Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32193 

OHIO—OZONE

[8-Hour Standard] 

Designated area 

Designation a Classification 

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Youngstown-Warren-Sharon, PA-OH: June 12, 2007.

Columbiana County ................... ............................................. Attainment 

Mahoning County ...................... ............................................. Attainment 

Trumbull County ........................ ............................................. Attainment 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted. 

[FR Doc. E7–11229 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 53 and 58 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0018; FRL–8308–7] 

RIN 2060–AO06 

Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations: 

Correcting and Other Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final 

action on ‘‘Ambient Air Monitoring 

Regulations: Correcting and Other 

Amendments’’ to correct and clarify 

parts of a recent final rule published on 

October 17, 2006, that amended the 

ambient air monitoring requirements for 

criteria pollutants. These errors 

included several instances where the 

wording in the preamble and regulatory 

text were not completely consistent, 

several regulatory text passages that 

contained some imprecise language, two 

instances of regulatory text omission, an 

outdated address reference, and 

numerous publication errors in tables 

and equations. EPA is also amending 

the monitoring rule to allow EPA 

Regional Administrators to approve 

departures from the minimum number 

of PM10 monitors otherwise specified in 

the rule. 

The October 17, 2006, final rule 

revised requirements for reference and 

equivalent method determinations, 

modified requirements for general 

monitoring network design, and 

modified other requirements pertaining 

to quality assurance, annual network 

plans and assessments, data reporting, 

monitoring methodology, and probe and 

monitor siting criteria. All other 

preamble and regulatory text printed in 

the October 17, 2006, final rule is 

correct. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 10, 2007, without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by July 12, 2007. If we receive 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that some 

or all of the amendments in this rule 

will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified under Docket ID No. EPA–

HQ–OAR–2004–0018 by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Ambient Air Monitoring 

Regulations: Correcting and Other 

Amendments, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of 2 copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–

0018. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at: 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Revisions to the Ambient Air 

Monitoring Regulations Docket, EPA/ 

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lewis Weinstock, Air Quality 

Assessment Division (C304–06), Office 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32194 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–

3661; fax number: (919) 541–1903; email address: weinstock.lewis@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule? 

II. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

III. Judicial Review 

IV. Authority 

V. Overview of the October 17, 2006 Rule 

Changes 

VI. This Action 

A. Correction to Special Purpose Monitors 

B. Clarification to Requirement for 

Collocating Required Continuous Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) Monitors 

C. Clarification to Operating Schedule 

Requirements for Filter-Based Manual 

PM2.5 Samplers 

D. Standard versus Daylight Savings Time 

Reference 

E. Corrections to Regulatory Text on 

Particulate Matter (PM10) Network 

Design Criteria 

F. Additional Regional Administrator 

Flexibility in Applying PM10 Minimum 

Monitoring Requirements 

G. Correction to Division Name and 

Address Reference 

H. Clarification to Conditions for Waiving 

Regional Administrator Comment Period 

on Submitted Annual Monitoring 

Network Plans 

I. Typographical Corrections 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final 

Rule? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

we view this as a non-controversial 

action and anticipate no adverse 

comment. None of the proposed changes 

creates additional regulatory 

requirements on affected entities 

compared to those that were 

promulgated in the final rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2006. However, in the 

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this 

Federal Register, we are publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposed rule to make corrections to the 

Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations if 

relevant adverse comments are received 

on one or more of the amendments in 

this direct final rule as described in 

sections VI.A. through VI.I of this 

preamble. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. If EPA receives relevant 

adverse comment on one or more of the 

amendments included in this 

rulemaking, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

indicating which amendment or 

amendments we are withdrawing. The 

provisions that are not withdrawn will 

become effective on the date set out 

above, notwithstanding any relevant 

adverse comment on any other 

provision. 

II. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

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 instruments; analytical 

laboratories or other monitoring organizations that elect to submit an application for a reference or equivalent method determination under 40 CFR part 53. 

Federal Government ................. 924110 Federal agencies (that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that conducted 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 submit 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 responsible for ambient 

air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58 or that elect to submit an application for a reference 

or equivalent method determination under 40 CFR part 53 or for an approved regional 

method approved under 40 CFR part 58 appendix C. The proposal also may affect Tribes 

that conduct ambient air monitoring similar to that conducted 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 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility or Federal, State, local, tribal, or 

territorial agency is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the requirements for reference or 

equivalent method determinations in 40 

CFR part 53, subpart A (General 

Provisions) and the applicability criteria 

in 40 CFR 51.1 of EPA’s requirements 

for State Implementation Plans (SIPs). If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

III. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of the 

direct final rule amendments is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia by August 13, 

2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 

CAA, only an objection to the direct 

final rule amendments that was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment can be raised 

during judicial review. Moreover, under 

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by the direct 

final rule amendments may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 

enforce these requirements. 

IV. Authority 

The EPA rules for ambient air 

monitoring are authorized under 

sections 110, 301(a), and 319 of the 

CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA 

requires that each SIP provide for the 

establishment and operation of devices, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32195 

1 In 40 CFR part 58 and in this preamble, the 

terms monitor, analyzer, and sampler are sometimes 

used interchangeably. Monitor is the more general 

term. Most often, analyzer means a self-contained 

monitor which can produce concentration data onsite. Sampler means a device that collects a sample 

(e.g., a filter) which must be further processed at an 

outside laboratory to obtain the concentration 

value. 

methods, systems, and procedures 

needed to monitor, compile, and 

analyze data on ambient air quality and 

for the reporting of air quality data to 

EPA. Section 103 authorizes, among 

others, research and investigations 

relating to the causes, effects, extent, 

prevention and control of air pollution. 

Section 301(a) of the CAA authorizes 

EPA to develop regulations needed to 

carry out EPA’s mission and establishes 

rulemaking requirements. Uniform 

criteria to be followed when measuring 

air quality and provisions for daily air 

pollution index reporting are required 

by CAA section 319. 

V. Overview of the October 17, 2006 

Rule Changes 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61236), 

EPA amended the rules for ambient air 

monitoring of criteria pollutants. The 

rule amendments established limited 

ambient air monitoring requirements for 

particles between 2.5 and 10 

micrometers (μm) in diameter (PM10–2.5) 

to support continued research into these 

particles’ distribution, sources, and 

health effects. The rule amendments 

required each State to operate one to 

three ‘‘NCore’’ monitoring stations that 

will take an integrated, multipollutant 

approach to ambient air monitoring. In 

addition, the rule amendments modified 

the general monitoring network design 

requirements for minimum numbers of 

ambient air monitors to focus on 

populated areas with air quality 

problems and to reduce significantly the 

requirements for criteria pollutant 

monitors that have measured ambient 

air concentrations well below the 

applicable National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The rule 

amendments also revised certain 

provisions regarding monitoring 

network descriptions and periodic 

assessments, quality assurance, and data 

certifications. A number of the 

amendments related specifically to 

monitoring of fine particles (referring to 

particles less than or equal to 2.5 μm in 

diameter, PM2.5), revising the 

requirements for reference and 

equivalent method determinations 

(including specifications and test 

procedures) for fine particle monitors. 

VI. This Action 

EPA is taking the following actions: 

• Correcting a statement in the 

regulatory text pertaining to the 

potential comparability of data collected 

from Special Purpose Monitors (SPM) 

with approved alternative quality 

assurance plans to the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

• Correcting a statement in the 

preamble with regard to the requirement 

for collocating required continuous 

PM2.5 monitors and clarifying associated 

regulatory text. 

• Clarifying several ambiguous 

regulatory text passages pertaining to 

operating schedules for manual PM2.5

samplers. 

• Correcting a reference regarding 

standard versus daylight savings time. 

• Restoring two instances of 

regulatory text that were inadvertently 

omitted from the network design for 

monitoring particles less than or equal 

to 10 μm in diameter (PM10). 

• Adding authority for the Regional 

Administrator, consistent with the 

authority that already exists for PM2.5

and ozone, to allow monitoring agencies 

to deviate from PM10 monitoring 

requirements. 

• Updating an organizational address 

reference within regulatory text 

pertaining to quality assurance 

requirements. 

• Clarifying the conditions when the 

EPA Regional Administrator is not 

required to offer a public comment 

opportunity prior to approving a State’s 

annual monitoring network plan. 

• Correcting numerous typographical 

errors in tables and equations. 

A. Correction to Special Purpose 

Monitors 

The intent of 40 CFR 58.20(c) 

(published at 71 FR 61302) was to 

describe the conditions when data from 

an SPM using a Federal reference 

method (FRM), Federal equivalent 

method (FEM), or Approved Regional 

Method (ARM) which has operated for 

more than 24 months is eligible for 

comparison to the relevant NAAQS. The 

rule text states that all data from an SPM 

is eligible for comparison to the relevant 

NAAQS unless the data from the 

particular monitor came from a period 

when the requirements of appendix A to 

part 58 (Quality Assurance 

Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs, and 

PSD Air Monitoring) or an approved 

alternative, appendix C to part 58 

(Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Methodology), or appendix E to part 58 

(Probe and Monitoring Path Siting 

Criteria for Ambient Air Monitoring) 

were not met in practice. This text does 

not reflect EPA’s actual intention. 

