambient air monitoring The EPA recognizes that there may be these areas are most likely to represent an system includes several types of monitoring situations where the EPA Regional urban scale of measurement. In this example, stations, each targeting a key data collection Administrator and the affected State or local physical location was determined by need and each varying in technical agencies may need to augment or to divide considering ozone precursor emission sophistication. the overall MSA/CSA monitoring patterns, public activity, and meteorological (b) Research grade sites are platforms for responsibilities and requirements among characteristics affecting ozone formation and scientific studies, either involved with health these various agencies to achieve an effective dispersion. Thus, spatial scale of or welfare impacts, measurement methods network design. Full monitoring representativeness was not used in the development, or other atmospheric studies. requirements apply separately to each selection process but was a result of site These sites may be collaborative efforts affected State or local agency in the absence location. between regulatory agencies and researchers of an agreement between the affected (d) In some cases, the physical location of with specific scientific objectives for each. agencies and the EPA Regional a site is determined from joint consideration Data from these sites might be collected with Administrator. of both the basic monitoring objective and both traditional and experimental 3. Design Criteria for NCore Sites the type of monitoring site desired, or techniques, and data collection might involve required by this appendix. For example, to specific laboratory analyses not common in (a) Each State (i.e. the fifty States, District determine PM2.5 concentrations which are routine measurement programs. The research of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin typical over a geographic area having grade sites are not required by regulation; Islands) is required to operate at least one relatively high PM2.5 concentrations, a however, they are included here due to their NCore site. States may delegate this neighborhood scale site is more appropriate. important role in supporting the air quality requirement to a local agency. States with Such a site would likely be located in a management program. many MSAs often also have multiple air residential or commercial area having a high (c) The NCore multipollutant sites are sites sheds with unique characteristics and, often, overall PM2.5 emission density but not in the that measure multiple pollutants in order to elevated air pollution. These States include, immediate vicinity of any single dominant provide support to integrated air quality at a minimum, California, Florida, Illinois, source. Note that in this example, the desired management data needs. NCore sites include Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, scale of representativeness was an important both neighborhood and urban scale Pennsylvania, and Texas. These States are factor in determining the physical location of measurements in general, in a selection of required to identify one to two additional the monitoring site. metropolitan areas and a limited number of NCore sites in order to account for their (e) In either case, classification of the more rural locations. Continuous monitoring unique situations. These additional sites monitor by its type and spatial scale of methods are to be used at the NCore sites shall be located to avoid proximity to large representativeness is necessary and will aid when available for a pollutant to be emission sources. Any State or local agency in interpretation of the monitoring data for a measured, as it is important to have data can propose additional candidate NCore sites particular monitoring objective (e.g., public collected over common time periods for or modifications to these requirements for reporting, NAAQS compliance, or research integrated analyses. NCore multipollutant approval by the Administrator. The NCore support). sites are intended to be long-term sites useful locations should be leveraged with other (f) Table D–1 of this appendix illustrates for a variety of applications including air multipollutant air monitoring sites including the relationship between the various site quality trends analyses, model evaluation, PAMS sites, National Air Toxics Trends types that can be used to support the three and tracking metropolitan area statistics. As Stations (NATTS) sites, CASTNET sites, and basic monitoring objectives, and the scales of such, the NCore sites should be placed away STN sites. Site leveraging includes using the representativeness that are generally most from direct emission sources that could same monitoring platform and equipment to appropriate for that type of site. substantially impact the ability to detect area- meet the objectives of the variety of programs wide concentrations. The Administrator must where possible and advantageous. TABLE D–1 OF APPENDIX D TO PART approve the NCore sites. (b) The NCore sites must measure, at a (d) Monitoring sites designated as SLAMS minimum, PM2.5 particle mass using 58. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SITE sites, but not as NCore sites, are intended to continuous and integrated/filter-based TYPES AND SCALES OF REPRESENT- address specific air quality management samplers, speciated PM2.5, PM10–2.5 particle ATIVENESS interests, and as such, are frequently single- mass, speciated PM10–2.5, O3, SO2, CO, NO/ pollutant measurement sites. The EPA NOy, wind speed, wind direction, relative Regional Administrator must approve the humidity, and ambient temperature. Site type Appropriate siting scales SLAMS sites. (1) Although the measurement of NOy is (e) This appendix uses the statistical-based required in support of a number of 1. Highest con- Micro, middle, neighbor- definitions for metropolitan areas provided monitoring objectives, available commercial centration. hood (sometimes by the Office of Management and Budget and instruments may indicate little difference in urban or regional for the Census Bureau. These areas are referred their measurement of NOy compared to the secondarily formed to as metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), conventional measurement of NOX, pollutants). micropolitan statistical areas, core-based particularly in areas with relatively fresh 2. Population ori- Neighborhood, urban. statistical areas (CBSA), and combined sources of nitrogen emissions. Therefore, in ented. statistical areas (CSA). A CBSA associated areas with negligible expected difference 3. Source impact .... Micro, middle, neighbor- with at least one urbanized area of 50,000 between NOy and NOX measured hood. population or greater is termed a concentrations, the Administrator may allow

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61318 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

for waivers that permit NOX monitoring to be suitable for collecting long-term lead trends 4. Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for substituted for the required NOy monitoring data for the broader area. SLAMS Sites at applicable NCore sites. (d) Siting criteria are provided for urban 4.1 Ozone (O3) Design Criteria. (a) State, (2) EPA recognizes that, in some cases, the and rural locations. Sites with significant and where appropriate, local agencies must physical location of the NCore site may not historical records that do not meet siting operate O3 sites for various locations be suitable for representative meteorological criteria may be approved as NCore by the depending upon area size (in terms of measurements due to the site’s physical Administrator. Sites with the suite of NCore population and geographic characteristics) surroundings. It is also possible that nearby measurements that are explicitly designed for and typical peak concentrations (expressed meteorological measurements may be able to other monitoring objectives are exempt from in percentages below, or near the O3 fulfill this data need. In these cases, the NAAQS). Specific SLAMS O site minimum these siting criteria (e.g., a near-roadway 3 requirement for meteorological monitoring requirements are included in Table D–2 of can be waived by the Administrator. site). this appendix. The NCore sites are expected (1) Urban NCore stations are to be generally (c) In addition to the continuous to complement the O3 data collection that measurements listed above, 10 of the NCore located at urban or neighborhood scale to takes place at single-pollutant SLAMS sites, locations must also measure lead (Pb) either provide representative concentrations of and both types of sites can be used to meet at the same sites or elsewhere within the exposure expected throughout the the network minimum requirements. The MSA/CSA boundary. These ten Pb sites are metropolitan area; however, a middle-scale total number of O3 sites needed to support included within the NCore networks because site may be acceptable in cases where the site the basic monitoring objectives of public data they are intended to be long-term in can represent many such locations reporting, air quality mapping, compliance, operation, and not impacted directly from a throughout a metropolitan area. and understanding O3-related atmospheric single Pb source. These locations for Pb (2) Rural NCore stations are to be located processes will include more sites than these monitoring must be located in the most minimum numbers required in Table D–2 of to the maximum extent practicable at a populated MSA/CSA in each of the 10 EPA this appendix. The EPA Regional regional or larger scale away from any large Regions. Alternatively, it is also acceptable to Administrator and the responsible State or use the Pb concentration data provided at local emission source, so that they represent local air monitoring agency must work urban air toxics sites. In approving any ambient concentrations over an extensive together to design and/or maintain the most substitutions, the Administrator must area. appropriate O3 network to service the variety consider whether these alternative sites are of data needs in an area.

TABLE D–2 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58.— SLAMS MINIMUM O3 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Most recent 3- Most recent 3- year design value year design value MSA population1, 2 concentrations concentrations ≥85% of any O3 <85% of any O3 NAAQS 3 NAAQS3, 4

>10 million ...... 4 2 4–10 million ...... 3 1 350,000–<4 million ...... 2 1 50,000–<350,000 5 ...... 1 0 1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). 2 Population based on latest available census figures. 3 The ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50. 4 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value. 5 Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population.

