Vol. 79 Thursday, 

No. 176 September 11, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 58 

Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other 

Requirements; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 58 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0619; FRL–9915–16– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR59 

Revisions to Ambient Monitoring 

Quality Assurance and Other 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

revisions to ambient air monitoring 

requirements for criteria pollutants to 

provide clarifications to existing 

requirements to reduce the compliance 

burden of monitoring agencies operating 

ambient networks. This proposal 

focuses on reorganizing and clarifying 

quality assurance requirements, 

simplifying and reducing data reporting 

and certification requirements, 

clarifying the annual monitoring 

network plan public notice 

requirements, revising certain network 

design criteria for nonsource lead 

monitoring, and addressing other issues 

in part 58 Ambient Air Quality 

Surveillance Requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2013–0619, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0619 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail code 28221T, Attention 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0619, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

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–2013– 

0619. 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 http:// 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

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 Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/

DC, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 

1301 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 and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lewis Weinstock, Air Quality 

Assessment Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code C304–06, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541–3661; 

fax: (919) 541–1903; email: 

Weinstock.lewis@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action applies to state, territorial, 

and local air quality management 

programs that are responsible for 

ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR 

part 58. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include: 

Category NAICSa code 

State/territorial/local/tribal 

government.

924110 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark any of the information that you 

claim to be CBI. For CBI information in 

a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 

EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD 

ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD 

ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54357 

1Links to the NAAQS final rules are available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. 

2The AQS is the EPA’s repository of ambient air 

quality data. The AQS stores data from over 10,000 

monitors, 5,000 of which are currently active. State, 

local and tribal agencies collect the data and submit 

it to the AQS on a periodic basis. See http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ for additional 

information. 

3http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/memos/

criteria_monitor_list_by_certifying_agency_and_

PQAO.xls. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed rule will also be available on 

the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed rule will be posted on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. A redline/strikeout 

document comparing the proposed 

revisions to the appropriate sections of 

the current rules is located in the 

docket. 

Table of Contents 

The following topics are discussed in 

this preamble: 

I. Background 

II. Proposed Changes to the Ambient 

Monitoring Requirements 

A. General Information 

B. Definitions 

C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and 

Periodic Network Assessment 

D. Network Technical Requirements 

E. Operating Schedules 

F. System Modification 

G. Annual Air Monitoring Data 

Certification 

H. Data Submittal and Archiving 

Requirements 

I. Network Design Criteria (Appendix D) 

III. Proposed Changes to Quality Assurance 

Requirements 

A. Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Monitors Used in Evaluations for 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards—Appendix A 

1. General Information 

2. Quality System Requirements 

3. Quality Control Checks for Gases 

4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate 

Monitors 

5. Calculations for Data Quality 

Assessment 

B. Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Monitors Used in Evaluations of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Projects—Appendix B 

1. General Information 

2. Quality System Requirements 

3. Quality Control Checks for Gases 

4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate 

Monitors 

5. Calculations for Data Quality 

Assessment 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulations and 

Regulatory 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 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

The EPA is proposing revisions to 

ambient air requirements for criteria 

pollutants to provide clarifications to 

existing requirements to reduce the 

compliance burden of monitoring 

agencies operating ambient networks. 

This proposal focuses on ambient 

monitoring requirements that are found 

in 40 CFR part 58 and the associated 

appendices (A, D, and new Appendix 

B), including issues such as operating 

schedules, the development of annual 

monitoring network plans, data 

reporting and certification requirements, 

and the operation of the required quality 

assurance (QA) program. 

The EPA last completed a 

comprehensive revision of ambient air 

monitoring regulations in a final rule 

published on October 17, 2006 (see 71 

FR 61236). Minor revisions were 

completed in a direct final rule 

published on June 12, 2007 (see 72 FR 

32193). Periodic pollutant-specific 

monitoring updates have occurred in 

conjunction with revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). In such cases, the monitoring 

revisions were typically finalized as part 

of the NAAQS final rules.1

II. Proposed Changes to the Ambient 

Monitoring Requirements 

A. General Information 

The following proposed changes to 

monitoring requirements impact these 

subparts of part 58—Ambient Air 

Quality Surveillance: Subpart A— 

General Provisions, and Subpart B— 

Monitoring Network. Specific proposed 

changes to these subparts are described 

below. 

B. Definitions 

The EPA proposes to add and revise 

several terms to ensure consistent 

interpretation within the monitoring 

regulations and to harmonize usage of 

terms with the definition of key 

metadata fields that are important 

components of the Air Quality System 

(AQS).2

The EPA proposes to add the term 

‘‘Certifying Agency’’ to the list of 

definitions. The certifying agency field 

was added to AQS in 2013 as part of the 

development of a revised process for 

states and the EPA Regions to meet the 

data certification requirements 

described in 40 CFR 58.15. The new 

term specifically describes any 

monitoring agency that is responsible 

for meeting data certification 

requirements for a set of monitors. In 

practice, certifying agencies are 

typically a state, local, or tribal agency 

depending on the particular data 

reporting arrangements that have been 

approved by an EPA regional office for 

a given state. A list of certifying 

agencies by individual monitor is 

available on the AQS–TTN Web site.3

The term ‘‘Chemical Speciation 

Network’’ or CSN is being proposed for 

addition to the definition list. The CSN 

network has been functionally defined 

as being comprised of the Speciation 

Trends Network sites and the 

supplemental speciation sites that are 

collectively operated by monitoring 

agencies to obtain PM2.5 chemical 

species data. 

The term ‘‘Implementation Plan’’ is 

being proposed for addition to provide 

more specificity to current definitions 

that reference the word ‘‘plan’’ in their 

description. The EPA wishes to ensure 

that references to State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) are not confused with 

references to Annual Monitoring 

Network Plans that are described in 40 

CFR 58.10. 

The term ‘‘Local Agency’’ is being 

proposed for revision to clarify that 

such organizations are responsible for 

implementing portions of annual 

monitoring network plans. The current 

definition refers to the carrying out of a 

plan which is not specifically defined, 

leading to possible confusion with SIPs. 

The term ‘‘meteorological 

measurements’’ is being proposed for 

clarification that such measurements 

refer to required parameters at NCore 

and photochemical assessment 

monitoring stations (PAMS). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4The EPA notes that there is no specified process 

for obtaining public input into draft annual 

monitoring network plans although the typical 

process is to post the plans on state or local Web 

sites along with an on-line process to obtain public 

comments. 

5See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html. 

The terms ‘‘Monitoring Agency’’ and 

‘‘Monitoring Organization’’ are being 

proposed for clarification to include 

tribal monitoring agencies and to 

simplify the monitoring organization 

definition to reference the 

aforementioned monitoring agency 

definition. 

The term ‘‘NCore’’ is being proposed 

for revision to remove nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) and lead in PM10 (Pb-PM10) as a 

required measurement and to expand 

the definition of basic meteorology to 

specifically reference the required 

measurements: Wind speed, wind 

direction, temperature, and relative 

humidity. The EPA clarifies that NO2

was never a required NCore 

measurement and that the current 

definition was erroneous on this issue. 