Instead, as discussed in the preamble 

(71 FR 61253), the intention of the 

October 17, 2006, final rule was that if 

the Regional Administrator approved an 

alternative quality assurance plan in 

place of the requirements of appendix A 

to part 58, the data from the affected 

SPM would not be eligible for 

comparison to the relevant NAAQS. The 

unintentional inclusion in the rule text 

of the phrase ‘‘or an approved 

alternative’’ implied that data from 

SPMs operating during a period when 

approved alternative quality assurance 

requirements were in effect, rather than 

appendix A requirements, would still be 

eligible for comparison to the relevant 

NAAQS. 

The EPA provided the Regional 

Administrator with the authority to 

approve an alternative to the 

requirements of appendix A to part 58 

with respect to SPM sites when meeting 

those requirements would be physically 

and/or financially impractical due to 

physical conditions at the monitoring 

site and the requirements were not 

essential to achieving the intended data 

objectives of the SPM site. 

Therefore, EPA is clarifying the 

regulatory text by deleting the 

aforementioned words referencing 

alternative quality assurance plans. The 

corrected rule text 40 CFR 58.20(c) 

reads: ‘‘All data from an SPM using an 

FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated 

for more than 24 months is eligible for 

comparison to the relevant NAAQS, 

subject to the conditions of § 58.30, 

unless the air monitoring agency 

demonstrates that the data came from a 

particular period during which the 

requirements of appendix A, appendix 

C, or appendix E to this part were not 

met in practice.’’

B. Clarification to Requirement for 

Collocating Required Continuous Fine 

Particle (PM2.5) Monitors 

The regulatory text in 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix D (Network Design Criteria for 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring), 

section 4.7.2 (71 FR 61322) describes 

the minimum requirements for 

operating continuous PM2.5 analyzers.1

The text requires States to operate a 

minimum number of continuous PM2.5

analyzers equal to at least one-half 

(round up) the minimum required FRM/ 

FEM/ARM PM2.5 sites listed in Table D–

5 of appendix D to part 58. At least one 

required FRM/FEM/ARM PM2.5 monitor 

in each MSA must be collocated with a 

continuous analyzer. For example, if a 

MSA had three required FRM/FEM/ 

ARM PM2.5 monitors, then two 

continuous monitors are required, and 

at least one of those continuous 

monitors must be collocated (placed at 

the same site) with one of the FRM/ 

FEM/ARM PM2.5 monitors. The second 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32196 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2EPA notes that the term ‘‘design value’’ as 

defined in the final rule (40 CFR part 58.1, 71 FR 

61296) is the calculated concentration of a pollutant 

according to the applicable appendix of part 50 for 

required continuous monitor could be 

collocated with one of the remaining 

two required FRM/FEM/ARM PM2.5

monitors at another site, or be located at 

a separate site based on monitoring 

objectives. The EPA did not intend that 

the continuous analyzers required under 

section 4.7.2 be required to be 

collocated with each other. 

The October 17, 2006, rule text 

matches our intended meaning. 

However, when referencing this rule 

requirement in the preamble (71 FR 

61263), EPA incorrectly stated that the 

collocation requirement was adopted to 

address concerns about whether 

required continuous monitors needed to 

be collocated with a matching second 

continuous monitor, and that the final 

rule only required one of all the 

required PM2.5 continuous monitors in 

each MSA to have ‘‘such a collocated 

match.’’ This unintentional statement 

could be construed as a requirement for 

collocating two continuous monitors 

with each other, in addition to the 

requirement for collocation with at least 

one required FRM/FEM/ARM monitor, 

leading to the conclusion that EPA was 

requiring three PM2.5 monitors (two 

continuous, one filter-based) at the first 

required site, subject to the 

requirements of section 4.7.2. Moreover, 

it was not our intention to require a 

second continuous monitor be sited 

with an FEM or ARM that itself 

provides continuous data. 

Therefore, EPA is clarifying the 

regulatory text to make clear the 

intentions described above. The EPA is 

also clarifying that an associated 

reference to quality assurance/quality 

control procedures refers to the 

continuous monitoring requirement by 

adding the words ‘‘for these required 

continuous analyzers.’’ The corrected 

provision of 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

D, section 4.7.2 now reads: 

‘‘Requirement for Continuous PM2.5

Monitoring. The State, or where 

appropriate, local agencies must operate 

continuous PM2.5 analyzers equal to at 

least one-half (round up) the minimum 

required sites listed in Table D–5 of this 

appendix. At least one required 

continuous analyzer in each MSA must 

be collocated with one of the required 

FRM/FEM/ARM monitors, unless at 

least one of the required FRM/FEM/ 

ARM monitors is itself a continuous 

FEM or ARM monitor, in which case no 

collocation requirement applies. State 

and local air monitoring agencies must 

use methodologies and quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 

procedures approved by the EPA 

Regional Administrator for these 

required continuous analyzers.’’

C. Clarification to Operating Schedule 

Requirements for Filter-Based Manual 

PM2.5 Samplers 

The regulatory text in 40 CFR 58.12(d) 

(71 FR 61299) describes the required 

sampling frequency for manual filterbased PM2.5 samplers. Manual PM2.5

samplers at SLAMS stations must 

operate on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule 

at sites which do not also have a 

collocated continuously operating PM2.5

monitor. For SLAMS PM2.5 sites with 

both manual and continuous PM2.5

monitors operating, other than NCore 

stations, monitoring agencies may 

request approval from the EPA Regional 

Administrator for a reduction to 1-in-6 

day PM2.5 sampling or for seasonal 

sampling. The EPA Regional 

Administrator may grant sampling 

frequency reductions after consideration 

of factors including, but not limited to, 

the historical PM2.5 data quality 

assessments, the location of current 

PM2.5 design value sites, and the 

regulatory data needs of States and EPA. 

The regulatory text provides specific 

criteria under which a manual PM2.5

sampler at a SLAMS station cannot be 

exempted by the Regional Administrator 

from at least 1-in-3 day sampling, and 

also includes a separate provision 

describing when a daily sampling 

schedule is required. The textual length 

of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1) as well as the 

specific wording of certain statements 

could create difficulty in understanding 

the intended operating schedule 

requirements for manual PM2.5

samplers. Therefore, EPA is clarifying 

40 CFR 58.12(d)(1) as described below. 

The first sentence of 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1) stated that: ‘‘Manual PM2.5

samplers at SLAMS stations other than 

NCore stations must operate on at least 

a 1-in-3 day schedule at sites without a 

collocated continuously operating PM2.5

monitor.’’ This statement could be 

construed as meaning that manual PM2.5

samplers at NCore stations were not 

required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day 

schedule. The rule in fact does require 

manual PM2.5 samplers at NCore 

stations to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day 

sampling schedule, as later noted in 40 

CFR 58.12(d)(2), and these samplers are 

not eligible for sampling frequency 

relief. Therefore, EPA is clarifying the 

rule text by deleting the phrase ‘‘other 

than NCore stations’’ from first sentence 

of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1). 

Another potential ambiguity regarding 

the 1-in-3 day sampling frequency 

provision of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1) is its 

geographic applicability. Since the 

regulatory language did not specify that 

the 1-in-3 day sampling frequency 

requirement be applied only in areas in 

which PM2.5 monitoring is required, this 

requirement could be interpreted as 

applying to any manual PM2.5 sampler 

within a State that recorded the highest 

design value ‘‘in an area’’ whether or 

not any PM2.5 monitors were even 

required in that area according to 40 

CFR part 58, appendix D. The EPA is 

concerned that such an interpretation 

would create a disincentive to 

monitoring by potentially requiring 

States that operated discretionary 

SLAMS monitors to sample on a 1-in-3 

day frequency even though the monitor 

was in excess of minimum monitoring 

requirements. Therefore, the first 

sentence of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(i) is 

amended to read: ‘‘Manual PM2.5

samplers at required SLAMS stations 

without a collocated continuously 

operating PM2.5 monitor must operate 

on at least a 1-in-3 day schedule.’’ In 

this rule text, ‘‘required SLAMS 

stations’’ refers to minimum monitoring 

requirements as specified in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix D, section 4.7. It does not 

include SPMs; therefore SPMs are not 

required to sample on a 1-in-3 day 

schedule. 