(b) Within an O3 network, at least one O3 over large volumes of air, and this reduces concentrations downwind of the area having site for each MSA, or CSA if multiple MSAs the importance of monitoring small scale the highest precursor emissions. are involved, must be designed to record the spatial variability. (3) Regional scale—This scale of maximum concentration for that particular (1) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in measurement will be used to typify metropolitan area. More than one maximum this category represent conditions throughout concentrations over large portions of a concentration site may be necessary in some some reasonably homogeneous urban sub- metropolitan area and even larger areas with areas. Table D–2 of this appendix does not region, with dimensions of a few kilometers. dimensions of as much as hundreds of account for the full breadth of additional Homogeneity refers to pollutant kilometers. Such measurements will be factors that would be considered in designing concentrations. Neighborhood scale data will useful for assessing the O3 that is transported a complete O3 monitoring program for an provide valuable information for developing, to and from a metropolitan area, as well as area. Some of these additional factors include testing, and revising concepts and models background concentrations. In some geographic size, population density, that describe urban/regional concentration situations, particularly when considering complexity of terrain and meteorology, patterns. These data will be useful to the very large metropolitan areas with complex adjacent O3 monitoring programs, air understanding and definition of processes source mixtures, regional scale sites can be pollution transport from neighboring areas, that take periods of hours to occur and hence the maximum concentration location. and measured air quality in comparison to all involve considerable mixing and transport. (d) EPA’s technical guidance documents on forms of the O3 NAAQS (i.e., 8-hour and 1- Under stagnation conditions, a site located in O3 monitoring network design should be hour forms). Networks must be designed to the neighborhood scale may also experience used to evaluate the adequacy of each account for all of these area characteristics. peak concentration levels within a existing O3 monitor, to relocate an existing Network designs must be re-examined in metropolitan area. site, or to locate any new O3 sites. periodic network assessments. Deviations (2) Urban scale—Measurement in this scale (e) For locating a neighborhood scale site from the above O3 requirements are allowed will be used to estimate concentrations over to measure typical city concentrations, a if approved by the EPA Regional large portions of an urban area with reasonably homogeneous geographical area Administrator. dimensions of several kilometers to 50 or near the center of the region should be (c) The appropriate spatial scales for O3 more kilometers. Such measurements will be selected which is also removed from the sites are neighborhood, urban, and regional. used for determining trends, and designing influence of major NOX sources. For an urban Since O3 requires appreciable formation time, area-wide control strategies. The urban scale scale site to measure the high concentration the mixing of reactants and products occurs sites would also be used to measure high areas, the emission inventories should be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61319

used to define the extent of the area of TABLE D–3 TO APPENDIX D OF PART existing SLAMS CO sites using FRM or FEM important nonmethane hydrocarbons and 58. OZONE MONITORING SEASON BY is required until discontinuation is approved by the EPA Regional Administrator. Where NOX emissions. The meteorological STATE conditions that occur during periods of SLAMS CO monitoring is ongoing, at least maximum photochemical activity should be one site must be a maximum concentration Begin site for that area under investigation. determined. These periods can be identified State End month month (b) Microscale and middle scale by examining the meteorological conditions measurements are useful site classifications that occur on the highest O3 air quality days. Alabama ...... March ...... October for SLAMS sites since most people have the Trajectory analyses, an evaluation of wind Alaska ...... April ...... October potential for exposure on these scales. Arizona ...... January .... December and emission patterns on high O3 days, can Carbon monoxide maxima occur primarily in Arkansas ...... March ...... November also be useful in evaluating an O monitoring areas near major roadways and intersections 3 California ...... January .... December with high traffic density and often poor network. In areas without any previous O3 air Colorado ...... March ...... September atmospheric ventilation. quality measurements, meteorological and O3 Connecticut ...... April ...... September (1) Microscale—This scale applies when air precursor emissions information would be Delaware ...... April ...... October quality measurements are to be used to useful. District of Colum- April ...... October represent distributions within street canyons, (f) Once the meteorological and air quality bia. over sidewalks, and near major roadways. In Florida ...... March ...... October data are reviewed, the prospective maximum the case with carbon monoxide, microscale Georgia ...... March ...... October concentration monitor site should be selected measurements in one location can often be Hawaii ...... January .... December in a direction from the city that is most likely considered as representative of other similar Idaho ...... May ...... September to observe the highest O concentrations, 3 Illinois ...... April ...... October locations in a city. more specifically, downwind during periods Indiana ...... April ...... September (2) Middle scale—Middle scale of photochemical activity. In many cases, Iowa ...... April ...... October measurements are intended to represent areas these maximum concentration O3 sites will Kansas ...... April ...... October with dimensions from 100 meters to 0.5 be located 10 to 30 miles or more downwind Kentucky ...... March ...... October kilometer. In certain cases, middle scale measurements may apply to areas that have from the urban area where maximum O3 Louisiana AQCR March ...... October precursor emissions originate. The 019,022. a total length of several kilometers, such as ‘‘line’’ emission source areas. This type of downwind direction and appropriate Louisiana AQCR January .... December 106. emission sources areas would include air distance should be determined from quality along a commercially developed historical meteorological data collected on Maine ...... April ...... September Maryland ...... April ...... October street or shopping plaza, freeway corridors, days which show the potential for producing Massachusetts .... April ...... September parking lots and feeder streets. high O3 levels. Monitoring agencies are to Michigan ...... April ...... September (c) After the spatial scale and type of site consult with their EPA Regional Office when Minnesota ...... April ...... October has been determined to meet the monitoring considering siting a maximum O3 Mississippi ...... March ...... October objective for each location, the technical concentration site. Missouri ...... April ...... October guidance in reference 2 of this appendix (g) In locating a neighborhood scale site Montana ...... June ...... September should be used to evaluate the adequacy of which is to measure high concentrations, the Nebraska ...... April ...... October each existing CO site and must be used to same procedures used for the urban scale are Nevada ...... January .... December relocate an existing site or to locate any new sites. followed except that the site should be New Hampshire ... April ...... September 4.3 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO ) Design located closer to the areas bordering on the New Jersey ...... April ...... October 2 New Mexico ...... January .... December Criteria. (a) There are no minimum center city or slightly further downwind in New York ...... April ...... October requirements for the number of NO2 an area of high density population. North Carolina ..... April ...... October monitoring sites. Continued operation of (h) For regional scale background North Dakota ...... May ...... September existing SLAMS NO2 sites using FRM or FEM monitoring sites, similar meteorological Ohio ...... April ...... October is required until discontinuation is approved analysis as for the maximum concentration Oklahoma ...... March ...... November by the EPA Regional Administrator. Where sites may also inform the decisions for Oregon ...... May ...... September SLAMS NO2 monitoring is ongoing, at least locating regional scale sites. Regional scale Pennsylvania ...... April ...... October one NO2 site in the area must be located to measure the maximum concentration of NO2. sites may be located to provide data on O3 Puerto Rico ...... January .... December transport between cities, as background sites, Rhode Island ...... April ...... September (b) NO/NOy measurements are included within the NCore multipollutant site or for other data collection purposes. South Carolina .... April ...... October South Dakota ...... June ...... September requirements and the PAMS program. These Consideration of both area characteristics, Tennessee ...... March ...... October NO/NOy measurements will produce such as meteorology, and the data collection Texas AQCR January .... December conservative estimates for NO2 that can be objectives, such as transport, must be jointly 106,153, 213, used to ensure tracking continued considered for a regional scale site to be 214, 216. compliance with the NO2 NAAQS. NO/NOy useful. Texas AQCR 022, March ...... October monitors are used at these sites because it is (i) Since O3 levels decrease significantly in 210, 211, 212, important to collect data on total reactive the colder parts of the year in many areas, O3 215, 217, 218. nitrogen species for understanding O3 is required to be monitored at SLAMS Utah ...... May ...... September photochemistry. monitoring sites only during the ‘‘ozone Vermont ...... April ...... September 4.4 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria. season’’ as designated in the AQS files on a Virginia ...... April ...... October (a) There are no minimum requirements for Washington ...... May ...... September the number of SO monitoring sites. State-by-State basis and described below in 2 West Virginia ...... April ...... October Continued operation of existing SLAMS SO Table D–3 of this appendix. Deviations from 2 Wisconsin ...... April 15 ..... October 15 sites using FRM or FEM is required until the O3 monitoring season must be approved Wyoming ...... April ...... October discontinuation is approved by the EPA by the EPA Regional Administrator, American Samoa January .... December Regional Administrator. Where SLAMS SO2 documented within the annual monitoring Guam ...... January .... December monitoring is ongoing, at least one of the network plan, and updated in AQS. Virgin Islands ...... January .... December SLAMS SO2 sites must be a maximum Information on how to analyze O3 data to concentration site for that specific area. support a change to the O3 season in support 4.2 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design (b) The appropriate spatial scales for SO2 of the 8-hour standard for a specific State can Criteria. (a) There are no minimum SLAMS monitoring are the microscale, be found in reference 8 to this appendix. requirements for the number of CO middle, and possibly neighborhood scales. monitoring sites. Continued operation of The multi-pollutant NCore sites can provide