Additionally, the requirement to 

measure Pb-PM10 at NCore sites in areas 

over 500,000 population is being 

proposed for elimination in the rule. 

The term ‘‘Near-road NO2 Monitor’’ is 

being proposed for revision to ‘‘Nearroad Monitor.’’ This revision is being 

made to broaden the definition of nearroad monitors to include all such 

monitors operating under the specific 

requirements described in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix D (sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2, 

4.7.1(b)(2)) and appendix E (section 

6.4(a), Table E–4) for near-road 

measurement of PM2.5 and carbon 

monoxide (CO) in addition to NO2. 

The term ‘‘Network Plan’’ is being 

proposed for addition to clarify that any 

such references in 40 CFR part 58 refer 

to the annual monitoring network plan 

required in 40 CFR 58.10. 

The term ‘‘Plan’’ is being proposed for 

deletion as its usage has been replaced 

with more specific references to either 

the annual monitoring network plan 

required in 40 CFR 58.10 or the SIP 

approved or promulgated pursuant to 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

The term ‘‘Population-oriented 

Monitoring (or sites)’’ is being proposed 

for deletion. This term along with the 

related usage of the concept of 

population-oriented monitoring was 

deleted from 40 CFR part 58 in the 2013 

PM2.5 NAAQS final rule (see 78 FR 

3235–3236). As explained in that rule, 

the action was taken to ensure 

consistency with the longstanding 

definition of ambient air applied to the 

other NAAQS pollutants. 

The term ‘‘Primary Monitor’’ is being 

proposed for addition to the definition 

list. The usage of this term has become 

important in AQS to better define the 

processes used to calculate design 

values when more than one monitor is 

being operated by a monitoring agency 

for a given pollutant. This term 

identifies the primary monitor used as 

the default data source in AQS for 

creating a combined site record. 

The term ‘‘Primary Quality Assurance 

Organization’’ is being proposed for 

revision to include the usage of the 

acronym, ‘‘PQAO.’’ 

The terms ‘‘PSD Monitoring 

Organization’’ and ‘‘PSD Monitoring 

Network’’ are being added to support 

the proposed new appendix B that will 

pertain specifically to QA requirements 

for prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) networks. 

The term ‘‘PSD Reviewing Authority’’ 

is being added to support the addition 

of appendix B to the part 58 appendices 

and to clarify the identification of the 

lead authority in determining the 

applicability of QA requirements for 

PSD monitoring projects. 

The term ‘‘Reporting Organization’’ is 

being proposed for revision to clarify 

that the term refers specifically to the 

reporting of data as defined in AQS. The 

AQS does allow the distinct designation 

of agency roles that include analyzing, 

certifying, collecting, reporting, and 

PQAO. 

The term ‘‘SLAMS’’ (state and local 

air monitoring stations) is being 

proposed for clarification to clearly 

indicate that the designation of a 

monitor as SLAMS refers to a monitor 

required under appendix D of part 58. 

The SLAMS monitors make up 

networks that include NCore, PAMS, 

CSN, and other state or local agency 

sites that have been so designated in 

annual monitoring network plans. 

The terms ‘‘State Agency’’ and ‘‘STN’’ 

are proposed for minor wording changes 

for purposes of clarity only. 

The term ‘‘State Speciation Site’’ is 

being proposed for deletion in lieu of 

the proposed addition of ‘‘Supplemental 

Speciation Station’’ to better describe 

the distinct elements of the CSN 

network which includes the Speciation 

Trends Network Stations that are 

required under section 4.7.4 of 

appendix D of part 58 and supplemental 

speciation stations which are operated 

for specific monitoring agency needs 

and are not considered to be required 

monitors under appendix D. 

C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and 

Periodic Network Assessment 

The EPA finalized the current Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan requirement 

as part of the 2006 amendments to the 

ambient monitoring requirements (see 

71 FR 61247–61249). The revised 

requirements were intended to 

consolidate separate network plan 

requirements that existed for SLAMS 

and national air monitoring stations 

(NAMS) networks, clarify processes for 

providing public input in the network 

plans and obtaining formal EPA 

Regional Office review, and revise the 

required plan elements to address other 

changes that had occurred in part 58. 

Since 2006, further revisions to the 

annual monitoring network plan 

requirements have occurred to address 

new requirements for monitoring 

networks including the NCore multipollutant network, source-oriented lead 

(Pb), near-road monitoring for NO2, CO 

and PM2.5, other required NAAQS 

monitoring, and data quality 

requirements for continuous PM2.5

Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs). 

The current Annual Monitoring 

Network Plan requirements state that 

plans must be made available for public 

inspection for at least 30 days prior to 

submission to the EPA. Additionally, 

any plans that propose SLAMS network 

modifications are subject to EPA 

Regional Administrator approval, and 

either the monitoring agency or the EPA 

Regional Office must provide an 

opportunity for public comment. This 

process to improve transparency 

pertaining to the planning of ambient 

monitoring networks has been 

successful and the EPA believes that 

state and local agencies are increasingly 

receiving public comments on these 

plans.4 To aid in the visibility of these 

plans, the EPA hosts an annual 

monitoring network plan summary page 

on its Ambient Monitoring Technical 

Information Center (AMTIC) Web site.5

Since the revision of the annual 

monitoring network plan process in 

2006, the EPA has received feedback 

from its regional offices as well as some 

states that the regulatory language 

pertaining to public involvement has 

been unclear. Areas of confusion 

include determining the difference 

between the process of obtaining public 

inspection versus comment, the 

responsibility of monitoring agencies to 

respond to public comment in their 

submitted plans, and the responsibility 

of the EPA regional offices to obtain 

public comment depending on a 

monitoring agency’s prior action as well 

as whether the annual monitoring 

network plan was modified based on 

discussions with the monitoring agency 

following plan submission. 

The EPA believes that the intent of 

the 2006 revision to these requirements 

was to support wider public 

involvement in the planning and 

implementation of air monitoring 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54359 

networks, and, to that extent, the 

solicitation of public comments prior to 

the submission of the annual monitoring 

network plan to the EPA regional office 

is a desirable part of the process. 

Indeed, the EPA stated in the preamble 

to the 2006 amendments that ‘‘Although 

the public inspection requirement does 

not specifically require states to obtain 

and respond to received comments, 

such a process is encouraged with the 

subsequent transmission of comments to 

the appropriate EPA regional office for 

review’’ (see 71 FR 61248). 

Given the heightened interest and 

visibility of the annual monitoring 

network plan process since 2006, the 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

propose that the public inspection 

aspect of this requirement contained in 

40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) be revised to clearly 

indicate that obtaining public comment 

is a required part of the process, and 

that plans that are submitted to the EPA 

regional offices should address such 

comments that were received during the 

public notice period. The EPA 

understands that this proposed change 

in process could increase burden for 

those monitoring agencies that have not 

routinely incorporated public comments 

into their annual monitoring network 

plan process. However, we believe that 

these efforts will increase the 

transparency of the current process and 

potentially reduce questions and 

adverse comment from stakeholders 

who have not been included in annual 

monitoring network plan discussions 

prior to submission to the EPA. For 

those monitoring agencies that already 

have been posting plans for public 

comment, this proposed change should 

have no net effect on workload. 