After stating the 1-in-3 day sampling 

requirement, the rule text at 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(ii) goes on to allow the 

Regional Administrator to grant a 

reduction of this schedule to 1-in-6 day 

for SLAMS PM2.5 sites with both manual 

and continuous PM2.5 monitors 

operating. In this context, the rule text 

contains a duplicated reference to 

SLAMS PM2.5 sites; the second 

reference, ‘‘at SLAMS stations,’’ is 

removed in the corrected rule language 

since the opening part of the sentence 

already states the applicability of the 

provision to SLAMS PM2.5 sites. The 

text goes on to describe two situations 

in which a manual PM2.5 sampler at a 

required SLAMS station could not be 

granted sampling frequency relief by the 

Regional Administrator from the 

minimum 1-in-3 day sampling schedule. 

In the first situation, the phrase: ‘‘Sites 

that have design values that are within 

plus or minus 10 percent of the 

NAAQS’’ could be construed as 

applying to all sites within a particular 

area that have design values that are 

within plus or minus 10 percent of the 

NAAQS, when the intention was to 

apply the provision only to the site with 

the highest value in a particular area 

calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix N (Interpretation of 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for PM2.5).2 In the second 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32197 

the highest monitoring site in an attainment or 

nonattainment area, and that EPA’s usage of 

‘‘design value’’ in the rule text was consistent with 

this definition. 

3 ‘‘Use of PM Reference Methods and Daylight 

Savings Time,’’ J. David Mobley; Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, June 11, 1999. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/ 

stdtime.pdf. 4The intention to base sampling on local 

standard time was correctly reflected in rule text 

applicable to PM2.5. 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 

(Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for PM2.5) reads: ‘‘Daily values for PM2.5

refers to the 24-hour average concentrations of 

PM2.5 calculated (averaged from hourly 

measurements) or measured from midnight to 

midnight (local standard time) that are used in 

NAAQS computations.’’

situation, the phrase: ‘‘and sites where 

the 24-hour values exceed the NAAQS 

for a period of 3 years are required to 

maintain at least a 1-in-3 day sampling 

frequency’’ created ambiguity about 

whether the provision was applicable in 

situations where a single 24-hour value 

exceeded the NAAQS at a particular site 

during only 1 or 2 years of a 3-year 

period. The EPA’s intention was that at 

least one 24-hour value had to exceed 

the NAAQS in each of the years 

comprising the 3-year period situation 

for the provision to apply. 

Also, the regulatory text could be 

construed as requiring 1-in-3 day 

manual PM2.5 sampling at all sites 

within a particular area that have design 

values within the plus or minus 10 

percent criteria, regardless of whether 

the site is required and regardless of the 

potential availability of continuous 

PM2.5 FEM or ARM monitors which 

inherently would provide every-day 

data eligible for comparison to the 

NAAQS. The EPA anticipates the 

increasing availability of approved FEM 

and ARM methods over the next few 

years, and expects that many such 

approved continuous monitors will be 

deployed at sites formerly dedicated to 

manual filter-based FRM or FEM PM2.5

samplers, including design value sites 

subject to the plus or minus 10 percent 

criteria when compared with the 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA supports 

the deployment of approved FEM or 

ARM continuous PM2.5 methods to meet 

appropriate monitoring objectives as 

such monitors become available, and 

thus we did not intend to require 1-in3 day sampling utilizing manual PM2.5

methods at design value sites, or any 

other sites, where monitoring agencies 

have deployed an approved continuous 

FEM or ARM. 

The clarified language of the 

restriction related to being within plus 

or minus 10 percent of the NAAQS now 

reads: ‘‘Required SLAMS stations whose 

measurements determine the design 

value for their area and that are within 

plus or minus 10 percent of the NAAQS, 

and all required sites where one or more 

24-hour values have exceeded the 

NAAQS each year for a consecutive 

period of at least 3 years, are required 

to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day 

sampling frequency. A continuously 

operating FEM or ARM PM2.5 monitor 

satisfies this requirement.’’

At the end of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1), EPA 

specified that manual PM2.5 samplers at 

sites that have a design value within 

plus or minus 5 percent of the daily 

PM2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or 

FEM operate on a daily schedule. As 

with the previously discussed phrasing 

in the context of the 1-in-3 day sampling 

requirement, this text could be 

construed as applying to all sites within 

a particular area that have design values 

that are within plus or minus 5 percent 

of the NAAQS, when the intention was 

to apply the provision only to the 

required SLAMS site with the highest 

value in a particular area. Also, the 

above described concern regarding the 

acceptability of continuous PM2.5

analyzers applies in the case of this plus 

or minus 5 percent criterion, and a 

similar clarification to the rule text is 

appropriate. 

Therefore, EPA is clarifying 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1) and for purposes of clarity is 

adding subparagraph (iii). It will read: 

‘‘Required SLAMS sites whose 

measurements determine the design 

value for their area and that are within 

plus or minus 5 percent of the daily 

PM2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or 

FEM operate on a daily schedule. A 

continuously operating FEM or ARM 

PM2.5 monitor satisfies this 

requirement.’’

The EPA notes that only populationoriented monitors are subject to the 

previously described percent-dependent 

sampling frequency requirements. In 40 

CFR 58.30 (Special Considerations for 

Data Comparisons to the NAAQS), sites 

must be population-oriented to be 

comparable to either the annual or daily 

PM2.5 NAAQS. By implication, design 

value sites must be NAAQS comparable, 

therefore non-population oriented sites 

would not be affected by the plus or 

minus 10 percent or plus or minus 5 

percent provisions. 

As previously mentioned, EPA is 

aware that the length of 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1) creates the potential for 

ambiguity in the applicability of 

individual provisions related to 

sampling frequency requirements. To 

clarify the applicability of such 

provisions, EPA has restructured 40 

CFR 58.12(d)(1) to create distinct 

paragraphs encompassing the 

previously described amended language 

applicable to SLAMS sites without 

continuously operating PM2.5 monitors 

(now numbered 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(i)), 

SLAMS sites with both manual and 

continuous PM2.5 monitors (now 

numbered 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii)), and 

design value sites within plus or minus 

5 percent of the daily PM2.5 NAAQS 

(now numbered 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii)). 

In 40 CFR 58.12(d)(3), manual PM2.5

speciation samplers at required 

Speciation Trends Network (STN) 

stations are required to operate on a 

1-in-3 day sampling frequency. The EPA 

intended the 1-in-3 day sampling 

frequency to be a minimum sampling 

frequency and not to imply a 

prohibition against a more frequent 

sampling frequency, such as a daily 

sampling frequency, if such a frequency 

is appropriate for specific monitoring 

objectives. Consistent with the 

phraseology of sampling frequency 

requirements elsewhere in the 

regulatory text, EPA is correcting the 

aforementioned phrase to read: ‘‘Manual 

PM2.5 speciation samplers at STN 

stations must operate on at least a 

1-in-3 day sampling frequency.’’

D. Standard versus Daylight Savings 

Time Reference 

40 CFR 58.12(e) requires that the 

operating schedule for PM10 samplers 

must be a 24-hour sampling period 

taken from midnight to midnight (local 

time) to ensure national consistency. In 

a 1999 EPA memorandum,3 the use of 

standard time versus daylight savings 

time is discussed in the context of 

sample collection for particulate matter 

monitors, concluding with the 

recommendation that monitoring 

agencies operate their particulate matter 

sampler clocks on standard time to 

avoid the semi-annual time-shift issues 

associated with conversion between 

standard time and daylight savings time. 

Monitoring agencies have generally 

adopted the practice of keeping their 

particulate matter sampler clocks on 

standard time since the issuance of the 

1999 memorandum. It was EPA’s 

intention to codify the practice of 

keeping particulate matter clocks on 

standard time in the October 17, 2006, 

Revisions to the Ambient Monitoring 

Regulations; however, the codifying rule 

text was inadvertently omitted for 

PM10.4 If the aforementioned 40 CFR 

58.12(e) reference to PM10 operating 

schedule is left uncorrected, this could 

create inconsistent interpretation of the 

standard versus daylight savings time 

issue among monitoring agencies 

causing unnecessary confusion in the 

interpretation of the air quality data. 

Therefore, EPA is correcting the 

reference to PM10 operating schedules in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32198 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

40 CFR 58.12(e) to read as follows: ‘‘For 

PM10 samplers, a 24-hour sample must 

be taken from midnight to midnight 

(local standard time) to ensure national 

consistency.’’

E. Corrections to Regulatory Text on 

Particulate Matter (PM10) Network 

Design Criteria 

In the preamble to the final 

monitoring rule (71 FR 61240), EPA 

stated an intention to retain the preexisting minimum monitoring network 

design requirements for PM10, which are 

based on the population of an MSA and 

its historical PM10 air quality. The EPA’s 

intention in finalizing the regulatory 

text in section 4.6, Particulate Matter 

(PM10) Design Criteria, of 40 CFR part 

58, appendix D (Network Design Criteria 

for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring) (71 

FR 61320) was to retain all PM10- 

relevant portions of the pre-existing 

regulatory text beginning with section 

3.7, Particulate Matter Design Criteria 

for NAMS (see 62 FR 38820, July 18, 

1997), with only minor changes 

necessary to maintain consistency of 

monitor type terminology (e.g., to 

eliminate obsolete references to 

National Air Monitoring Stations 

(NAMS)). The EPA inadvertently 

omitted several passages from the preexisting regulatory text in section 3.7 

referencing PM10 network design 

criteria. If left uncorrected, these 

omissions could lead to 

misinterpretation of PM10 monitoring 

network design requirements. Three 

specific textual corrections are detailed 

below. 