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

for metropolitan area trends analyses and exceeded the Pb NAAQS in the most recent children to exposures of elevated Pb general control strategy progress tracking. 2 years, and at least one of these two required concentrations (reference 3 of this appendix). Other SLAMS sites are expected to provide sites must be a maximum concentration site. Emissions from point sources frequently data that are useful in specific compliance Where the Pb air quality violations are impact on areas at which single sites may be actions, for maintenance plan agreements, or widespread or the emissions density, located to measure concentrations for measuring near specific stationary sources topography, or population locations are representing middle spatial scales. of SO2. complex and varied, the EPA Regional (3) Neighborhood scale—The (1) Micro and middle scale—Some data Administrator may require more than two Pb neighborhood scale would characterize air uses associated with microscale and middle ambient air monitoring sites. quality conditions throughout some scale measurements for SO2 include (b) The most important spatial scales to assessing the effects of control strategies to effectively characterize the emissions from relatively uniform land use areas with reduce concentrations (especially for the 3- point sources are the micro, middle, and dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometer range. hour and 24-hour averaging times) and neighborhood scales. Sites of this scale would provide monitoring monitoring air pollution episodes. (1) Microscale—This scale would typify data in areas representing conditions where (2) Neighborhood scale—This scale applies areas in close proximity to lead point children live and play. Monitoring in such where there is a need to collect air quality sources. Emissions from point sources such areas is important since this segment of the data as part of an ongoing SO2 stationary as primary and secondary lead smelters, and population is more susceptible to the effects source impact investigation. Typical primary copper smelters may under of Pb. Where a neighborhood site is located locations might include suburban areas fumigation conditions likewise result in high away from immediate Pb sources, the site adjacent to SO2 stationary sources for ground level concentrations at the may be very useful in representing typical air example, or for determining background microscale. In the latter case, the microscale quality values for a larger residential area, concentrations as part of these studies of would represent an area impacted by the and therefore suitable for population population responses to exposure to SO2. plume with dimensions extending up to exposure and trends analyses. (c) Technical guidance in reference 1 of approximately 100 meters. Data collected at (c) Technical guidance is found in this appendix should be used to evaluate the microscale sites provide information for references 4 and 5 of this appendix. These adequacy of each existing SO2 site, to evaluating and developing ‘‘hot-spot’’ control relocate an existing site, or to locate new measures. documents provide additional guidance on sites. (2) Middle scale—This scale generally locating sites to meet specific urban area 4.5 Lead (Pb) Design Criteria. (a) State, represents Pb air quality levels in areas up to monitoring objectives and should be used in and where appropriate, local agencies are several city blocks in size with dimensions locating new sites or evaluating the adequacy required to conduct Pb monitoring for all on the order of approximately 100 meters to of existing sites. areas where Pb levels have been shown or are 500 meters. The middle scale may for 4.6 Particulate Matter (PM10) Design expected to be of concern over the most example, include schools and playgrounds in Criteria. (a) State, and where applicable local, recent 2 years. As a minimum, there must be center city areas which are close to major Pb agencies must operate the minimum number two SLAMS sites in any area where Pb point sources. Pb monitors in such areas are of required PM10 SLAMS sites listed in Table concentrations currently exceed or have desirable because of the higher sensitivity of D–4 of this appendix.

TABLE D–4 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58. PM10 MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (NUMBER OF STATIONS PER MSA) 1

Population category High concentra- Medium con- Low concentra- tion 2 centration 3 tion 4,5

>1,000,000 ...... 6–10 4–8 2–4 500,000–1,000,000 ...... 4–8 2–4 1–2 250,000–500,000 ...... 3–4 1–2 0–1 100,000–250,000 ...... 1–2 0–1 0 1 Selection of urban areas and actual numbers of stations per area within the ranges shown in this table will be jointly determined by EPA and the State Agency. 2 High concentration areas are those for which ambient PM10 data show ambient concentrations exceeding the PM10 NAAQS by 20 percent or more. 3 Medium concentration areas are those for which ambient PM10 data show ambient concentrations exceeding 80 percent of the PM10 NAAQS. 4 Low concentration areas are those for which ambient PM10 data show ambient concentrations less than 80 percent of the PM10 NAAQS. 5 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value.

(b) Although microscale monitoring may be plume conditions, likewise result in high evaluation of possible short-term exposure appropriate in some circumstances, the most ground level concentrations at the public health effects. In many situations, important spatial scales to effectively microscale. In the latter case, the microscale monitoring sites that are representative of characterize the emissions of PM10 from both would represent an area impacted by the micro-scale or middle-scale impacts are not mobile and stationary sources are the middle plume with dimensions extending up to unique and are representative of many scales and neighborhood scales. approximately 100 meters. Data collected at similar situations. This can occur along (1) Microscale—This scale would typify microscale sites provide information for traffic corridors or other locations in a areas such as downtown street canyons, evaluating and developing hot spot control residential district. In this case, one location traffic corridors, and fence line stationary measures. is representative of a neighborhood of small source monitoring locations where the (2) Middle scale—Much of the short-term scale sites and is appropriate for evaluation general public could be exposed to maximum public exposure to coarse fraction particles of long-term or chronic effects. This scale PM10 concentrations. Microscale particulate (PM10) is on this scale and on the also includes the characteristic matter sites should be located near inhabited neighborhood scale. People moving through concentrations for other areas with buildings or locations where the general downtown areas or living near major dimensions of a few hundred meters such as public can be expected to be exposed to the roadways or stationary sources, may the parking lot and feeder streets associated concentration measured. Emissions from encounter particulate pollution that would be with shopping centers, stadia, and office stationary sources such as primary and adequately characterized by measurements of buildings. In the case of PM10, unpaved or secondary smelters, power plants, and other this spatial scale. Middle scale PM10 seldomly swept parking lots associated with large industrial processes may, under certain measurements can be appropriate for the these sources could be an important source

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61321

in addition to the vehicular emissions Neighborhood scale PM10 sites provide 4.7 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Design themselves. information about trends and compliance Criteria. (3) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in with standards because they often represent 4.7.1 General Requirements. (a) State, and this category represent conditions throughout conditions in areas where people commonly where applicable local, agencies must some reasonably homogeneous urban sub- live and work for extended periods. operate the minimum number of required region with dimensions of a few kilometers Neighborhood scale data could provide PM SLAMS sites listed in Table D–5 of this and of generally more regular shape than the 2.5 valuable information for developing, testing, appendix. The NCore sites are expected to middle scale. Homogeneity refers to the particulate matter concentrations, as well as and revising models that describe the larger- complement the PM2.5 data collection that the land use and land surface characteristics. scale concentration patterns, especially those takes place at non-NCore SLAMS sites, and In some cases, a location carefully chosen to models relying on spatially smoothed both types of sites can be used to meet the provide neighborhood scale data would emission fields for inputs. The neighborhood minimum PM2.5 network requirements. represent not only the immediate scale measurements could also be used for Deviations from these PM2.5 monitoring neighborhood but also neighborhoods of the neighborhood comparisons within or requirements must be approved by the EPA same type in other parts of the city. between cities. Regional Administrator.