A related part of the annual 

monitoring network plan process is 

described in 40 CFR 58.10(a)(2) with the 

distinction that this section pertains 

specifically to plans that propose 

SLAMS modifications and thereby also 

require specific approval from the EPA 

Regional Administrator. Similar to the 

public comment issue described above, 

the process of obtaining such comment 

for plans that contain network 

modifications was not clearly described, 

with the regulatory text initially placing 

the responsibility on the EPA regional 

offices to obtain public comment, but 

then providing monitoring agencies 

with the option of obtaining public 

comment, which consequently would 

relieve the EPA regional office from 

having to do so. Consistent with the 

proposed change to the comment 

process described above, the EPA is 

proposing changes to the text in 40 CFR 

58.10(a)(2) to reflect the fact that public 

comments will have been required to be 

obtained by monitoring agencies prior to 

submission and that the role of the EPA 

regional office will be to review the 

submitted plan together with public 

comments and any modifications to the 

plan based on these comments. On an 

overall basis, the EPA believes that this 

proposed change to clearly place the 

responsibility for obtaining public 

comment on monitoring agencies makes 

sense since these organizations are, in 

effect, closer to their stakeholders and in 

a better position to notify the public 

about the availability and key issues 

contained in annual monitoring network 

plans, compared with similar efforts by 

the EPA regions that oversee many such 

agencies. 

On a related note, the EPA 

emphasizes the value of the partnership 

between monitoring agencies and their 

respective EPA regional offices, and 

encourages an active dialogue between 

these parties during the development 

and review of annual monitoring 

network plans. Although the monitoring 

regulations only require that the EPA 

Regional Administrators approve annual 

monitoring network plans that propose 

changes to SLAMS stations, the EPA 

encourages monitoring agencies to seek 

formal approval of submitted plans 

regardless of whether SLAMS changes 

are proposed or not. Such a process 

would ensure that not only plans with 

proposed modifications are formally 

approved, but also that plans where 

potential network changes are indeed 

appropriate but not proposed, would be 

subject to discussion. Although the EPA 

is not proposing that annual monitoring 

network plans that do not propose 

changes to SLAMS should also be 

subject to the EPA Regional 

Administrator’s approval, we support 

close working relationships between 

monitoring agencies and the EPA 

regions and see value in having a formal 

review of all such plans, regardless of 

whether network modifications are 

proposed. 

Another aspect of the annual 

monitoring network plan requirements 

is the listing of required information for 

each proposed and existing site as 

described in 40 CFR 58.10(b). The EPA 

is proposing to add two elements to this 

list as described below. 

First, the EPA is proposing to require 

that a PAMS network description be 

specifically included as a part of the 

annual monitoring network plan for any 

monitoring agencies affected by PAMS 

requirements. The requirements for 

such a plan are already referenced in 

appendix D, sections 5.2 and 5.4 of this 

part. In fact, the requirement for an 

‘‘approved PAMS network description 

provided by the state’’ is already 

specified in section 5.4. Accordingly, 

the EPA is proposing that a PAMS 

network description be a required 

element in annual monitoring network 

plans for affected monitoring agencies, 

and that any such plans already 

developed for PAMS networks in 

accordance with section 5 of appendix 

D could be used to meet this proposed 

requirement. The EPA believes that the 

burden impact of this proposed change 

should be minimal, as a review of 

archived 2012 annual monitoring 

network plans posted on the EPA’s 

AMTIC Web page shows that many such 

plans already include references to 

PAMS stations. For purposes of 

consistency and clarity, however, the 

EPA believes there is merit for 

proposing this revision to the annual 

monitoring network plan requirements 

so that stakeholders interested in the 

operation of PAMS stations can find the 

relevant information in one place. 

Second, the EPA is proposing 

language that affects ‘‘long-term’’ 

Special Purpose Monitors (SPMs), i.e., 

those SPMs operating for longer than 24 

months whose data could be used to 

calculate design values for NAAQS 

pollutants in cases where the EPA 

approved methods are being employed. 

As long as such monitors are classified 

as SPMs, their operation can be 

discontinued without EPA approval per 

40 CFR 58.20(f). While such operational 

flexibility is a key component of special 

purpose monitoring, the issue can 

become more complex when longerterm SPMs measure elevated levels of 

criteria pollutants and potentially 

become design value monitors for a 

region. In such cases, the EPA is faced 

with scenarios where key monitors that 

can impact the attainment status of a 

region can potentially be discontinued 

without prior notification or approval. 

Given the important regulatory 

implications of such monitoring 

network decisions, the EPA believes 

that it is important that the ongoing 

operation and treatment of such SPMs 

be specifically called out and discussed 

in annual monitoring network plans. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing that a 

new required element be added to the 

annual monitoring network plan 

requirements. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that such long-term SPMs be 

identified in the plans along with a 

discussion of the rationale for keeping 

the monitor(s) as SPMs or potentially 

reclassifying to SLAMS. The EPA is not 

proposing that such monitors must 

become SLAMS, only that the ongoing 

operation of such monitors and the 

rationale for retaining them as SPMs be 

explicitly discussed to avoid confusion 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6According to a retrieval from AQS dated 12–23– 

2013, approximately 65% of primary PM2.5

samplers (those monitors with a parameter 

occurrence code of ‘‘1’’) operated on a 1-in-3 day 

sampling frequency. 

7http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgen.html. 

8http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/spesunset.html. 

and the potential for unintended 

complexities in the designations process 

if any design value SPMs would be 

discontinued without adequate 

discussion. 

The EPA is proposing minor edits to 

the annual monitoring network plan 

requirements to revise terminology 

referring to PM2.5 speciation monitoring, 

to note the proposed addition of 

appendix B to the QA requirements (see 

section III.B of this preamble), and to 

clarify that annual monitoring network 

plans should include statements 

addressing whether the operation of 

each monitor meets the requirements of 

the associated appendices in part 58. 

Finally, the issue has arisen 

concerning the flexibility that the EPA 

Regional Administrators have with 

reference to the approvals that are 

required within 120 days of annual 

monitoring network plan approval, for 

example, in the situation where the 

majority of the submitted plan is 

acceptable but one or more of the 

required elements is problematic. In 

these situations, which we believe to be 

infrequent, the existing regulatory 

language provides sufficient flexibility 

for such situations to be handled on a 

case-by-case basis, for example, through 

the use of a partial approval process 

where the Regional Administrator’s 

approval decision letter specifies what 

elements of the submitted plan are 

approved and what elements are not. 

Alternatively, if the plan satisfies the 

requirements for network adequacy 

under appendix D and the monitors are 

suitable for regulatory decisions 

(consistent with the requirements of 

appendix A), the Regional 

Administrator has the discretion to 

approve the plan, while noting technical 

deficiencies to be corrected. We would 

expect that the resolution of the specific 

items under discussion would be 

documented through follow-up 

communications with the submitting 

monitoring agency to ensure that a 

complete record exists for the basis of 

the annual monitoring network plan 

approval. 