First, in Table D–4, PM10 Minimum 

Monitoring Requirements (Number of 

Stations per MSA), the word 

‘‘Approximate’’ which had appeared in 

the title of the pre-existing Table 4 was 

omitted. Therefore, in order to retain the 

earlier language EPA is revising the title 

of Table D–4 to read: ‘‘PM10 Minimum 

Monitoring Requirements (Approximate 

Number of Stations Per MSA).’’

Second, the first footnote contains 

some words (‘‘within the ranges shown 

in this table’’) that were not part of the 

corresponding footnote to the preexisting Table 4. Therefore, the first 

footnote is revised to read: ‘‘Selection of 

urban areas and actual numbers of 

stations per area will be jointly 

determined by EPA and the State 

Agency.’’

Third, in paragraph (a) of section 4.6, 

the regulatory text notes that State, and 

where applicable local, agencies must 

operate the minimum number of 

required PM10 SLAMS sites listed in 

Table D–4 of appendix D. In the October 

17, 2006, rulemaking, EPA intended to 

retain all of the pre-existing regulatory 

text in the pre-existing paragraph 3.7.1 

(as last promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 

62 FR 38850) in new paragraph (a) of 

new section 4.6, to explain in words the 

flexibility in minimum PM10 monitoring 

requirements as provided in the preexisting Table 4 which had listed ranges 

of required numbers (rather than a 

single number) of monitors for each of 

the categories of MSA population and 

historical PM10 range. This regulatory 

text was inadvertently omitted. 

Therefore, EPA is restoring the omitted 

text and correcting paragraph (a) of 

section 4.6 to read: ‘‘Table D–4 indicates 

the approximate number of permanent 

stations required in MSAs to 

characterize national and regional PM10

air quality trends and geographical 

patterns. The number of PM10 stations 

in areas where MSA populations exceed 

1,000,000 must be in the range from 2 

to 10 stations, while in low population 

urban areas, no more than 2 stations are 

required. A range of monitoring stations 

is specified in Table D–4 because 

sources of pollutants and local control 

efforts can vary from one part of the 

country to another and, therefore, some 

flexibility is allowed in selecting the 

actual number of stations in any one 

locale.’’

F. Additional Regional Administrator 

Flexibility in Applying PM10 Minimum 

Monitoring Requirements 

We are amending the monitoring rule 

to allow EPA Regional Administrators to 

approve departures from the minimum 

number of PM10 monitors otherwise 

specified in the rule. 

In the January 17, 2006, proposed 

monitoring rule (71 FR 2802), EPA 

proposed minimum network design 

monitoring requirements for PM10–2.5. In 

paragraph (b) of section 4.8.1 of 40 CFR 

part 58, appendix D, (Network Design 

Criteria for Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring), EPA proposed that 

modifications from the PM10–2.5

monitoring requirements must be 

approved by the Regional 

Administrator. The proposed regulatory 

language providing the Regional 

Administrator flexibility to modify the 

PM10–2.5 monitoring requirements was 

consistent with similar language 

proposed for PM2.5 that read: 

‘‘Deviations from these PM2.5

monitoring requirements must be 

approved by the EPA Regional 

Administrator’’ (71 FR 2801, paragraph 

(b) of section 4.7.1). Similar regulatory 

language was proposed for ozone 

monitoring requirements (71 FR 2798, 

paragraph (b) of section 4.1): 

‘‘Deviations from the above O3

requirements are allowed if approved by 

the EPA Regional Administrator.’’ The 

EPA finalized the Regional 

Administrator authority to modify the 

PM2.5 and ozone monitoring 

requirements in the October 17, 2006, 

rule following a public comment period 

in which no adverse comments were 

received about the specific provisions 

concerning Regional Administrator 

flexibility in applying these regulations. 

The EPA did not adopt the proposed 

PM10–2.5 minimum monitoring network 

design including the Regional 

Administrator flexibility language. The 

EPA notes, however, that no adverse 

comments were received specifically 

addressing the proposed Regional 

Administrator authority to modify 

PM10–2.5 monitoring network 

requirements although voluminous 

comment was received on other 

proposed provisions of the PM10–2.5

monitoring network design and 

accompanying suitability test. 

The EPA also proposed and adopted 

requirements for ‘‘NCore’’

multipollutant monitoring sites, 

including a provision allowing the 

Administrator to approve modifications 

from these requirements. Again, no 

adverse comment was received on this 

modification provision. Finally, specific 

requirements in the rule for 

photochemical assessment monitoring 

stations (PAMS) have always been 

modifiable by the Administrator. 

Thus, EPA notes that under the 

current 40 CFR part 58, appendix D 

network design requirements, PM10 is 

the only pollutant with minimum 

monitoring requirements not subject to 

modification based on either 

Administrator or Regional 

Administrator evaluation and approval. 

Such flexibility, already finalized for 

ozone and PM2.5, can prove useful in 

particular cases where a State 

demonstrates that meeting the minimum 

monitoring requirements, for an 

individual MSA for example, may be 

impractical or contrary to the optimum 

use of monitoring resources. 

The EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow the Regional Administrator to 

modify PM10 monitoring requirements, 

for the same reasons such authority was 

finalized for PM2.5 and ozone 

monitoring requirements. Such 

authority allows for specific local 

factors and information can be 

considered in order to make the PM10

monitoring network more economical 

while still meeting program data needs. 

In light of the absence of any comments 

of concern regarding very similar 

Administrator or Regional 

Administrator authority for other 

pollutants, we do not expect any 

adverse comment on this action. 

Therefore, EPA is amending paragraph 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32199 

(a) of section 4.6 quoted in the section 

above and adding the following 

sentence so it now reads: 

‘‘Modifications from these PM10

monitoring requirements must be 

approved by the Regional 

Administrator.’’ See also section VI.E of 

this preamble for a clarifying 

amendment which also affects section 

4.6 of appendix D to part 58 by restoring 

inadvertently omitted text. 

G. Correction to Division Name and 

Address Reference 

The October 17, 2006, final rule 

provided an address reference in 

paragraph 2.4 of 40 CFR part 58 

appendix A, to assist with 

communications regarding the National 

Performance Evaluation Programs. 

Monitoring agencies were advised to 

contact either the appropriate EPA 

Regional Quality Assurance (QA) 

Coordinator at the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office location, or the NPAP 

Coordinator, Emissions Monitoring and 

Analysis Division (D205–02), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Due 

to a reorganization within the Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards and 

subsequent physical relocation within 

the North Carolina facility, the provided 

address mail code (D205–02) is no 

longer correct for quality assurance 

related communications. Additionally, 

the Emissions Monitoring and Analysis 

Division has been renamed to the Air 

Quality Assessment Division, as part of 

the same reorganization. Due to the 

possibility of future address changes, 

EPA believes a more general reference to 

quality assurance contact information is 

appropriate for inclusion in regulatory 

language. Updated contact information 

for all air monitoring program leads is 

maintained on the Ambient Monitoring 

Technology Information Center 

(AMTIC) Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/amtic/contacts.html. This website is 

well publicized and frequently accessed 

by all monitoring agencies; therefore, 

specific address entries in the rule are 

unnecessary and potentially misleading. 

Accordingly, EPA is amending the 

regulatory text in paragraph 2.4 to read: 

‘‘For clarification and to participate, 

monitoring organizations should contact 

either the appropriate EPA Regional 

Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator at 

the appropriate EPA Regional Office 

location, or the NPAP Coordinator at the 

Air Quality Assessment Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

in Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina.’’

H. Clarification to Conditions for 

Waiving Regional Administrator 

Comment Period on Submitted Annual 

Monitoring Network Plans 

The regulatory text in 40 CFR 

58.10(a)(2) (71 FR 61298) describes the 

approval process for State-submitted 

annual monitoring network plans that 

propose SLAMS network modifications. 

Such plans are subject to the approval 

of the Regional Administrator, including 

a new requirement for the Regional 

Administrator to provide opportunity 

for public comment during the 120-day 

period allowed for approval or 

disapproval. The rule permits the 

Regional Administrator to waive the 

separate public comment opportunity if 

the State or local agency has already 

provided a public comment opportunity 

on its plan and has made no changes to 

the plan subsequent to that comment 

opportunity. 