TABLE D–5 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58. PM2.5 MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Most recent 3- Most recent 3- 1,2 year design value year design value MSA population ≥85% of any <85% of any 3 3, 4 PM2.5 NAAQS PM2.5 NAAQS

>1,000,000 ...... 3 2 500,000–1,000,000 ...... 2 1 50,000–<500,000 5 ...... 1 0 1 Minimum monitoring requirements apply to the Metropolitan statistical area (MSA). 2 Population based on latest available census figures. 3 The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) levels and forms are defined in 40 CFR part 50. 4 These minimum monitoring requirements apply in the absence of a design value. 5 Metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) must contain an urbanized area of 50,000 or more population.

(b) Specific Design Criteria for PM2.5. The human exposure and of many such (3) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in required monitoring stations or sites must be microenvironments in the area. In general, this category would represent conditions sited to represent community-wide air microscale particulate matter sites should be throughout some reasonably homogeneous quality. These sites can include sites located near inhabited buildings or locations urban sub-region with dimensions of a few collocated at PAMS. These monitoring where the general public can be expected to kilometers and of generally more regular stations will typically be at neighborhood or be exposed to the concentration measured. shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity urban-scale; however, in certain instances Emissions from stationary sources such as refers to the particulate matter where population-oriented micro-or middle- primary and secondary smelters, power concentrations, as well as the land use and scale PM2.5 monitoring are determined by the plants, and other large industrial processes land surface characteristics. Much of the Regional Administrator to represent many may, under certain plume conditions, PM2.5 exposures are expected to be associated such locations throughout a metropolitan likewise result in high ground level with this scale of measurement. In some area, these smaller scales can be considered concentrations at the microscale. In the latter cases, a location carefully chosen to provide to represent community-wide air quality. case, the microscale would represent an area neighborhood scale data would represent the (1) At least one monitoring station is to be impacted by the plume with dimensions immediate neighborhood as well as sited in a population-oriented area of neighborhoods of the same type in other extending up to approximately 100 meters. expected maximum concentration. parts of the city. PM sites of this kind Data collected at microscale sites provide 2.5 (2) For areas with more than one required provide good information about trends and SLAMS, a monitoring station is to be sited in information for evaluating and developing compliance with standards because they an area of poor air quality. hot spot control measures. Unless these sites often represent conditions in areas where (3) Additional technical guidance for siting are indicative of population-oriented people commonly live and work for periods monitoring, they may be more appropriately PM2.5 monitors is provided in references 6 comparable to those specified in the NAAQS. classified as SPM. and 7 of this appendix. In general, most PM2.5 monitoring in urban (c) The most important spatial scale to (2) Middle scale—People moving through areas should have this scale. effectively characterize the emissions of downtown areas, or living near major (4) Urban scale—This class of particulate matter from both mobile and roadways, encounter particle concentrations measurement would be used to characterize stationary sources is the neighborhood scale that would be adequately characterized by the particulate matter concentration over an for PM2.5. For purposes of establishing this spatial scale. Thus, measurements of this entire metropolitan or rural area ranging in monitoring sites to represent large type would be appropriate for the evaluation size from 4 to 50 kilometers. Such homogenous areas other than the above of possible short-term exposure public health measurements would be useful for assessing scales of representativeness and to effects of particulate matter pollution. In trends in area-wide air quality, and hence, characterize regional transport, urban or many situations, monitoring sites that are the effectiveness of large scale air pollution regional scale sites would also be needed. representative of microscale or middle-scale control strategies. Community-oriented PM2.5 Most PM2.5 monitoring in urban areas should impacts are not unique and are representative sites may have this scale. be representative of a neighborhood scale. of many similar situations. This can occur (5) Regional scale—These measurements (1) Microscale—This scale would typify along traffic corridors or other locations in a would characterize conditions over areas areas such as downtown street canyons and residential district. In this case, one location with dimensions of as much as hundreds of traffic corridors where the general public is representative of a number of small scale kilometers. As noted earlier, using would be exposed to maximum sites and is appropriate for evaluation of representative conditions for an area implies concentrations from mobile sources. In some long-term or chronic effects. This scale also some degree of homogeneity in that area. For circumstances, the microscale is appropriate includes the characteristic concentrations for this reason, regional scale measurements for particulate sites; community-oriented other areas with dimensions of a few would be most applicable to sparsely SLAMS sites measured at the microscale hundred meters such as the parking lot and populated areas. Data characteristics of this level should, however, be limited to urban feeder streets associated with shopping scale would provide information about larger sites that are representative of long-term centers, stadia, and office buildings. scale processes of particulate matter

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61322 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