The EPA solicits comments on all of 

the proposed changes to annual 

monitoring network plans requirements 

contained in 40 CFR 58.10. 

D. Network Technical Requirements 

The EPA is proposing to revise the 

language in 40 CFR 58.11(a)(3) to note 

the proposed revisions to appendix B to 

the QA requirements (see section III.B of 

this preamble) that would pertain to 

PSD monitoring sites. 

E. Operating Schedules 

The operating schedule requirements 

described in 40 CFR 58.12 pertain to the 

minimum required frequency of 

sampling for continuous analyzers (for 

example, hourly averages) and manual 

methods for particulate matter (PM) and 

Pb sampling (typically 24-hour averages 

for manual methods). The EPA is 

proposing to revise these requirements 

in three ways: By proposing added 

flexibility in the minimum required 

sampling for PM2.5 mass sampling and 

for PM2.5 speciation sampling; by 

modifying language pertaining to 

continuous mass monitoring to reflect 

revisions in regulatory language that 

were finalized in the 2013 p.m. NAAQS 

final rule; and by clarifying the 

applicability of certain criteria that can 

lead to an increase in the required 

sampling frequency, for example, to a 

daily schedule. 

With regard to the minimum required 

sampling frequency for manual PM2.5

samplers, current requirements state 

that at least a 1-in-3 day frequency is 

mandated for required SLAMS monitors 

without a collocated continuous 

monitor. For the majority of such 

manual PM2.5 samplers, the EPA 

continues to believe that a 1-in-3 day 

sampling frequency is appropriate to 

meet the data quality objectives that 

support the PM2.5 NAAQS.6 For a subset 

of these monitors, however, the EPA 

believes that some regulatory flexibility 

may be appropriate in situations where 

a particular monitor is highly unlikely 

to record a violation of the PM2.5

NAAQS. Such situations might occur in 

areas with very low PM2.5

concentrations relative to the NAAQS 

and/or in urban areas with many more 

monitors than are required by appendix 

D and a subset of those monitors are 

reading lower than other monitors in the 

area. In these situations, the EPA 

believes it is appropriate to propose that 

the required sampling frequency could 

be reduced to 1-in-6 day sampling or 

another alternate schedule through a 

case-by-case approval by the EPA 

Regional Administrator. Such approvals 

could be based on factors that are 

already described in 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(ii) such as historical PM2.5

data assessments, the attainment status 

of the area, the location of design value 

sites, and the presence of continuous 

PM2.5 monitors at nearby locations. The 

EPA envisions that the request for such 

reductions in sampling frequency would 

occur during the annual monitoring 

network plan process as operating 

schedules are a required part of the 

plans as stated in 40 CFR 58.10(b)(4). 

For sites with a collocated continuous 

monitor, the EPA also believes that the 

current regulatory flexibility to reduce 

to 1-in-6 day sampling or a seasonal 

sampling schedule is appropriate based 

on factors described above, and in 

certain cases, may also be applicable to 

lower reading SLAMS sites without a 

collocated continuous monitor, for 

example, to reduce frequency from 1-in6 day sampling to a seasonal schedule. 

Accordingly, we have proposed such 

flexibility through changes in the 

regulatory language in 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(i) and (ii). 

The EPA also believes that some 

flexibility for sampling frequency is 

appropriate to propose for PM2.5

Chemical Speciation Stations, 

specifically the Speciation Trends 

Network (STN) sites that are at 

approximately 53 locations.7 The STN 

stations are currently required to sample 

on at least a 1-in-3 day frequency with 

no opportunity for flexibility. While the 

EPA firmly believes in the long-term 

importance of the STN stations to 

support the development of SIPs, 

modeling exercises, health studies, and 

the investigation of air pollution 

episodes and exceptional events, we do 

not believe that the current inflexibility 

with regard to sampling frequency is in 

the best interests of monitoring 

agencies, the EPA, or stakeholders. For 

the past several years, the EPA has been 

investigating alternative monitoring 

technologies such as continuous PM2.5

speciation methods that can supplement 

or potentially even replace manual 

PM2.5 speciation methods.8 As these 

methods become more refined, the EPA 

may wish to selectively reduce sampling 

frequency at manual samplers for one or 

more channels to conserve resources for 

reinvestment in other needs within the 

CSN network. Additionally, the EPA is 

currently conducting an assessment of 

the entire CSN network to evaluate the 

long-term viability of the program in the 

context of changes in air quality, the 

recently revised PM NAAQS, rising 

analytical costs, and flat or declining 

resources. Accordingly, for the reasons 

mentioned above, the EPA is proposing 

that a reduction in sampling frequency 

from 1-in-3 day be permissible for 

manual PM2.5 samplers at STN stations. 

The approval for such changes at STN 

stations, on a case by case basis, would 

be made by the EPA Administrator as 

the authority for changes to STN has 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54361 

9http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/

Default.htm. 

been retained at the Administrator level 

per appendix D of this part, section 

4.7.4. Factors that would be considered 

as part of the decision would include an 

area’s design value, the role of the 

particular site in national health studies, 

the correlation of the site’s species data 

with nearby sites, and presence of other 

leveraged measurements. In practice, we 

would expect a close working 

relationship with the EPA regional 

offices and monitoring agencies to 

consider such changes to STN, 

preferably as part of the annual 

monitoring network plan process, taking 

into account the findings of the CSN 

assessment process that is expected to 

be completed later in 2014, as well as 

a parallel effort being undertaken for the 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

network.9

The EPA is proposing editorial 

revisions to 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) to 

harmonize the language regarding the 

use of continuous FEM or approved 

regional methods (ARM) monitors to 

support sampling frequency flexibility 

for manual PM2.5 samplers with the 

current language in 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(iii) that was revised as part 

of 2013 PM NAAQS final rule. 

Specifically, the phrase ‘‘unless it is 

identified in the monitoring agency’s 

annual monitoring network plan as not 

appropriate for comparison to the 

NAAQS and the EPA Regional 

Administrator has approved that the 

data from that monitor may be excluded 

from comparison to the NAAQS’’ is 

being proposed for appending to the 

current regulatory language. This 

change reflects the new process that was 

finalized in the 2013 PM NAAQS final 

rule that allows monitoring agencies to 

request that continuous PM2.5 FEM data 

be excluded from NAAQS comparison 

based on technical criteria described in 

40 CFR 58.11(e) (see 78 FR 3241–3244). 

If such requests are made by monitoring 

agencies and subsequently approved by 

the EPA regional offices as part of the 

annual monitoring plan process, it 

follows that the data from these 

continuous PM2.5 FEMs would also not 

be of sufficient quality to support a 

request for sampling reduction for a 

collocated manual PM2.5 sampler. The 

EPA revised the relevant language in 

one section of 40 CFR 58.12 during the 

2013 PM rulemaking but failed to revise 

a similar phrase in another section of 40 

CFR 58.12. Accordingly, the EPA is 

proposing the change to ensure 

consistent regulatory language 

throughout 40 CFR 58.12. Within these 

editorial changes, we are also proposing 

the addition of the phrase ‘‘and the EPA 

Regional Administrator has approved 

that the data from that monitor may be 

excluded from comparison to the 

NAAQS’’ to the revisions that were 

made with the 2013 PM NAAQS. This 

revision is being proposed to clearly 

indicate that two distinct actions are 

necessary for the data from a continuous 

PM2.5 FEM to be considered not 

comparable to the NAAQS; first, the 

identification of the relevant monitor(s) 

in an agency’s annual monitoring 

network plan, and, second, the approval 

by the EPA Regional Administrator of 

that request to exclude data. The 

language used by the EPA in the 

relevant sections of 40 CFR 58.12 

related to the initial request by 

monitoring agencies but did not 

specifically address the needed 

approval by the EPA. 