Implied but not explicitly stated in 

the regulatory language is that the 

Regional Administrator may forgo 

public comment only if the State or 

local agency submitted the full text of 

public comments received on its annual 

monitoring network plan to the Regional 

Administrator, because only the 

availability of such detailed comments 

would make a separate comment period 

by the Regional Administrator 

redundant. 

The EPA believes that the 

aforementioned regulatory language 

should be clarified to avoid ambiguity 

about what situations would require the 

Regional Administrator to provide a 

public comment opportunity on 

submitted annual monitoring network 

plans that contain SLAMS network 

modifications. The EPA notes that the 

clarification does not modify the 

minimum requirements for State and 

local agencies to make their plans 

available for public inspection for at 

least 30 days prior to submission to 

EPA. 

Accordingly, the clarified regulatory 

text in the second sentence of 40 CFR 

58.10(a)(2) reads: ‘‘If the State or local 

agency has already provided a public 

comment opportunity on its plan and 

has made no changes subsequent to that 

comment opportunity, and has 

submitted the received comments 

together with the plan, the Regional 

Administrator is not required to provide 

a separate opportunity for comment.’’

Such comments could be transmitted 

to the Regional Administrator in hardcopy or electronic format, and at a 

minimum, would include all relevant 

information supplied to the State or 

local agency by the commenters. 

Monitoring agencies would not be 

expected to provide comment 

summaries or comment responses, 

although those submissions could 

optionally be provided to the Regional 

Administrator in addition to the actual 

text of the received comments. 

I. Typographical Corrections 

The Federal Register printing of the 

October 17, 2006, final rule contained 

typographical errors in equations, 

tables, and figures. These errors, as 

explained below and listed by Federal 

Register page reference and CFR section 

number, are corrected in this 

rulemaking. 

• 71 FR 61284. Subpart C of Part 53—

§ 53.35(d)(4), Calculation of mean 

concentrations. Equation 12: The ‘‘n’’

over the summation symbol is replaced 

with ‘‘m.’’

• 71 FR 61284. Subpart C of Part 53—

§ 53.35(e) and § 53.35(f), Tests for 

reference method and candidate method 

precision. Equations 13 and 15: 100% is 

moved to be outside the square root 

symbol. 

• 71 FR 61284. Subpart C of Part 53—

§ 53.35(g), Test for additive and 

multiplicative bias (comparative slope 

and intercept). Equation 17: Left part of 

equation is changed to be R ̄ not R ̄ j. 

• 71 FR 61284. Subpart C of Part 53—

§ 53.35(h), Tests for comparison 

correlation. Equation 21: Radical sign in 

the denominator is extended to cover 

both summation signs. 

• 71 FR 61285. Table C–1 to Subpart 

C of Part 53, Test Concentration Ranges, 

Number of Measurements Required, and 

Maximum Discrepancy Specification. 

The four occurrences of ‘‘Total’’ in the 

first column are moved to the second 

column. 

• 71 FR 61285. Table C–1 to Subpart 

C of Part 53, Test Concentration Ranges, 

Number of Measurements Required, and 

Maximum Discrepancy Specification. 

Two entries of ‘‘18’’ are moved 3 

columns left to appear in the ‘‘Second 

Set’’ column rather than as shown in the 

right-most column. 

• 71 FR 61285. Table C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Test Specifications for 

PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. An erroneous ‘‘R’’

character in the table title is removed so 

that the title reads—Test Specifications 

for PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. 

• 71 FR 61286. Table C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Test Specifications for 

PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. In the column 

header for the last 2 columns, the 

‘‘PM10–2.5’’ is corrected to be ‘‘PM10–2.5’’. 

• 71 FR 61286. Table C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Test Specifications for 

PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32200 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Equivalent Methods. The horizontal line 

under ‘‘Rj > 60 μg/m3’’ in the table is 

removed. 

• 71 FR 61286. Table C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Test Specifications for 

PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. In the first column, 

in the ‘‘Precision of replicate reference 

method measurements * * *’’ entry, the 

‘‘prime’’ symbols are removed from 

‘‘RPRj’’ and ‘‘PM10–2.5’’. 

• 71 FR 61286. Table C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Test Specifications for 

PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. An unintended 

period is removed at the end of the 

entry in the last column, Intercept row, 

and at the end of the second footnote. 

• 71 FR 61286. Table C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Test Specifications for 

PM10, PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. Values for 

correlation of reference method and 

candidate method measurements for 

PM2.5 Class II and III, and PM10–2.5 Class 

II and III are added to all four columns: 

• ≥0.93 for CCV≤0.4; 

• ≥0.85 + 0.2×CCV for 0.4≤CCV≤0.5; 

• ≥0.95 for CCV≥0.5. 

• 71 FR 61287. Figure C–1 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Suggested Format for 

Reporting Test Results for Methods for 

SO2, CO, O3, NO2. Title and the first 

lines of content are repositioned from 

being section text to being proper parts 

of Figure C–1. 

• 71 FR 61287. Figures C–2 and C–3 

to Subpart C of Part 53—Illustration of 

the Slope and Intercept Limits for Class 

II and Class III PM2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods and Illustration of 

the Slope and Intercept Limits for Class 

II and Class III PM10–2.5 Candidate 

Equivalent Methods. ‘‘PM2.5’’ is changed 

to ‘‘PM2.5,’’ ‘‘PM10–2.5’’ is changed to 

‘‘PM10–2.5,’’ ‘‘μg/m3’’ is changed to ‘‘μg/ 

m3.’’ Also, the ‘‘Class II’’ and ‘‘Class III’’

labels are related by arrows to the 

outline of the hexagons rather than the 

area inside, to be consistent with the 

title, which indicates ‘‘Acceptance 

Limits.’’

• 71 FR 61289. Figure C–4 to Subpart 

C of Part 53—Illustration of the 

Minimum Limits for Correlation 

Coefficient for PM2.5 and PM10–2.5 Class 

II and III methods. In the axes labels, the 

commas are deleted and the ‘‘r’’ and the 

‘‘CCV’’ are placed within parentheses. 

• 71 FR 61293. Subpart E of Part 53—

§ 53.58(g), Operational field precision 

and blank test. Equation 26: the symbol 

‘‘C1,j’’ is corrected to ‘‘Ci,j.’’

• 71 FR 61294. 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. In the 3rd column, row 

identified as ‘‘§ 53.56* * *,’’ a comma 

is added after ‘‘16.67 ± 5%’’ and before 

‘‘L/min.’’

• 71 FR 61294. 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. In the 3rd column, row 

identified as ‘‘§ 53.57* * *,’’ one of the 

two periods at the end of item 3 is 

removed. 

• 71 FR 61294. 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. In the fourth column, row 

identified as ‘‘§ 53.57* * *,’’ item (c) is 

changed to read ‘‘Solar flux of 1000 ± 50 

W/m2’’ not ‘‘Solar flux of 1000 ? 50 W/ 

m2.’’

• 71 FR 61294. 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. Spurious ‘‘?’’ characters 

throughout the table are removed. 

• 71 FR 61294. 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. § 53.56 cell reference, 

Barometric pressure effect test, Sample 

flow rate performance specification, 

value is changed to be 16.67 (versus 

16.6). 

• 71 FR 61296. Table F–1 to Subpart 

F of Part 53—Performance 

Specifications for PM2.5 Class II 

Equivalent Samplers. In the last column, 

row identified as ‘‘§ 53.64,’’ ‘‘Dp50 = 2.5 

μm ? 0.2 μm’’ is changed to be ‘‘Dp50 = 

2.5 μm ± 0.2 μm.’’

• 71 FR 61296. Table F–1 to Subpart 

F of Part 53—Performance 

Specifications for PM2.5 Class II 

Equivalent Samplers. In the last column, 

last row, a comma is added after 

‘‘0.15mg’’ and before ‘‘r ≥0.97.’’

• 71 FR 61296. Table F–1 to Subpart 

F of Part 53—Performance 

Specifications for PM2.5 Class II 

Equivalent Samplers. Spurious ‘‘?’’

characters throughout the table are 

removed. 

• 71 FR 61300. Figure 1 to Subpart B 

of Part 58—Ratio to Standard for PM10

Operating Schedule. A missing value 

(1.4) is added on the X axis. 

• 71 FR 61309. Appendix A of Part 

58—Quality Assurance Requirements 

for SLAMS, SPMs, and PSD Air 

Monitoring. Equation 7: A missing ‘‘•’’

character is added so that the equation 

reads: Lower Probability Limit = m–1.96 

• S. 

• 71 FR 61309. Appendix A of Part 

58—Quality Assurance Requirements 

for SLAMS, SPMs, and PSD Air 

Monitoring. A missing minus sign is 

added in caption below Equation 11 so 

that it reads: a chi-squared distribution 

with n–1 degrees of freedom. 

• 71 FR 61310. Appendix A of Part 

58—Quality Assurance Requirements 

for SLAMS, SPMs, and PSD Air 

Monitoring. Equation 12: missing 

ellipsis is added in caption so that it 

reads: where, nj is the number of pairs 

and d1, d2, * * * dnj are the biases for 

each of the pairs to be averaged. 