emissions, losses and transport. PM2.5 design when they intend to spatially average shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity transport contributes to elevated particulate the data for compliance purposes. These refers to the particulate matter concentrations and may affect multiple urban State and local air monitoring agencies must concentrations, as well as the land use and and State entities with large populations define the area over which they intend to land surface characteristics. This category such as in the eastern United States. average PM2.5 air quality concentrations. This includes suburban neighborhoods dominated Development of effective pollution control area is defined as a Community Monitoring by residences that are somewhat distant from strategies requires an understanding at Zone (CMZ), which characterizes an area of major roadways and industrial districts but regional geographical scales of the emission relatively similar annual average air quality. still impacted by urban sources, and areas of sources and atmospheric processes that are State and local agencies can define a CMZ in diverse land use where residences are responsible for elevated PM2.5 levels and may a number of ways, including as part or all of interspersed with commercial and industrial also be associated with elevated O3 and a metropolitan area. These CMZ must be neighborhoods. In some cases, a location regional haze. defined within a State or local agencies carefully chosen to provide neighborhood 4.7.2 Requirement for Continuous PM2.5 network description, as required in § 58.10 of scale data would represent the immediate Monitoring. State, or where appropriate, local this part and approved by the EPA Regional neighborhood as well as neighborhoods of agencies must operate continuous fine Administrator. When more than one CMZ is the same type in other parts of the city. The particulate analyzers equal to at least one- described within an agency’s network design comparison of data from middle scale and half (round up) the minimum required sites plan, CMZs must not overlap in their neighborhood scale sites would provide listed in Table D–5 of this appendix. At least geographical coverage. The criteria that must valuable information for determining the one required FRM/FEM monitor in each be used for evaluating the acceptability of variation of PM10–2.5 levels across urban areas MSA must be collocated. State and local air spatial averaging are defined in appendix N and assessing the spatial extent of elevated monitoring agencies must use methodologies to 40 CFR part 50. concentrations caused by major industrial and quality assurance/quality control(QA/ 4.8 Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10¥2.5) point sources and heavily traveled roadways. QC) procedures approved by the EPA Design Criteria. Neighborhood scale sites would provide Regional Administrator for these sites. 4.8.1 General Monitoring Requirements. concentration data that are relevant to 4.7.3 Requirement for PM2.5 Background (a) The only required monitors for PM10¥2.5 informing a large segment of the population and Transport Sites. Each State shall install are those required at NCore Stations. of their exposure levels on a given day. and operate at least one PM2.5 site to monitor (b) Although microscale monitoring may be 4.8.2 PM10–2.5 Chemical Speciation Site for regional background and at least one appropriate in some circumstances, middle Requirements. PM10–2.5 chemical speciation PM2.5 site to monitor regional transport. and neighborhood scale measurements are monitoring and analyses is required at NCore These monitoring sites may be at community- the most important station classifications for sites. The selection and modification of these oriented sites and this requirement may be PM10¥2.5 to assess the variation in coarse sites must be approved by the Administrator. satisfied by a corresponding monitor in an particle concentrations that would be Samples must be collected using the area having similar air quality in another expected across populated areas that are in monitoring methods and the sampling State. State and local air monitoring agencies proximity to large emissions sources. schedules approved by the Administrator. must use methodologies and QA/QC (1) Microscale—This scale would typify procedures approved by the EPA Regional relatively small areas immediately adjacent 5. Network Design for Photochemical Administrator for these sites. Methods used to: Industrial sources; locations experiencing Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) at these sites may include non-federal ongoing construction, redevelopment, and The PAMS program provides more reference method samplers such as IMPROVE soil disturbance; and heavily traveled comprehensive data on O3 air pollution in or continuous PM2.5 monitors. roadways. Data collected at microscale areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme 4.7.4 PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Site stations would characterize exposure over nonattainment for O3 than would otherwise Requirements. Each State shall continue to areas of limited spatial extent and population be achieved through the NCore and SLAMS conduct chemical speciation monitoring and exposure, and may provide information sites. More specifically, the PAMS program analyses at sites designated to be part of the useful for evaluating and developing source- includes measurements for O3, oxides of PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN). The oriented control measures. nitrogen, VOC, and meteorology. selection and modification of these STN sites (2) Middle scale—People living or working 5.1 PAMS Monitoring Objectives. PAMS must be approved by the Administrator. The near major roadways or industrial districts design criteria are site specific. Concurrent PM2.5 chemical speciation urban trends sites encounter particle concentrations that would measurements of O3, oxides of nitrogen, shall include analysis for elements, selected be adequately characterized by this spatial speciated VOC, CO, and meteorology are anions and cations, and carbon. Samples scale. Thus, measurements of this type would obtained at PAMS sites. Design criteria for must be collected using the monitoring be appropriate for the evaluation of public the PAMS network are based on locations methods and the sampling schedules health effects of coarse particle exposure. relative to O3 precursor source areas and approved by the Administrator. Chemical Monitors located in populated areas that are predominant wind directions associated with speciation is encouraged at additional sites nearly adjacent to large industrial point high O3 events. Specific monitoring where the chemically resolved data would be sources of coarse particles provide suitable objectives are associated with each location. useful in developing State implementation locations for assessing maximum population The overall design should enable plans and supporting atmospheric or health exposure levels and identifying areas of characterization of precursor emission effects related studies. potentially poor air quality. Similarly, sources within the area, transport of O3 and 4.7.5 Special Network Considerations monitors located in populated areas that its precursors, and the photochemical Required When Using PM2.5 Spatial border dense networks of heavily-traveled processes related to O3 nonattainment. Averaging Approaches. (a) The PM2.5 traffic are appropriate for assessing the Specific objectives that must be addressed NAAQS, specified in 40 CFR part 50, impacts of resuspended road dust. This scale include assessing ambient trends in O3, provides State and local air monitoring also includes the characteristic oxides of nitrogen, VOC species, and agencies with an option for spatially concentrations for other areas with determining spatial and diurnal variability of averaging PM2.5 air quality data. More dimensions of a few hundred meters such as O3, oxides of nitrogen, and VOC species. specifically, two or more community- school grounds and parks that are nearly Specific monitoring objectives associated oriented (i.e., sites in populated areas) PM2.5 adjacent to major roadways and industrial with each of these sites may result in four monitors may be averaged for comparison point sources, locations exhibiting mixed distinct site types. Detailed guidance for the with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This residential and commercial development, locating of these sites may be found in averaging approach is directly related to and downtown areas featuring office reference 9 of this appendix. epidemiological studies used as the basis for buildings, shopping centers, and stadiums. (a) Type 1 sites are established to the PM2.5 annual NAAQS. Spatial averaging (3) Neighborhood scale—Measurements in characterize upwind background and does not apply to comparisons with the daily this category would represent conditions transported O3 and its precursor PM2.5 NAAQS. throughout some reasonably homogeneous concentrations entering the area and will (b) State and local agencies must carefully urban sub-region with dimensions of a few identify those areas which are subjected to consider their approach for PM2.5 network kilometers and of generally more regular transport.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61323

(b) Type 2 sites are established to monitor area and will identify those areas which are 5.3 Minimum Monitoring Network the magnitude and type of precursor potentially contributing to overwhelming Requirements. A Type 2 site is required for emissions in the area where maximum transport in other areas. each area. Overall, only two sites are required precursor emissions are expected to impact 5.2 Monitoring Period. PAMS precursor for each area, providing all chemical and are suited for the monitoring of urban air monitoring must be conducted annually measurements are made. For example, if a design includes two Type 2 sites, then a third toxic pollutants. throughout the months of June, July and (c) Type 3 sites are intended to monitor site will be necessary to capture the NOy August (as a minimum) when peak O3 values maximum O3 concentrations occurring measurement. The minimum required downwind from the area of maximum are expected in each area. Alternate number and type of monitoring sites and precursor emissions. precursor monitoring periods may be sampling requirements are listed in Table D– (d) Type 4 sites are established to submitted for approval to the Administrator 6 of this appendix. Any alternative plans may characterize the downwind transported O3 as a part of the annual monitoring network be put in place in lieu of these requirements, and its precursor concentrations exiting the plan required by § 58.10. if approved by the Administrator.

TABLE D–6 OF APPENDIX D TO PART 58. MINIMUM REQUIRED PAMS MONITORING LOCATIONS AND FREQUENCIES

Measurement Where required Sampling frequency (all daily except for upper air meteor- ology) 1

Speciated VOC2 Two sites per area, one of which must be a Type 2 site ...... During the PAMS monitoring period: (1) Hourly auto GC, or (2) Eight 3-hour canisters, or (3) 1 morning and 1 after- noon canister with a 3-hour or less averaging time plus Continuous Total Non-methane Hydrocarbon measure- ment. Carbonyl sam- Type 2 site in areas classified as serious or above for the 8- 3-hour samples every day during the PAMS monitoring pe- pling. hour ozone standard. riod. 3 NOX ...... All Type 2 sites ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. NOy ...... One site per area at the Type 3 or Type 1 site ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. CO (ppb level) ... One site per area at a Type 2 site ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. Ozone ...... All sites ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. Surface met ...... All sites ...... Hourly during the ozone monitoring season. Upper air mete- One representative location within PAMS area ...... Sampling frequency must be approved as part of the annual orology. monitoring network plan required in 40 CFR 58.10. 1 Daily or with an approved alternative plan. 2 Speciated VOC is defined in the ‘‘Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors’’, EPA/600–R–98/161, September 1998. 3 Approved ozone monitoring season as stipulated in Table D–3 of this appendix.

5.4 Transition Period. A transition period 3. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of 9. Photochemical Assessment Monitoring is allowed for phasing in the operation of Research and Development, U.S. Stations Implementation Manual. Office of newly required PAMS programs (due Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. generally to reclassification of an area into Washington D.C. EPA Publication No. 600/8– Environmental Protection Agency, Research serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment for 89–049F. August 1990. (NTIS document Triangle Park, NC. EPA–454/B–93–051. ozone). Following the date of redesignation numbers PB87–142378 and PB91–138420.) March 1994. or reclassification of any existing O3 4. Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for Lead 37. Appendix E to part 58 is revised to nonattainment area to serious, severe, or Monitoring. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. read as follows: extreme, or the designation of a new area and Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. classification to serious, severe, or extreme Environmental Protection Agency, Research Appendix E to Part 58—Probe and O3 nonattainment, a State is allowed 1 year Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 68–02– Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for to develop plans for its PAMS 3013. May 1981. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring implementation strategy. Subsequently, a 5. Guidance for Conducting Ambient Air minimum of one Type 2 site must be Monitoring for Lead Around Point Sources. 1. Introduction. operating by the first month of the following Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement. approved PAMS season. Operation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 3. Spacing from Minor Sources. remaining site(s) must, at a minimum, be Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA–454/R–92– 4. Spacing From Obstructions. phased in at the rate of one site per year 5. Spacing From Trees. 009. May 1997. during subsequent years as outlined in the 6. Spacing From Roadways. 6. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum approved PAMS network description 7. Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria provided by the State. Path. for Particulate Matter. GEOMET 8. Maximum Monitoring Path Length. 6. References Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared 9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample 1. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Residence Time. Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract 10. Waiver Provisions. The Center for the Environment and Man, No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–87–009. May 11. Summary. Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. 1987. 12. References. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 7. Watson et al. Guidance for Network Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Design and Optimum Site Exposure for PM2.5 1. Introduction 450/3–77–013. April 1977. and PM10. Prepared for U.S. Environmental (a) This appendix contains specific 2. Ludwig, F.F., J.H.S. Kealoha, and E. Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, location criteria applicable to SLAMS, Shelar. Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide NC. EPA–454/R–99–022, December 1997. NCore, and PAMS ambient air quality Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, 8. Guideline for Selecting and Modifying monitoring probes, inlets, and optical paths Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. the Ozone Monitoring Season Based on an 8- after the general location has been selected Environmental Protection Agency, Research Hour Ozone Standard. Prepared for U.S. based on the monitoring objectives and Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC. spatial scale of representation discussed in 450/3–75–077, September 1975. EPA–454/R–98–001, June 1998. appendix D to this part. Adherence to these