Finally, the EPA is clarifying the 

applicability of statements in 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) that reference the 

relationship of sampling frequency to 

site design values. Specifically, we are 

proposing clarifications and revisions 

affecting the following statements: (1) 

‘‘Required SLAMS stations whose 

measurements determine the design 

value for their area and that are within 

±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,’’ 

and (2) ‘‘Required SLAMS stations 

whose measurements determine the 24- 

hour design value for their area and 

whose data are within ±5 percent of the 

level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must 

have a Federal Reference Method (FRM) 

or FEM operate on a daily schedule if 

that area’s design value for the annual 

NAAQS is less than the level of the 

annual PM2.5 standard.’’ Since these 

provisions were finalized in 2006, there 

has been some confusion among 

monitoring agencies and regional offices 

concerning the applicability of the 

sampling frequency adjustments since 

design values are recalculated annually 

and, in some situations, such revised 

design values can either fall below the 

comparative criteria or rise above the 

criteria. For example, if according to 40 

CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii) a sampler must be 

on a daily sampling schedule because 

its design value is within ±5 percent of 

the 24-hour NAAQS and it meets the 

other listed criteria, how and when 

should the sampling frequency be 

revised if the referenced 24-hour design 

value falls out of the ±5 percent criteria 

the following year? In an extreme 

example, what would happen if the 24- 

hour design value changed each year to 

be alternately within the 5 percent 

criteria and then not within the criteria? 

It was not the EPA’s intention in the 

2006 monitoring revisions to create 

scenarios in which the required 

sampling frequencies for individual 

samplers would be ‘‘chasing’’ annual 

changes in design values. Such a 

framework would be difficult to 

implement for both monitoring agencies 

and regional offices for logistical 

reasons including the scheduling of 

operators and the availability of PM2.5

filters, and also because of the time lag 

involved with reporting and certifying 

data and the validation of revised design 

values, which typically does not occur 

until the summer following the 

completion of each calendar year’s 

sampling. To provide some clarity to 

this situation as well as to provide a 

framework where changes in sampling 

frequency occur on a more consistent 

and predictable basis, the EPA is 

proposing that design value-driven 

sampling frequency changes be 

maintained for a minimum 3-year 

period once such a change is triggered. 

Additionally, such changes in sampling 

frequency would be required to be 

implemented no later than January 1 of 

the year which followed the 

recalculation and certification of a 

triggering design value. For example, if 

a triggering design value that required a 

change to daily sampling frequency was 

calculated in the summer of 2014 based 

on 2011–2013 certified data, then the 

affected sampler would be required to 

have an increased sampling frequency 

no later than January 1, 2015, and 

would maintain that daily frequency 

through at least 2017, regardless of 

changes to the triggering design value in 

the intervening years. 

To accomplish these proposed 

changes, the EPA is proposing changes 

in the 40 CFR 58.12 regulatory text to 

clarify that sampling frequency changes 

that are triggered by design values must 

be maintained until the triggering 

design value site no longer meets the 

criteria for at least 3 consecutive years. 

Specifically, these changes include the 

insertion of the phrase ‘‘until the design 

value no longer meets these criteria for 

3 consecutive years’’ into 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(ii) and the sentence ‘‘The 

daily schedule must be maintained until 

the referenced design values no longer 

meet these criteria for 3 consecutive 

years’’ into 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii). The 

EPA notes that where a design value is 

based on 3 years of data, 3 consecutive 

years of design values would require 5 

years of data (e.g., 2010–2012, 2011– 

2013, 2012–2014). New regulatory 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10The next 5-year network assessment will be 

due no later than July 1, 2015, according to the 

schedule established by 40 CFR 58.10(d). 

11Monitoring agencies, at their discretion, could 

submit the network modification plan in the year 

that the assessment is due if sufficient feedback had 

been received. On balance, EPA believes that the 

extra year following the completion of the network 

assessment would be valuable to assure a 

productive outcome from the assessment process. 

language has been proposed in 40 CFR 

58.12(d)(1)(iv) to document the timing 

of when design value-driven changes in 

sampling frequency must be 

implemented. 

On balance, the EPA believes that the 

overall impact of proposed changes to 

the operating schedule requirements 

will be a modest reduction in the 

burden for monitoring agencies. We 

believe that the number of PM2.5 FRM 

and CSN samplers impacted by these 

proposed changes will be relatively 

small, but where they occur will 

provide some logistical relief for sites 

that are less critical in terms of NAAQS 

implementation and other key 

objectives. The EPA solicits comment 

on all of these proposed changes to 40 

CFR 58.12 requirements. 

F. System Modification 

In the 2006 monitoring amendments, 

the EPA finalized a requirement in 40 

CFR 58.14(a) for monitoring agencies to 

‘‘develop and implement a plan and 

schedule to modify the ambient air 

quality network that complies with the 

finding of the network assessments 

required every 5 years by 58.10(e).’’ The 

remainder of the associated regulatory 

language reads very much like the 

required procedure for making annual 

monitoring network plans available for 

public inspection, comment, and the 

EPA Regional Administrator’s approval 

as described in 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) and 

(2). Since 2006, there has been 

confusion between the EPA and the 

monitoring agencies as to whether a 

separate plan was required to be 

submitted by 40 CFR 58.14(a) relative to 

the annual monitoring network plan, 

with that separate plan devoted 

specifically to discussing the results of 

the 5-year network assessment. 

A review of the 2006 monitoring 

proposal and final rule reveals no 

specific discussion concerning the 

submission of a distinct plan devoted 

specifically to the implementation of the 

5-year network assessment. While the 

EPA continues to support the 

importance of the network assessment 

requirement,10 there appears to be no 

specific benefit to the requirement for a 

distinct plan to discuss the 5-year 

network assessments, and the inference 

of the need for such a plan may be 

attributable to some redundancy in the 

aforementioned requirements when the 

regulatory language was revised in 2006. 

Monitoring agencies, for example, could 

include a specific section or attachment 

to the annual monitoring network plan 

that fulfilled all the requirements 

described in 40 CFR 58.14(a) including 

how each agency would implement the 

findings of the assessment and the 

schedule for doing so. By including 

such information in the annual 

monitoring network plans, the implied 

need to develop a separate plan with the 

attendant burden of public posting, 

obtaining public comment, and the EPA 

Regional Administrator’s review and 

approval can be avoided, reducing the 

burden on all parties. 