• ‘‘PM10C’’, where it appears in Part 

53 without a subscripted ‘‘C’’, is 

replaced with ‘‘PM10c.’’

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because 

it may raise novel legal policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Order 12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection, as it only 

corrects printing errors, provides 

clarifications, and provides new 

flexibility for PM10 monitoring on a 

case-by-case basis. However, the OMB 

has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations for 

40 CFR part 53 and 40 CFR part 58 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0084, EPA ICR number 0940.20. A 

copy of the OMB approved Information 

Collection Request (ICR) may be 

obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 

Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566–1672. 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden beyond 

the already-approved ICR. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32201 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. None of 

the corrections and clarifications creates 

additional regulatory requirements on 

affected entities compared to those that 

were promulgated in the final rule that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 17, 2006. The rule changes 

being made only correct printing errors, 

provide clarifications, and provides new 

flexibility for PM10 monitoring on a 

case-by-case basis. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year, 

because the changes being made are 

merely clarifications and corrections. 

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

None of the changes creates additional 

regulatory requirements on affected 

entities compared to those that were 

promulgated in the final rule that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 17, 2006. The rule changes 

being made only correct printing errors, 

provide clarifications, and provide some 

new flexibility for PM10 monitoring on 

a case-by-case basis. Therefore, this final 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of section 203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications because it will 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This is because 

the changes being made only correct 

printing errors, provide clarifications, 

and provides some new flexibility for 

PM10 monitoring on a case-by-case 

basis. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this final rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. The EPA 

consulted with tribal officials early in 

the process of developing the October 

17, 2006, rule to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. Although tribal 

governments may elect to conduct 

ambient air monitoring, none of the 

changes in today’s rule apply directly to 

tribal governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32202 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under EO 12866, 

and (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason 

to believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children, and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the EO has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This final rule 

is not subject to EO 13045 because it 

does not establish an environmental 

standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The rule merely amends 

the October 17, 2006, final monitoring 

rule (71 FR 61236) by correcting 

printing errors, providing clarifications, 

and providing some new flexibility for 

PM10 monitoring on a case-by-case 

basis. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

No significant change in the use of 

energy is expected because the total 

number of monitors for ambient air 

quality measurements will not increase 

above present levels. Further, we have 

concluded that this rule is not likely to 

have any adverse energy effects. 

J. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards, other than to make 

corrections and clarifications. Therefore, 

EPA did not consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final 

rule will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more, 

will not result in a major increase in 

costs or prices for State or local 

agencies, and will not affect competition 

with foreign-based enterprises in 

domestic and export markets. The final 

amendments will be effective on 

September 10, 2007. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 53 and 

58 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 30, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, parts 53 and 58 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations are 

amended as follows: 

PART 53—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 53 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Section 301(a) of the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 1857g(a)), as amended by 

sec. 15(c)(2) of Pub. L. 91–604, 84 Stat. 1713, 

unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 53.35 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising Equation 12 of paragraph 

(d)(4), 

■ b. Revising Equation 13 of paragraph 

(e)(1), 

■ c. Revising Equation 15 of paragraph 

(f)(1), 

■ d. Revising Equation 17 of paragraph 

(g)(1), and 

■ e. Revising Equation 21 of paragraph 

(h)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 53.35 Test procedure for Class II and 

Class III methods for PM 2.5 and PM10–2.5. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

Equation 12

Cj i j

i

m

m= C

=

∑

1

1

,

Where: 

Cj = The mean concentration measured by 

the candidate method for the 

measurement set; 

Ci,j = The measurement of the candidate 

method sampler or analyzer i on test day 

j; and 

m = The number of valid candidate method 

measurements in the measurement set 

(normally 3). 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULESER41AD07.000</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32203 

Equation 13

RPj =

− 



 





− × = =

∑ ∑ 1

1

1

100

2

1 1

2

R

R

n

R

j n

i j

i

n

i j

i

n

, ,

%

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Equation 15

CPj =

− 



 





− × = =

∑ ∑ 1

1

1

2

1 1

2

C

C

m

C

j

i j

i

m

i j

i

m

, ,

m

100%

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Equation 17

R = =

∑

1

J 1

Rj

j

J

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Equation 21

r =

R

j=1

J

j j

j

j

J

j

j

J

RC C

RR CC

( ) − ( ) −

( ) − ( ) −

∑

∑ ∑ = =

2

1

2

1

* * * * * 

■ 3. Table C–1 to subpart C is revised to 

read as follows: 

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

MAXIMUM DISCREPANCY SPECIFICATION

Pollutant Concentration range, parts per 

million 

Simultaneous measurements required Maximum 

discrepancy 

specification, 

parts per million 

1-hr 24-hr 

First set Second 

set First set Second set 

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 ........................

■ 4. Table C–4 to subpart C is revised to 

read as follows: 

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

METHODS

Specification PM10

PM2.5 PM10–2.5

Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III 

Acceptable concentration range 

(Rj), μg/m3.

15–300 ............. 3–200 ............... 3–200 3–200 3–200 3–200 

Minimum number of test sites .... 2 ....................... 1 ....................... 2 4 2 4 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULESER41AD07.001</MATH> ER41AD07.002</MATH> ER41AD07.003</MATH> ER41AD07.004</MATH>
32204 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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

METHODS—Continued 

Specification PM10

PM2.5 PM10–2.5

Class I Class II Class III Class II Class III 

Minimum number of candidate 

method samplers or analyzers 

per site.

3 ....................... 3 ....................... 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Number of reference method 

samplers per site.

3 ....................... 3 ....................... 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Minimum number of acceptable 

sample sets per site for PM10

methods: 

Rj < 60 μg/m3 ...................... 3 

Rj > 60 μg/m3 ...................... 3 

Total ..................................... 10 

Minimum number of acceptable 

sample sets per site for PM2.5

and PM10–2.5 candidate equivalent methods: 

Rj < 30 μg/m3 for 24-hr or 

Rj < 20 μg/m3 for 48-hr 

samples.

........................... 3 

Rj > 30 μg/m3 for 24-hr or 

Rj > 20 μg/m3 for 48-hr 

samples.

........................... 3 

Each season ........................ ........................... 10 ..................... 23 23 23 23 

Total, each site .................... ........................... 10 ..................... 23 23 (46 for twoseason sites) 23 23 (46 for twoseason sites) 

Precision of replicate reference 

method measurements, PRj or 

RPRj, respectively; RP for 

Class II or III PM2.5 or PM10–

2.5, maximum.

5 μg/m3 or 7% .. 2 μg/m3 or 5% 10% 2 10% 2 10% 2 10% 2

Precision of PM2.5 or PM10–2.5

candidate method, CP, each 

site.

........................... .......................... 10% 2 15% 2 15% 2 15% 2

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 relationship, μg/m3.0 ± 5 ................. 0 ± 1 ................ Between: 13.55 

¥ (15.05 × 

slope), but 

not less than 

¥1.5; and 

16.56 ¥ 

(15.05 × 

slope), but 

not more than 

+1.5 

Between: 15.05 

¥ (17.32 × 

slope), but 

not less than 

¥2.0; and 

15.05 ¥ 

(13.20 × 

slope), but 

not more than 

+2.0 

Between: 62.05 

¥ (70.5 × 

slope), but 

not less than 

¥3.5; and 

78.95 ¥ 

(70.5 × 

slope), but 

not more than 

+3.5 

Between: 70.50 

¥ (82.93 × 

slope), but 

not less than 

¥7.0; and 

70.50 ¥ 

(61.16 × 

slope), but 

not more than 

+7.0 

Correlation of reference method 

and candidate method measurements.

≥ 0.97 ............... ≥ 0.97 .............. ≥ 0.93—for CCV ≤ 0.4; 

≥ 0.85 + 0.2 × CCV—for 0.4 ≤ CCV ≤ 0.5; 

≥ 0.95—for CCV ≥ 0.5 

1Some missing daily measurement values may be permitted; see test procedure. 

2 Calculated as the root mean square over all measurement sets. 

■ 5. Figures C–1 through C–4 to subpart 

C are revised to read as follows: 

Figure C–1 to Subpart C of Part 53—Suggested Format for Reporting Test Results for Methods for SO 2, CO, O 3, 

NO 2

Candidate Method llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Reference Method llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Applicant llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

b First Set b Second Set b Type b 1 Hour b 24 Hour 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32205 

Concentration 

range Date Time 

Concentration, ppm 

Difference Table C–1 

spec. Pass or fail 

Candidate Reference 

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: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32206 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULESER41AD07.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32207 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULESER41AD07.010</GPH>
32208 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 6. Section 53.58 is amended by 

revising Equation 26 of paragraph 

(g)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 53.58 Operational field precision and 

blank test. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2)(i) * * * 

Equation 26

Cave, j = × =

∑ 1

3 1

3

Ci j

i

,

* * * * * 

■ 7. Table E–1 to subpart E is revised to 

read as follows: 

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

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

reference 

§ 53.52 Sample leak check 

test.