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

siting criteria is necessary to ensure the neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency path analyzer’s light transmission. If certain uniform collection of compatible and should avoid placing a monitor probe, path, compensating measures are not otherwise comparable air quality data. or inlet near local, minor sources. The plume implemented at the onset of monitoring (e.g., (b) The probe and monitoring path siting from the local minor sources should not be shorter path lengths, higher light source criteria discussed in this appendix must be allowed to inappropriately impact the air intensity), data recovery during periods of followed to the maximum extent possible. It quality data collected at a site. Particulate greatest primary pollutant potential could be is recognized that there may be situations matter sites should not be located in an compromised. For instance, if heavy fog or where some deviation from the siting criteria unpaved area unless there is vegetative high particulate levels are coincident with may be necessary. In any such case, the ground cover year round, so that the impact periods of projected NAAQS-threatening reasons must be thoroughly documented in a of wind blown dusts will be kept to a pollutant potential, the representativeness of written request for a waiver that describes minimum. the resulting data record in reflecting how and why the proposed siting deviates (b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide maximum pollutant concentrations may be from the criteria. This documentation should (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can substantially impaired despite the fact that help to avoid later questions about the have a scavenging effect causing the site may otherwise exhibit an acceptable, validity of the resulting monitoring data. unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 even exceedingly high overall valid data Conditions under which the EPA would in the vicinity of probes and monitoring capture rate. consider an application for waiver from these paths for O3. To minimize these potential 5. Spacing From Trees siting criteria are discussed in section 10 of interferences, the probe or at least 90 percent this appendix. of the monitoring path must be away from (a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, (c) The pollutant-specific probe and furnace or incineration flues or other minor or NO2 adsorption or reactions, and surfaces monitoring path siting criteria generally sources of SO2 or NO. The separation for particle deposition. Trees can also act as apply to all spatial scales except where noted distance should take into account the heights obstructions in cases where they are located otherwise. Specific siting criteria that are of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and between the air pollutant sources or source phrased with a ‘‘must’’ are defined as the sulfur content of the fuel. areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf requirements and exceptions must be 4. Spacing From Obstructions approved through the waiver provisions. canopy density to interfere with the normal However, siting criteria that are phrased with (a) Buildings and other obstacles may airflow around the probe, inlet, or monitoring a ‘‘should’’ are defined as goals to meet for possibly scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can path. To reduce this possible interference/ consistency but are not requirements. act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To obstruction, the probe, inlet, or at least 90 avoid this interference, the probe, inlet, or at percent of the monitoring path must be at 2. Horizontal and Vertical Placement least 90 percent of the monitoring path must least 10 meters or further from the drip line The probe or at least 80 percent of the have unrestricted airflow and be located of trees. monitoring path must be located between 2 away from obstacles. The distance from the (b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater and 15 meters above ground level for all obstacle to the probe, inlet, or monitoring for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. ozone, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide path must be at least twice the height that the Monitoring agencies must take steps to monitoring sites, and for neighborhood scale obstacle protrudes above the probe, inlet, or consider the impact of trees on ozone Pb, PM10, PM10–2.5, PM2.5, and carbon monitoring path. An exception to this monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this monoxide sites. Middle scale PM10–2.5 sites requirement can be made for measurements problem. are required to have sampler inlets between taken in street canyons or at source-oriented (c) For microscale sites of any air pollutant, 2 and 7 meters above ground level. sites where buildings and other structures are no trees or shrubs should be located between Microscale Pb, PM10, PM10–2.5 and PM2.5 sites unavoidable. the probe and the source under investigation, are required to have sampler inlets between (b) Generally, a probe or monitoring path such as a roadway or a stationary source. 2 and 7 meters above ground level. The inlet located near or along a vertical wall is probes for microscale carbon monoxide undesirable because air moving along the 6. Spacing From Roadways monitors that are being used to measure wall may be subject to possible removal 6.1 Spacing for Ozone and Oxide of concentrations near roadways must be 3±1⁄2 mechanisms. A probe, inlet, or monitoring Nitrogen Probes and Monitoring Paths. In meters above ground level. The probe or at path must have unrestricted airflow in an arc siting an O3 analyzer, it is important to least 90 percent of the monitoring path must of at least 180 degrees. This arc must include minimize destructive interferences from be at least 1 meter vertically or horizontally the predominant wind direction for the sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with away from any supporting structure, walls, season of greatest pollutant concentration O3. In siting NO2 analyzers for neighborhood parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from potential. For particle sampling, a minimum and urban scale monitoring, it is important dusty or dirty areas. If the probe or a of 2 meters of separation from walls, to minimize interferences from automotive significant portion of the monitoring path is parapets, and structures is required for sources. Table E–1 of this appendix provides located near the side of a building, then it rooftop site placement. the required minimum separation distances should be located on the windward side of (c) Special consideration must be given to between a roadway and a probe or, where the building relative to the prevailing wind the use of open path analyzers due to their applicable, at least 90 percent of a monitoring direction during the season of highest inherent potential sensitivity to certain types path for various ranges of daily roadway concentration potential for the pollutant of interferences, or optical obstructions. A traffic. A sampling site having a point being measured. monitoring path must be clear of all trees, analyzer probe located closer to a roadway brush, buildings, plumes, dust, or other than allowed by the Table E–1 requirements 3. Spacing From Minor Sources optical obstructions, including potential should be classified as middle scale rather (a) It is important to understand the obstructions that may move due to wind, than neighborhood or urban scale, since the monitoring objective for a particular location human activity, growth of vegetation, etc. measurements from such a site would more in order to interpret this particular Temporary optical obstructions, such as rain, closely represent the middle scale. If an open requirement. Local minor sources of a particles, fog, or snow, should be considered path analyzer is used at a site, the monitoring primary pollutant, such as SO2, lead, or when siting an open path analyzer. Any of path(s) must not cross over a roadway with particles, can cause high concentrations of these temporary obstructions that are of an average daily traffic count of 10,000 that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. sufficient density to obscure the light beam vehicles per day or more. For those situations If the objective for that monitoring site is to will affect the ability of the open path where a monitoring path crosses a roadway investigate these local primary pollutant analyzer to continuously measure pollutant with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, one emissions, then the site is likely to be concentrations. Transient, but significant must consider the entire segment of the properly located nearby. This type of obscuration of especially longer monitoring path in the area of potential monitoring site would in all likelihood be a measurement paths could occur as a result of atmospheric interference from automobile microscale type of monitoring site. If a certain meteorological conditions (e.g., heavy emissions. Therefore, this calculation must monitoring site is to be used to determine air fog, rain, snow) and/or aerosol levels that are include the length of the monitoring path quality over a much larger area, such as a of a sufficient density to prevent the open over the roadway plus any segments of the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61325

monitoring path that lie in the area between distance, as determined from Table E–1 of must not be greater than 10 percent of the the roadway and the minimum separation this appendix. The sum of these distances total monitoring path length.