In terms of timing, these specific 

sections or attachments referring to the 

5-year network assessments could be 

required either in the year when the 

assessment is due (e.g., 2015) or in the 

year following when the assessment is 

due (e.g., 2016). The submission in the 

year following the network assessment 

would allow more time for monitoring 

agencies to fully consider the results of 

the 5-year assessment and would also 

allow the public more time to review 

and comment on the recommendations. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the regulatory language in 40 CFR 

58.14(a) to clearly indicate that a 

separate plan is not needed to account 

for the findings of the 5-year network 

assessment, and that the information 

concerning the implementation of the 5- 

year assessment, referred to in the 

proposed regulatory language as a 

‘‘network modification plan,’’ shall be 

submitted as part of the annual 

monitoring network plan that is no later 

than the year after the network 

assessment is due.11 According to the 

proposed schedule, the annual 

monitoring network plans that are due 

in 2016, 2021, etc., would contain the 

information referencing the network 

assessments. 

The EPA is also proposing to revise an 

incorrect cross-reference in the current 

text of 40 CFR 58.14(a) in which the 

network assessment requirement is 

noted as being contained in 58.10(e) 

when the correct cross-reference is 

58.10(d). 

G. Annual Air Monitoring Data 

Certification 

The data certification requirement is 

intended to provide ambient air quality 

data users with an indication that all 

required validation and reporting steps 

have been completed, and that the 

certified data sets are now considered 

final and appropriate for all uses 

including the calculation of design 

values and the determination of NAAQS 

attainment status. The formal 

certification process currently involves 

the transmission of a data certification 

letter to the EPA signed by a senior 

monitoring agency official that 

references the list of monitors being 

certified. The letter is accompanied by 

required AQS reports that summarize 

the data being certified and the 

accompanying QA data that support the 

validation of the referenced list of 

monitors. Once the letter and required 

reports are submitted to the EPA, the 

data certification requirement has been 

fulfilled. In practice, the EPA has 

provided an additional discretionary 

review of the data certification 

submissions by monitoring agencies to 

make sure the submissions are complete 

and that the EPA agrees that the 

referenced data are of appropriate 

quality. When these reviews have been 

completed, the EPA’s review has been 

documented by the presence of a 

specific AQS flag for each monitor-year 

of data that has been certified and 

reviewed. 

The actual breadth of data 

certification requirements has not 

materially changed since the original 

requirements were finalized in 1979 as 

part of the requirement for monitoring 

agencies to submit an annual SLAMS 

summary report (see 44 FR 27573). Data 

certification requirements were last 

revised in 2006 when the deadline for 

certification was changed to May 1 from 

July 1 for most measurements. 

Current requirements include the 

certification of data collected at all 

SLAMS and SPMs using FRM, FEM, or 

ARM methods. In practice, this 

requirement includes a very wide range 

of measurements that are not limited to 

criteria pollutants but also extend to 

non-criteria pollutant measurements at 

PAMS stations, meteorological 

measurements at PAMS and NCore 

stations, and PM2.5 chemical speciation 

parameters. For monitoring agencies 

operating these complex stations, this 

places an additional burden on the data 

review and validation process in 

addition to the routine procedures 

already in place to validate and report 

data as required by 40 CFR 58.16. For 

example, current PAMS requirements 

include the reporting of approximately 

54 individual ‘‘target list’’ volatile 

organic compounds per station while 

many dozens of PM2.5 species are 

reported at CSN stations. 

None of these specialized monitoring 

programs were in place when the data 

certification requirements were 

originally promulgated and the large 

number of measurements being obtained 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54363 

12Note relevant training material available on the 

AQS TTN Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/

airsaqs/training/2013_Q2_Webinar_Final.pdf. 

13See http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ost/

asostech.html. 

in typical modern-day monitoring 

networks has resulted in a burden 

overload that has threatened the 

viability of the data certification 

process. For example, monitoring 

agencies have struggled with the 

availability of specific QA checks that 

can be used to meet the certification 

requirements for PAMS and CSN data, 

and the EPA’s discretionary review of 

data certification submissions have 

become increasingly incomplete or 

delayed due to the enormous number of 

monitors being submitted for 

certification under the current 

requirements. 

The EPA believes that the data 

certification requirements need to be 

revised to streamline the associated 

workload for monitoring agencies as 

well as the EPA so that the process can 

be focused on those measurements that 

have greatest impacts on state programs, 

namely the criteria pollutants that 

support the calculation of annual design 

values and the mandatory designations 

process. By focusing the data 

certification process on the NAAQS, the 

greatest value will be derived from the 

certification process and both the 

monitoring agencies and the EPA will 

be able to devote scarce resources to the 

most critical of ambient monitoring 

objectives. The EPA is not implying that 

the need for thorough data validation 

processes is unimportant for noncriteria pollutants. However we believe 

that existing QA plans and standard 

operating procedures, together with the 

regulatory language in 40 CFR 58.16(c) 

to edit and report validated data, is 

sufficient to assure the quality of noncriteria pollutant measurements being 

reported to AQS. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing 

several changes in the data certification 

requirements to accomplish a 

streamlining of this important process. 

First, to support the focus on 

certification of criteria pollutant 

measurements, the EPA is proposing to 

revise relevant sections of 40 CFR 58.15 

to focus the requirement on FRM, FEM, 

and ARM monitors at SLAMS and at 

SPM stations rather than at all SLAMS 

which also include PAMS and CSN 

measurements that may not utilize 

federally approved methods. This 

proposed wording change limits the 

data certification requirement to criteria 

pollutants since the EPA approved 

methods do not exist for non-criteria 

measurements. Second, the EPA is also 

proposing that the required AQS reports 

be submitted to the Regional 

Administrator rather than through the 

Regional Administrator to the 

Administrator as is currently required. 

From a process standpoint, this 

proposed change effectively places each 

EPA regional office in charge of the 

entire data certification process 

(including the discretionary review) 

versus the EPA headquarters where the 

discretionary reviews have taken place 

in the past. This delegation of 

responsibility for the discretionary 

review will allow this important part of 

the certification process to be shared 

among the ten EPA regional offices, and 

result in a more timely review of 

certification results and the posting of 

appropriate certification status flags in 

AQS. The EPA notes that significant 

progress has already been made in 

revising this part of the certification 

process and that a new AQS report, the 

AMP 600, has been developed to more 

efficiently support the sharing of 

relevant information between certifying 

agencies and the EPA regional offices.12

Additionally, minor editorial changes 

are being proposed in 40 CFR 58.15 to 

generalize the title of the official 

responsible for data certification (senior 

official versus senior air pollution 

control officer) and to remove an 

outdated reference to the former due 

date for the data certification letter (July 

1 versus the current due date of May 1). 

H. Data Submittal and Archiving 

Requirements 

The requirements described in 40 CFR 

58.16 address the specific 

measurements that must be reported to 

AQS as well as the relevant schedule for 

doing so. Required measurements 

include criteria pollutants in support of 

NAAQS monitoring objectives as well as 

public reporting, specific ozone (O3) and 

PM2.5 precursor measurements such as 

those obtained at PAMS, NCore, and 

CSN stations, selected meteorological 

measurements at PAMS and NCore 

stations, and associated QA data that 

support the assessment of precision and 

bias. 