Sampler leak check facility External leakage: 80 mL/ 

min, max.

Internal leakage: 80 mL/ 

min, max.

Controlled leak flow rate of 

80 mL/ min.

Sec. 7.4.6. 

§ 53.53 Base flow rate test Sample flow rate ...............

1. Mean .............................

2. Regulation .....................

3. Meas accuracy ..............

4. CV accuracy .................

5. Cut-off ...........................

1. 16.67 ± 5%, L/ min ........

2. 2%, max ........................

3. 2%, max ........................

4. 0.3% max ......................

5. Flow rate cut-off if flow 

rate deviates more than 

10% from design flow 

rate for >60 ± 30 seconds.

(a) 6-hour normal operational test plus flow 

rate cut-off test.

(b) Normal conditions ........

(c) Additional 55 mm Hg 

pressure drop to simulate loaded filter.

(d) Variable flow restriction 

used for cut-off test.

Sec. 7.4.1. 

Sec. 7.4.2. 

Sec. 7.4.3. 

Sec. 7.4.4. 

Sec. 7.4.5. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULESER41AD07.011</GPH> ER41AD07.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32209 

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 

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

reference 

§ 53.54 Power interruption 

test.

Sample flow rate ...............

1. Mean .............................

2. Regulation .....................

3. Meas. accuracy .............

4. CV accuracy .................

5. Occurrence time of 

power interruptions.

6. Elapsed sample time ....

7. Sample volume .............

1. 16.67 ± 5%, L/ min ........

2. 2%, max ........................

3. 2%, max ........................

4. 0.3% max ......................

5. ± 2 min if >60 seconds. 

6. ± 20 seconds ................

7. ± 2%, max .....................

(a) 6-hour normal operational test.

(b) Nominal conditions ......

(c) Additional 55 mm Hg 

pressure drop to simulate loaded filter.

(d) 6 power interruptions of 

various durations.

Sec. 7.4.1. 

Sec. 7.4.2. 

Sec. 7.4.3. 

Sec. 7.4.5. 

Sec. 7.4.12. 

Sec. 7.4.13. 

Sec. 7.4.15.4. 

Sec. 7.4.15.5. 

§ 53.55 Temperature and 

line voltage test.

Sample flow rate ...............

1. Mean .............................

2. Regulation .....................

3. Meas. accuracy .............

4. CV accuracy .................

5. Temperature meas. accuracy.

6. Proper operation. 

1. 16.67 ± 5%, L/ min ........

2. 2%, max ........................

3. 2%, max ........................

4. 0.3% max ......................

5. 2 °C ...............................

(a) 6-hour normal operational test.

(b) Normal conditions ........

(c) Additional 55 mm Hg 

pressure drop to simulate loaded filter.

(d) Ambient temperature at 

¥20 and +40 °C.

(e) Line voltage: 105 Vac 

to 125 Vac.

Sec. 7.4.1. 

Sec. 7.4.2. 

Sec. 7.4.3. 

Sec. 7.4.5. 

Sec. 7.4.8. 

Sec. 7.4.15.1. 

§ 53.56 Barometric pressure effect test.Sample flow rate ...............

1. Mean .............................

2. Regulation .....................

3. Meas. accuracy .............

4. CV accuracy .................

5. Pressure meas. accuracy.

6. Proper operation. 

1. 16.67 ± 5%, L/ min ........

2. 2%, max ........................

3. 2%, max ........................

4. 0.3% max ......................

5. 10 mm Hg .....................

(a) 6-hour normal operational test.

(b) Normal conditions ........

(c) Additional 55 mm Hg 

pressure drop to simulate loaded filter.

(d) Barometric pressure at 

600 and 800 mm Hg.

Sec. 7.4.1. 

Sec. 7.4.2. 

Sec. 7.4.3. 

Sec. 7.4.5. 

Sec. 7.4.9. 

§ 53.57 Filter temperature 

control test.

1. Filter temp. meas. accuracy.

2. Ambient temp. meas. 

accuracy.

3. Filter temp. control accuracy, sampling and 

non-sampling.

1. 2 °C ...............................

2. 2 °C ...............................

3. Not more than 5 °C 

above ambient temp. for 

more than 30 min.

(a) 4-hour simulated solar 

radiation, sampling.

(b) 4-hour simulated solar 

radiation, non-sampling.

(c) Solar flux of 1000 ± 50 

W/m 2.

Sec. 7.4.8. 

Sec. 7.4.10. 

Sec. 7.4.11. 

§ 53.58 Field precision test 1. Measurement precision 

2. Storage deposition test 

for sequential samplers.

1. Pj < 2 μg/m3 or RPj < 

5%.

2. 50 μg max. average 

weight gain/blank filter.

(a) 3 collocated samplers 

at 1 site for at least 10 

days.

(b) PM2.5 conc. > 3 μg/m3

(c) 24- or 48-hour samples 

(d) 5- or 10-day storage 

period for inactive stored 

filters.

Sec. 5.1. 

Sec. 7.3.5. 

Sec. 8. 

Sec. 9. 

Sec. 10. 

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

§ 53.59 Aerosol transport 

test.

Aerosol transport ............... 97%, min. for all channels. Determine aerosol transport through any new or 

modified components 

with respect to the reference method sampler 

before the filter for each 

channel.

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 8. Table F–1 to subpart F is revised to 

read as follows: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
32210 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / 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 Wind Tunnel Evaluation ................. Solid VOAG produced aerosol at 2 km/hr and 

24 km/hr.

Dp50 = 2.5 μm ± 0.2 μm Numerical Analysis 

Results: 95% ≤ Rc ≤ 105%. 

§ 53.63 Wind Tunnel Inlet Aspiration Test ......... Liquid VOAG produced aerosol at 2 km/hr 

and 24 km/hr.

Relative Aspiration: 95% ≤ A ≤ 105%. 

§ 53.64 Static Fractionator Test ......................... Evaluation of the fractionator under static conditions.Dp50 = 2.5 μm ± 0.2 μm Numerical Analysis 

Results: 95% ≤ Rc ≤ 105%. 

§ 53.65 Loading Test .......................................... Loading of the clean candidate under laboratory conditions.Acceptance criteria as specified in the postloading evaluation test (§ 53.62, § 53.63, or 

§ 53.64). 

§ 53.66 Volatility Test ......................................... Polydisperse liquid aerosol produced by air 

nebulization of A.C.S. reagent grade glycerol, 99.5% minimum purity.

Regression Parameters Slope = 1 ± 0.1, Intercept = 0 ± 0.15 mg, r ≥ 0.97. 

PART 58—[AMENDED] 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 58 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7611, and 7619. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 10. Section 58.10 is amended by 

revising the second sentence in 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follow: 

§ 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan 

and periodic network assessment. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) * * * If the State or local agency 

has already provided a public comment 

opportunity on its plan and has made 

no changes subsequent to that comment 

opportunity, and has submitted the 

received comments together with the 

plan, the Regional Administrator is not 

required to provide a separate 

opportunity for comment. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 58.12 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(1), paragraph 

(d)(3), and the first sentence of 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 58.12 Operating schedules. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1)(i) Manual PM2.5 samplers at 

required SLAMS stations without a 

collocated continuously operating PM2.5

monitor must operate on at least a 1-in3 day schedule. 

(ii) For SLAMS PM2.5 sites with both 

manual and continuous PM2.5 monitors 

operating, the monitoring agency may 

request approval for a reduction to 1-in6 day PM2.5 sampling or for seasonal 

sampling from the EPA Regional 

Administrator. The EPA Regional 

Administrator may grant sampling 

frequency reductions after consideration 

of factors, including but not limited to 

the historical PM2.5 data quality 

assessments, the location of current 

PM2.5 design value sites, and their 

regulatory data needs. Required SLAMS 

stations whose measurements determine 

the design value for their area and that 

are within plus or minus 10 percent of 

the NAAQS; and all required sites 

where one or more 24-hour values have 

exceeded the NAAQS each year for a 

consecutive period of at least 3 years are 

required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day 

sampling frequency. A continuously 

operating FEM or ARM PM2.5 monitor 

satisfies this requirement. 

(iii) Required SLAMS stations whose 

measurements determine the design 

value for their area and that are within 

plus or minus 5 percent of the daily 

PM2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or 

FEM operate on a daily schedule. A 

continuously operating FEM or ARM 

PM2.5 monitor satisfies this requirement. 

* * * * * 

(3) Manual PM2.5 speciation samplers 

at STN stations must operate on at least 

a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency. 