TABLE E–1 TO APPENDIX E OF PART 58. MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN ROADWAYS AND PROBES OR MONI- TORING PATHS FOR MONITORING NEIGHBORHOOD AND URBAN SCALE OZONE (O3) AND OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NO, NO2, NOX, NOy)

Roadway aver- age daily traffic, Minimum distance 1 (meters) Minimum distance 1, 2 (meters) vehicles per day

≤1,000 ...... 10 10 10,000 ...... 10 20 15,000 ...... 20 30 20,000 ...... 30 40 40,000 ...... 50 60 70,000 ...... 100 100 ≥110,000 ...... 250 250 1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count. 2 Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been approved as of December 18, 2006.

6.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes scale, since the measurements from such a whether it be from mobile or multiple and Monitoring Paths. (a) Street canyon and site would closely represent the middle scale. stationary sources. If the area is primarily traffic corridor sites (microscale) are intended Therefore, sites not meeting this criterion affected by mobile sources and the maximum to provide a measurement of the influence of should be classified as middle scale. concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic the immediate source on the pollution corridor or street canyon location, then the exposure of the population. In order to TABLE E–2 TO APPENDIX E OF PART monitors should be located near roadways provide some reasonable consistency and 58. MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE with the highest traffic volume and at comparability in the air quality data from separation distances most likely to produce microscale sites, a minimum distance of 2 BETWEEN ROADWAYS AND PROBES meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters OR MONITORING PATHS FOR MONI- the highest concentrations. For the microscale traffic corridor site, the location from the edge of the nearest traffic lane must TORING EIGHBORHOOD CALE N S must be between 5 and 15 meters from the be maintained for these CO monitoring inlet CARBON MONOXIDE probes. This should give consistency to the major roadway. For the microscale street data, yet still allow flexibility of finding canyon site the location must be between 2 Roadway average daily traf- Minimum dis- and 10 meters from the roadway. For the suitable locations. tance 1 (me- (b) Street canyon/corridor (microscale) fic, vehicles per day ters) middle scale site, a range of acceptable inlet probes must be located at least 10 distances from the roadway is shown in meters from an intersection and preferably at ≤10,000 ...... 10 figure E–1 of this appendix. This figure also a midblock location. Midblock locations are 15,000 ...... 25 includes separation distances between a preferable to intersection locations because 20,000 ...... 45 roadway and neighborhood or larger scale intersections represent a much smaller 30,000 ...... 80 sites by default. Any site, 2 to 15 meters high, portion of downtown space than do the 40,000 ...... 115 and further back than the middle scale streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is 50,000 ...... 135 requirements will generally be neighborhood, probably also greater in street canyon/ ≥60,000 ...... 150 urban or regional scale. For example, corridors than at intersections. according to Figure E–1 of this appendix, if (c) In determining the minimum separation 1 Distance from the edge of the nearest traf- a PM sampler is primarily influenced by between a neighborhood scale monitoring fic lane. The distance for intermediate traffic roadway emissions and that sampler is set site and a specific roadway, the presumption counts should be interpolated from the table values based on the actual traffic count. is made that measurements should not be back 10 meters from a 30,000 ADT (average daily traffic) road, the site should be substantially influenced by any one roadway. 6.3 Spacing for Particulate Matter (PM2.5, classified as microscale, if the sampler height Computations were made to determine the PM10, Pb) Inlets. (a) Since emissions separation distance, and Table E–2 of this associated with the operation of motor is between 2 and 7 meters. If the sampler appendix provides the required minimum vehicles contribute to urban area particulate height is between 7 and 15 meters, the site separation distance between roadways and a matter ambient levels, spacing from roadway should be classified as middle scale. If the probe or 90 percent of a monitoring path. criteria are necessary for ensuring national sample is 20 meters from the same road, it Probes or monitoring paths that are located consistency in PM sampler siting. will be classified as middle scale; if 40 closer to roads than this criterion allows (b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot meters, neighborhood scale; and if 110 should not be classified as a neighborhood sites in areas of highest concentrations meters, an urban scale.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

7. Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Pyrex glass and Teflon have been found to of this appendix. However, some existing Path be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines sites may not meet these requirements and (This paragraph applies only to open path for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. still produce useful data for some purposes. Furthermore, the EPA25 has specified The EPA will consider a written request from analyzers.) The cumulative length or portion  of a monitoring path that is affected by minor borosilicate glass or FEP Teflon as the only the State agency to waive one or more siting sources, trees, or roadways must not exceed acceptable probe materials for delivering test criteria for some monitoring sites providing 10 percent of the total monitoring path atmospheres in the determination of that the State can adequately demonstrate the length. reference or equivalent methods. Therefore, need (purpose) for monitoring or establishing borosilicate glass, FEP Teflon or their a monitoring site at that location. 8. Maximum Monitoring Path Length equivalent must be the only material in the 10.1 For establishing a new site, a waiver (This paragraph applies only to open path sampling train (from inlet probe to the back may be granted only if both of the following analyzers.) The monitoring path length must of the analyzer) that can be in contact with criteria are met: not exceed 1 kilometer for analyzers in the ambient air sample for existing and new 10.1.1 The site can be demonstrated to be neighborhood, urban, or regional scale. For SLAMs. as representative of the monitoring area as it middle scale monitoring sites, the monitoring (b) For volatile organic compound (VOC) would be if the siting criteria were being met.  path length must not exceed 300 meters. In monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon is 10.1.2 The monitor or probe cannot areas subject to frequent periods of dust, fog, unacceptable as the probe material because of reasonably be located so as to meet the siting rain, or snow, consideration should be given VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on criteria because of physical constraints (e.g., to a shortened monitoring path length to the FEP Teflon. Borosilicate glass, stainless inability to locate the required type of site the minimize loss of monitoring data due to steel, or its equivalent are the acceptable necessary distance from roadways or these temporary optical obstructions. For probe materials for VOC and carbonyl obstructions). certain ambient air monitoring scenarios sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that 10.2 However, for an existing site, a using open path analyzers, shorter path the sample residence time is kept to 20 waiver may be granted if either of the criteria lengths may be needed in order to ensure that seconds or less. in sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of this appendix the monitoring site meets the objectives and (c) No matter how nonreactive the are met. spatial scales defined in appendix D to this sampling probe material is initially, after a 10.3 Cost benefits, historical trends, and part. The Regional Administrator may require period of use reactive particulate matter is other factors may be used to add support to shorter path lengths, as needed on an deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the the criteria in sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 of individual basis, to ensure that the SLAMS time it takes the gas to transfer from the this appendix, however, they in themselves, sites meet the appendix D requirements. probe inlet to the sampling device is also will not be acceptable reasons for granting a Likewise, the Administrator may specify the critical. Ozone in the presence of nitrogen waiver. Written requests for waivers must be maximum path length used at NCore oxide (NO) will show significant losses even submitted to the Regional Administrator. monitoring sites. in the most inert probe material when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds.26 Other 11. Summary 9. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample studies 27¥28 indicate that a 10-second or less Table E–4 of this appendix presents a Residence Time residence time is easily achievable. summary of the general requirements for (a) For the reactive gases, SO2, NO2, and Therefore, sampling probes for reactive gas probe and monitoring path siting criteria O3, special probe material must be used for monitors at NCore must have a sample with respect to distances and heights. It is point analyzers. Studies 20¥24 have been residence time less than 20 seconds. apparent from Table E–4 that different conducted to determine the suitability of elevation distances above the ground are materials such as polypropylene, 10. Waiver Provisions shown for the various pollutants. The polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, Tygon, Most sampling probes or monitors can be discussion in this appendix for each of the aluminum, brass, stainless steel, copper, located so that they meet the requirements of pollutants describes reasons for elevating the Pyrex glass and Teflon for use as intake this appendix. New sites with rare monitor, probe, or monitoring path. The sampling lines. Of the above materials, only exceptions, can be located within the limits differences in the specified range of heights

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 ER17OC06.061 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 61327

are based on the vertical concentration microscale, so a small range of heights are and to allow the use of a single manifold or gradients. For CO, the gradients in the used. The upper limit of 15 meters is monitoring path for monitoring more than vertical direction are very large for the specified for consistency between pollutants one pollutant.