In 1997, an additional set of required 

supplemental measurements was added 

to 40 CFR 58.16 in support of the newly 

promulgated FRM for PM2.5, described 

in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. These 

measurements included maximum, 

minimum, and average ambient 

temperature; maximum, minimum, and 

average ambient pressure; flow rate 

coefficient of variation (CV); total 

sample volume; and elapsed sample 

time. In the 2006 monitoring 

amendments, many of these 

supplemental measurements were 

removed from the requirements based 

on the EPA’s confidence that the PM2.5

FRM was meeting data quality 

objectives (see 71 FR 2748). At that 

time, reporting requirements were 

retained for average daily ambient 

temperature and average daily ambient 

pressure, as well as any applicable 

sampler flags, in addition to PM2.5 mass 

and field blank mass. Given the 

additional years of data supporting the 

performance of the PM2.5 FRM as well 

as the near ubiquitous availability of 

meteorological data available from 

sources such as the National Weather 

Service automated surface observing 

system 13 in addition to air quality 

networks, the EPA believes that it is no 

longer necessary to require agencies to 

report the average daily temperature and 

average daily pressure from manual 

PM2.5 samplers, thereby providing some 

modest relief from the associated 

reporting burden. Accordingly, the EPA 

is proposing to remove AQS reporting 

requirements for average daily 

temperature and average daily pressure 

as related to PM2.5 measurements with 

the expectation that monitoring agencies 

will retain such measurements as 

needed to support data validation needs 

as well as to fulfill requirements in 

associated QA project plans and 

standard operating procedures. The EPA 

is also proposing to remove similar 

language referenced elsewhere in 40 

CFR 58.16 that pertains to 

measurements at Pb sites as well as to 

other average temperature and average 

pressure measurements recorded by 

samplers or from nearby airports. For 

the reasons noted above, the EPA 

believes that meteorological data are 

more than adequately available from a 

number of sources, and that the removal 

of specific requirements for such data to 

be reported to AQS represents an 

opportunity for burden reduction. The 

EPA notes that the requirement to report 

specific meteorological data for NCore 

and PAMS stations remains unchanged. 

The EPA is also proposing a change 

to the data reporting schedule described 

in 40 CFR 58.16(b) and (d) to provide 

additional flexibility for reporting PM2.5

chemical speciation data measured at 

CSN stations. Specifically, we are 

proposing that such data be required to 

be reported to AQS within 6 months 

following the end of each quarterly 

reporting period, as is presently 

required for certain PAMS 

measurements such as volatile organic 

compounds. This change would provide 

an additional 90 days for PM2.5 chemical 

speciation data to be reported compared 

with the current requirement of 

reporting 90 days after the end of each 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54364 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

14See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/

index.html for more information. 

15See supporting information for reconsideration 

of existing requirements to monitor for lead at 

urban NCore site, Kevin Cavender, Docket number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0619. 

16Specific revisions are proposed in 40 CFR part 

58, appendix D, section 3(b) and sections 4.5(b) and 

4.5(c). 

17The EPA will review requests for shutdown 

under the provisions of 40 CFR 58.14. Although 

EPA anticipates that these nonsource monitors will 

have design values well below the NAAQS and will 

be eligible to be discontinued after three years of 

data have been collected, in the event that a 

monitor records levels approaching the NAAQS it 

may not qualify to be discontinued. 

quarterly reporting period. This change 

is being proposed to provide both the 

EPA and monitoring agencies with 

potential data reporting flexibility as 

technological and procedural revisions 

are considered for the national 

analytical frameworks that support the 

CSN network. Given that the primary 

objectives of the CSN (and IMPROVE) 

programs are to support long-term needs 

such as SIP development, modeling, and 

health studies, the EPA believes that 

such programs would not be negatively 

impacted by the revised reporting 

requirements and that potential 

contractual efficiencies could be 

realized by allowing more time for 

analytical laboratories to complete their 

QA reviews and report their results to 

AQS. 

I. Network Design Criteria (Appendix D) 

The EPA is proposing two changes 

that affect the required suite of 

measurements in the NCore network. 

This multi-pollutant network became 

operational on January 1, 2011, and 

includes approximately 80 stations that 

are located in both urban and rural 

areas.14

The EPA is proposing a minor change 

to section 3 of appendix D to part 58, 

the design criteria for NCore sites. 

Specifically, we are proposing to delete 

the requirement to measure speciated 

PM10-2.5 from the list of measurements 

in section 3(b). An identical revision 

was finalized in the text of 40 CFR 

58.16(a) in the 2013 p.m. NAAQS final 

rule (see 78 FR 3244). At that time, we 

noted the lack of consensus on 

appropriate sampling and analytical 

techniques for speciated PM10-2.5, and 

the pending analysis of data from a pilot 

project that examined these issues. 

Based on the supportive comments 

received from monitoring agencies and 

multi-state organizations, the EPA 

deleted the requirement for speciated 

PM10-2.5 from 40 CFR 58.16(a). During 

this process, the EPA inadvertently 

failed to complete a similar change that 

was required in the language of section 

3 of appendix D. Accordingly we are 

proposing this change to align the 

NCore monitoring requirements 

between the two sections noted above. 

The EPA is also proposing to delete 

the requirement to measure Pb at urban 

NCore sites, either as Pb in Total 

Suspended Particles (Pb–TSP) or as Pb– 

PM10. This requirement was finalized as 

part of the reconsideration of Pb 

monitoring requirements that occurred 

in 2010 (see 75 FR 81126). At that time, 

we noted that monitoring of Pb at such 

nonsource locations at NCore sites 

would support the characterization of 

typical neighborhood-scale Pb 

concentrations in urban areas to assist 

with the understanding of the risk posed 

by Pb to the general population. We also 

noted that such information could assist 

with the determination of 

nonattainment boundaries and support 

the development of long-term trends. 

Since this requirement was finalized 

in late 2010, nonsource lead data has 

been measured at 50 urban NCore sites, 

with the majority of sites having already 

collected at least 2 years of data. In all 

cases, valid ambient Pb readings have 

been low, with maximum 3-month 

rolling averages typically reading 

around 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter 

as compared to the NAAQS level of 0.15 

micrograms per cubic meter.15 We 

expect the majority of sites to have the 

3 years necessary to calculate a design 

value following the completion of 

monitoring in 2014. Given the 

uniformly low readings being measured 

at these NCore sites, we believe it is 

appropriate to consider eliminating this 

requirement. As noted in the associated 

docket memo, nonsource Pb data will 

continue to be measured (as Pb–PM10) at 

the 27 National Air Toxics Trends Sites 

(NATTS) and at hundreds of PM2.5

speciation stations that comprise the 

CSN and IMPROVE networks. The EPA 

believes that these ongoing networks 

adequately support the nonsource 

monitoring objectives articulated in the 

2010 Pb monitoring reconsideration. 

Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to 

delete the requirement to monitor for 

nonsource Pb at NCore sites from 

appendix D of 40 CFR part 58.16 Given 

the requirement to collect a minimum of 

3 years of Pb data in order to support 

the calculation of design values, the 

EPA proposes that monitoring agencies 

would be able to request permission to 

discontinue nonsource monitoring 

following the collection of at least 3 

years of data at each urban NCore site.17

Affected monitoring agencies should 

work closely with their respective EPA 

regional offices to ensure coordination 

of these changes to the network. 