(e) For PM10 samplers, a 24-hour 

sample must be taken from midnight to 

midnight (local standard time) to ensure 

national consistency. * * * 

§ 58.12 [Amended] 

■ 12. Figure 1 of paragraph (e) of § 58.12 

is revised to read as follows: 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 13. Section 58.20(c) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 58.20 Special purpose monitors (SPM). 

* * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 32211 

1Selection of urban areas and actual numbers of 

stations per area will be jointly determined by EPA 

and the State agency. 

(c) All data from an SPM using an 

FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated 

for more than 24 months is eligible for 

comparison to the relevant NAAQS, 

subject to the conditions of § 58.30, 

unless the air monitoring agency 

demonstrates that the data came from a 

particular period during which the 

requirements of appendix A, appendix 

C, or appendix E to this part were not 

met in practice. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A to Part 58—[Amended] 

■ 14. Appendix A is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the third (last) sentence of 

section 2.4; 

■ b. Revising Equation 7 of section 

4.1.4; 

■ c. Revising the definition of the 

symbol ‘‘n’’ for Equation 11 of section 

4.2.1, 

■ d. Revising the last sentence in section 

4.2.2.2, and 

■ e. Revising the definition of the 

symbol ‘‘nj’’ for Equation 12 of section 

4.3.2.1 to read as follows: 

2. General Monitoring Requirements 

* * * * * 

2.4 * * * For clarification and to 

participate, monitoring organizations should 

contact either the appropriate EPA Regional 

Quality Assurance (QA) Coordinator at the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office location, or 

the NPAP Coordinator at the Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency in Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina. 

* * * * * 

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments 

* * * * * 

4.1.4 * * * 

Equation 7

Lower Probability Limit = m − ⋅ 1 96 . S

* * * * * 

4.2.1 * * * 

Equation 11

where, n is the number of valid data pairs 

being aggregated, and X2 0.1, n–1 is the 

10th percentile of a chi-squared 

distribution with n–1 degrees of 

freedom. The factor of 2 in the 

denominator adjusts for the fact that 

each di is calculated from two values 

with error. 

4.2.2 * * * The absolute volume bias 

upper bound is then calculated using 

equation 3 of this appendix, where n is the 

number of flow rate audits being aggregated; 

t0.95, n–1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution 

with n–1 degrees of freedom, the quantity AB 

is the mean of the absolute values of the di’s 

and is calculated using equation 4 of this 

appendix, and the quantity AS in equation 3 

of this appendix is the standard deviation of 

the absolute values of the di’s and is 

calculated using equation 5 of this appendix. 

4.3.2.1 * * * 

Equation 12

where, nj is the number of pairs and d1, d2, 

* * *, dnj are the biases for each of the pairs 

to be averaged. 

* * * * * 

Appendix D to Part 58—[Amended] 

■ 15. Appendix D is amended by: 

■ a. Revising section 4.6(a); 

■ b. Revising the title of Table D–4 and 

Footnote 1 to Table D–4; and 

■ c. Revising section 4.7.2 to read as 

follows: 

4. Pollutant-Specific Design Criteria for 

SLAMS Sites 

* * * * * 

4.6 Particulate Matter (PM10) Design 

Criteria. 

(a) Table D–4 indicates the approximate 

number of permanent stations required in 

MSAs to characterize national and regional 

PM10 air quality trends and geographical 

patterns. The number of PM10 stations in 

areas where MSA populations exceed 

1,000,000 must be in the range from 2 to 10 

stations, while in low population urban 

areas, no more than two stations are required. 

A range of monitoring stations is specified in 

Table D–4 because sources of pollutants and 

local control efforts can vary from one part 

of the country to another and therefore, some 

flexibility is allowed in selecting the actual 

number of stations in any one locale. 

Modifications from these PM10 monitoring 

requirements must be approved by the 

Regional Administrator. 

Table D–4 of Appendix D to Part 58. PM10

Minimum Monitoring Requirements 

(Approximate Number of Stations Per 

MSA) 1

* * * * * 

4.7.2 Requirement for Continuous PM2.5

Monitoring. The State, or where appropriate, 

local agencies must operate continuous PM2.5

analyzers equal to at least one-half (round 

up) the minimum required sites listed in 

Table D–5 of this appendix. At least one 

required continuous analyzer in each MSA 

must be collocated with one of the required 

FRM/FEM/ARM monitors, unless at least one 

of the required FRM/FEM/ARM monitors is 

itself a continuous FEM or ARM monitor in 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULESER41AD07.012</GPH> ER41AD07.006</GPH> ER41AD07.007</GPH> ER41AD07.008</MATH>
32212 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1 ‘‘Consumption’’ is defined as the amount of a 

substance produced in the United States, plus the 

amount imported into the United States, minus the 

amount exported to Parties to the Montreal Protocol 

(see Section 601(6) of the Clean Air Act). 

2Class I ozone depleting substances are listed at 

40 CFR Part 82 subpart A, appendix A. 

which case no collocation requirement 

applies. State and local air monitoring 

agencies must use methodologies and quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) 

procedures approved by the EPA Regional 

Administrator for these required continuous 

analyzers. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–2201 Filed 6–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0159; FRL–8325–5] 

RIN 2060–AN81 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Allocation of Essential Use Allowances 

for Calendar Year 2007 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is 

allocating essential use allowances for 

import and production of Class I 

stratospheric ozone-depleting 

substances (ODSs) for calendar year 

2007. Essential use allowances enable a 

person to obtain controlled Class I ODSs 

as part of an exemption to the regulatory 

ban on the production and import of 

these chemicals, which became effective 

as of January 1, 1996. EPA allocates 

essential use allowances for exempted 

production or import of a specific 

quantity of Class I ODSs solely for the 

designated essential purpose. The 

allocations in this action total 167.0 

metric tons (MT) of chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs) for use in metered dose inhalers 

(MDIs) for 2007. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective June 12, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0159. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kirsten Cappel, by regular mail: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Stratospheric Protection Division 

(6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; by courier 

service or overnight express: 1310 L 

Street, NW., Room 1047C, Washington, 

DC 20005; by telephone: (202) 343–

9556; by fax: (202) 343–2338; or by, email: cappel.kirsten@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Basis for Allocating Essential Use 

Allowances 

A. What are essential use allowances? 

B. Under what authority does EPA allocate 

essential use allowances? 

C. What is the process for allocating 

essential use allowances? 

D. What quantity of essential use 

allowances is EPA allocating? 

II. Response to Comments 

A. Proposed Level of Allocations 

B. Consideration of Stocks of CFCs in the 

Allocation of Essential Use Allowances 

C. Number of Months of Safety Stockpile 

D. Rulemaking Process and Timing 

E. The transition to Non-CFC MDIs 

III. Allocation of Essential Use Allowances 

for Calendar Year 2007 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

V. Judicial Review 

VI. Effective Date of This Final Rule 

I. Basis for Allocating Essential Use 

Allowances 

A. What are essential use allowances? 

Essential use allowances are 

allowances to produce or import certain 

ODSs in the U.S. for purposes that have 

been deemed ‘‘essential’’ by the U.S. 

Government and by the Parties to the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal 

Protocol). 

The Montreal Protocol is an 

international agreement aimed at 

reducing and eliminating the 

production and consumption1 of ODSs. 

The elimination of production and 

consumption of Class I ODSs is 

accomplished through adherence to 

phase-out schedules for specific Class I 

ODSs,2 which include CFCs, halons, 

carbon tetrachloride, and methyl 

chloroform. As of January 1, 1996, 

production and import of most Class I 

ODSs were phased out in developed 

countries, including the United States. 

However, the Montreal Protocol and 

the Clean Air Act (the Act) provide 

exemptions that allow for the continued 

import and/or production of Class I 

ODSs for specific uses. Under the 

Montreal Protocol, exemptions may be 

granted for uses that are determined by 

the Parties to be ‘‘essential.’’ Decision 

IV/25, taken by the Parties to the 

Protocol in 1992, established criteria for 

determining whether a specific use 

should be approved as essential, and set 

forth the international process for 

making determinations of essentiality. 

The criteria for an essential use, as set 

forth in paragraph 1 of Decision IV/25, 

are the following: 

‘‘(a) That a use of a controlled 

substance should qualify as ‘essential’

only if: 

(i) It is necessary for the health, safety 

or is critical for the functioning of 

society (encompassing cultural and 

intellectual aspects); and 

(ii) There are no available technically 

and economically feasible alternatives 

or substitutes that are acceptable from 

the standpoint of environment and 

health; 

(b) That production and consumption, 

if any, of a controlled substance for 

essential uses should be permitted only 

if: 

(i) All economically feasible steps 

have been taken to minimize the 

essential use and any associated 

emission of the controlled substance; 

and 

(ii) The controlled substance is not 

available in sufficient quantity and 

quality from existing stocks of banked or 

recycled controlled substances, also 

bearing in mind the developing 

countries’ need for controlled 

substances.’’


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC67 with RULES