TABLE E–4 OF APPENDIX E TO PART 58. SUMMARY OF PROBE AND MONITORING PATH SITING CRITERIA

Horizontal and vertical distance Distance Height from from sup- from trees ground to porting to probe, Distance from roadways to probe, Scale (maximum monitoring path probe, inlet Pollutant structures 2 inlet or 90% inlet or monitoring path 1 length, meters) or 80% of to probe, of moni- (meters) monitoring 1 1 inlet or 90% toring path path of moni- (meters) toring path 1 (meters)

3,4,5,6 SO2 ...... Middle (300 m) Neighborhood 2–15 ...... > 1 ...... > 10 ...... N/A Urban, and Regional (1 km). CO 4,5,7 ...... Micro, middle (300 m), Neighbor- 3±1⁄2: 2–15 > 1 ...... > 10 ...... 2–10; see Table E–2 of this ap- hood (1 km). pendix for middle and neighbor- hood scales. 3,4,5 NO2, O3 ...... Middle (300 m) Neighborhood, 2–15 ...... > 1 ...... > 10 ...... See Table E–1 of this appendix Urban, and Regional (1 km). for all scales. Ozone precursors (for Neighborhood and Urban (1 km) 2–15 ...... > 1 ...... > 10 ...... See Table E–4 of this appendix PAMS) 3,4,5. for all scales. PM,Pb 3,4,5,6,8 ...... Micro: Middle, Neighborhood, 2–7 (micro); > 2 (all > 10 (all 2–10 (micro); see Figure E–1 of Urban and Regional. 2–7 (mid- scales, scales). this appendix for all other dle horizontal scales. PM10–2.5); distance 2–15 (all only). other scales). N/A—Not applicable. 1 Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring and all applicable scales for moni- toring SO2,O3, O3 precursors, and NO2. 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 pro- trudes 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. 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.

12. References Toronto, Canada. June 20–24, 1977. APCA Rationale for Siting Hi-Vols in the Vicinity of 1. Bryan, R.J., R.J. Gordon, and H. Menck. 77–13.4.) Roadways. OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Comparison of High Volume Air Filter 5. Harrison, P.R. Considerations for Siting Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Samples at Varying Distances from Los Air Quality Monitors in Urban Areas. City of NC. April 1978. Chicago, Department of Environmental 10. Ludwig, F.L., J.H. Kealoha, and E. Angeles Freeway. University of Southern Control, Chicago, IL. (Presented at 66th Shelar. Selecting Sites for Monitoring Total California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Suspended Particulates. Stanford Research CA. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Association, Chicago, IL. June 24–28, 1973. Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Pollution Control Association. Chicago, IL. APCA 73–161.) Environmental Protection Agency, Research June 24–28, 1973. APCA 73–158.) 6. Study of Suspended Particulate Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– 2. Teer, E.H. Atmospheric Lead Measurements at Varying Heights Above 450/3–77–018. June 1977, revised December Concentration Above an Urban Street. Master Ground. Texas State Department of Health, 1977. of Science Thesis, Washington University, St. Air Control Section, Austin, TX. 1970. p.7. 11. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum Louis, MO. January 1971. 7. Rodes, C.E. and G.F. Evans. Summary of Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. 3. Bradway, R.M., F.A. Record, and W.E. LACS Integrated Pollutant Data. In: Los The Center for the Environment and Man, Belanger. Monitoring and Modeling of Angeles Catalyst Study Symposium. U.S. Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. Resuspended Roadway Dust Near Urban Environmental Protection Agency, Research Environmental Protection Agency, Research Arterials. GCA Technology Division, Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Bedford, MA. (Presented at 1978 Annual 600/4–77–034. June 1977. 450/3–77–013. April 1977. Meeting of Transportation Research Board, 8. Lynn, D.A. et al. National Assessment of 12. Ludwig, F.L. and J.H.S. Kealoha. Washington, DC. January 1978.) the Urban Particulate Problem: Volume 1, Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide 4. Pace, T.G., W.P. Freas, and E.M. Afify. National Assessment. GCA Technology Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, Quantification of Relationship Between Division, Bedford, MA. U.S. Environmental Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Monitor Height and Measured Particulate Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Levels in Seven U.S. Urban Areas. U.S. NC. EPA Publication No. EPA–450/3–75– Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA– Environmental Protection Agency, Research 024. June 1976. 450/3–75–077. September 1975. Triangle Park, NC. (Presented at 70th Annual 9. Pace, T.G. Impact of Vehicle-Related 13. Ludwig, F.L. and E. Shelar. Site Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Particulates on TSP Concentrations and Selection for the Monitoring of

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3 61328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Rules and Regulations

Photochemical Air Pollutants. Stanford 20. Wechter, S.G. Preparation of Stable Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared Pollutant Gas Standards Using Treated for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aluminum Cylinders. ASTM STP. 598:40– Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication 54, 1976. No. 68–02–3584. EPA 450/4–87–009. May No. EPA–450/3–78–013. April 1978. 21. Wohlers, H.C., H. Newstein and D. 1987. 14. Lead Analysis for Kansas City and Daunis. Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur 30. Burton, R.M. and J.C. Suggs. Cincinnati, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Dioxide Adsorption On and Description Philadelphia Roadway Study. Environmental Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. From Glass, Plastic and Metal Tubings. J. Air Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Poll. Con. Assoc. 17:753, 1976. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 66–02– 22. Elfers, L.A. Field Operating Guide for Triangle Park, N.C. EPA–600/4–84–070 2515, June 1977. Automated Air Monitoring Equipment. U.S. September 1984. 15. Barltrap, D. and C.D. Strelow. Westway NTIS. p. 202, 249, 1971. 31. Technical Assistance Document For Nursery Testing Project. Report to the Greater 23. Hughes, E.E. Development of Standard Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. London Council. August 1976. Reference Material for Air Quality Atmospheric Research and Exposure Measurement. ISA Transactions, 14:281–291, 16. Daines, R. H., H. Moto, and D. M. Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental 1975. Chilko. Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 24. Altshuller, A.D. and A.G. Wartburg. Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways. NC 27711. EPA 600/8–91–215. October 1991. The Interaction of Ozone with Plastic and Environ. Sci. and Technol., 4:318, 1970. 32. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Metallic Materials in a Dynamic Flow Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. 17. Johnson, D. E., et al. Epidemiologic System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll., Study of the Effects of Automobile Traffic on Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric 4:70–78, 1961. Research and Exposure Assessment Blood Lead Levels, Southwest Research 25. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40 Institute, Houston, TX. Prepared for U.S. Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection part 53.22, July 1976. Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 26. Butcher, S.S. and R.E. Ruff. Effect of EPA 600/4–90–0003. August 1989. Triangle Park, NC. EPA–600/1–78–055, Inlet Residence Time on Analysis of 33. On-Site Meteorological Program August 1978. Atmospheric Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone, Guidance for Regulatory Modeling 18. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of Anal. Chem., 43:1890, 1971. Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning Research and Development, U.S. 27. Slowik, A.A. and E.B. Sansone. and Standards, U.S. Environmental Environmental Protection Agency, Diffusion Losses of Sulfur Dioxide in Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Washington, DC EPA–600/8–83–028 aF–dF, Sampling Manifolds. J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc., NC 27711. EPA 450/4–87–013. June 1987F. 1986, and supplements EPA–600/8–89/049F, 24:245, 1974. August 1990. (NTIS document numbers 28. Yamada, V.M. and R.J. Charlson. Proper Appendix F—[Removed and Reserved] PB87–142378 and PB91–138420.) Sizing of the Sampling Inlet Line for a 19. Lyman, D. R. The Atmospheric Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Environ. 38. Appendix F to part 58 is removed Diffusion of Carbon Monoxide and Lead from Sci. and Technol., 3:483, 1969. and reserved. an Expressway, Ph.D. Dissertation, 29. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria [FR Doc. 06–8478 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 1972. for Particulate Matter, GEOMET BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 06:23 Oct 17, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17OCR3.SGM 17OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC61 with RULES3