The EPA solicits comments on these 

proposed changes to Pb monitoring 

requirements. 

III. Proposed Changes to Quality 

Assurance Requirements 

A. Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Monitors Used in Evaluations for 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards—Appendix A 

1. General Information 

The following proposed changes to 

monitoring requirements impact these 

subparts of part 58—Ambient Air 

Quality Surveillance; appendix A— 

Quality Assurance Requirements for 

SLAMS, SPMs and PSD Air Monitoring. 

Changes that affect the overall appendix 

follow while those specific to the 

various sections of the appendix will be 

addressed under a specific section 

heading. The EPA notes that the entire 

regulatory text section for appendix A is 

being reprinted with this proposal since 

this section is being reorganized for 

clarity as well as being selectively 

revised as described in detail below. 

Likewise, although the EPA is proposing 

a new appendix B to apply to PSD 

monitors, much of the content of 

appendix B is taken directly from the 

existing requirements for these monitors 

set forth in appendix A. The EPA is 

soliciting comment on the specific 

provisions of appendices A and B that 

are being proposed for revision. 

However, there are a number of 

provisions that are being reprinted in 

the regulatory text solely for clarity to 

assist the public in understanding the 

changes being proposed; the EPA is not 

soliciting comment on those provisions 

and considers changes to those 

provisions to be beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. 

The QA requirements in appendix A 

have been developed for measuring the 

criteria pollutants of O3, NO2, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), CO, Pb and PM (PM10

and PM2.5) and are minimum 

requirements for monitoring these 

ambient air pollutants for use in 

NAAQS attainment demonstrations. To 

emphasize the objective of this 

appendix, the EPA proposes to change 

the title of appendix A to ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Requirements for Monitors 

used in Evaluations of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ and 

remove the terms SLAMS and SPMs 

from the title. We do, however, in the 

applicability paragraph, indicate that 

any monitor identified as SLAMS must 

meet the appendix A criteria in order to 

avoid any confusion about SLAMS 

monitors measuring criteria pollutants. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54365 

18See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

specguid.html for CSN quality assurance project 

plan. 19See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

pamsguidance.html for PAMS technical assistance 

document. 

Special purpose monitors may in fact be 

monitoring for a criteria pollutant for 

other objectives than NAAQS 

determinations. Therefore, appendix A 

attempts to clarify in the title and the 

applicability section that the QA 

requirements specified in this appendix 

are for criteria pollutant monitors that 

are designated, through the part 58 

ambient air regulations and monitoring 

organization annual monitoring network 

plans, as eligible to be used for NAAQS 

evaluation purposes. The applicability 

section also provides a reporting 

mechanism in AQS to identify any 

criteria pollutant monitors that are not 

used for NAAQS evaluations. The 

criteria pollutants identified for NAAQS 

exclusion will require review and 

approval by the EPA regional offices 

and will increase transparency and 

efficiencies in the NAAQS designation, 

data quality evaluation and data 

certification processes. 

The current appendix A regulation 

has separate sections for automated 

(continuous) and manual method types. 

Since there are continuous and manual 

methods for measuring PM which have 

different quality control (QC) 

requirements, monitoring organizations 

have found it difficult to navigate the 

current appendix A requirements. The 

EPA proposes to reformat the document 

by pollutant rather than by method type. 

The four gaseous pollutants (CO, NO2, 

SO2 and O3) will be contained in one 

section since the QC requirements are 

very similar, and separate sections will 

be provided for PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. 

In the 2006 monitoring rule revisions, 

the PSD QA requirements, which were 

previously in appendix B, were added 

to appendix A and appendix B was 

reserved. The PSD requirements, in 

most cases, mimicked appendix A in 

structure but because PSD monitoring is 

often only for a period of one year, some 

of the frequencies of implementation of 

the PSD requirements are higher than 

the appendix A requirements. In 

addition, the agencies governing the 

implementation, assessment and 

approval of the QA requirements are 

different for PSD and ambient air 

monitoring for NAAQS decisions (i.e., 

the EPA regions for appendix A versus 

reviewing authorities for PSD). The 

combined regulations have caused 

confusion among monitoring 

organizations and those implementing 

PSD requirements, and the EPA 

proposes that the PSD requirements be 

moved back to a separate appendix B. 

This change would also provide more 

flexibility for revision if changes in 

either appendix are needed. Details of 

this proposed change will follow in 

Section III.B. 

Finally, the EPA proposes that the 

appendix A regulation emphasize the 

use of PQAO and moved the definition 

and explanation to the beginning of the 

regulation in order to ensure that the 

application and use of PQAO in 

appendix A is clearly understood. The 

definition for PQAO is not being 

proposed for change. Since the PQAO 

can be a consolidation of a number of 

local monitoring organizations, the EPA 

proposes to add a sentence clarifying 

that the agency identified as the PQAO 

(usually the state agency) will be 

responsible for overseeing that the 

appendix A requirements are being met 

by all consolidated local agencies 

within the PQAO. Current appendix A 

regulation requires PQAOs to be 

approved by the EPA regions during 

network reviews or audits. The EPA 

believes this approval can occur at any 

time and proposes to eliminate the 

wording that suggests that PQAO 

approvals can only occur during events 

like network reviews or audits. 

2. Quality System Requirements 

The EPA proposes to remove the QA 

requirements for PM10-2.5 (see current 

sections 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 3.3.6, 3.3.8, 4.3). 

Appendix A has traditionally been used 

to describe the QA requirements of the 

criteria pollutants used in making 

NAAQS attainment decisions. While the 

40 CFR part 58 Ambient Air Monitoring 

regulation requires monitoring for the 

CSN, PAMS, and total oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOy) for NCore, the QA 

requirements for these networks are 

found in technical assistance documents 

and not in appendix A. In 2006, the EPA 

proposed a PM10-2.5 NAAQS along with 

requisite QA requirements in appendix 

A. While the PM10-2.5 NAAQS was not 

promulgated, PM10-2.5 monitoring was 

required to be performed at NCore sites 

and the EPA proposed requisite QA 

requirements in appendix A. Some of 

the PM QC requirements, like 

collocation for precision and the 

performance evaluation programs for 

bias, are accomplished on a percentage 

of monitoring sites within a PQAO. For 

example, collocated sampling for PM2.5

and PM10 is required at approximately 

15 percent of the monitoring sites 

within a PQAO. Since virtually every 

NCore site is the responsibility of a 

different PQAO, the appendix A 

requirements for PM10-2.5, if 

implemented at the PQAO level, would 

have been required to be implemented 

at almost every NCore site, which would 

have been expensive and an unintended 

burden. Therefore, the EPA required the 

implementation of the PM10-2.5 QC 

requirements at a national level and 

worked with the EPA regions and 

monitoring organizations to identify the 

sites that would implement the 

requirements. The implementation of 

the PM10-2.5 QC requirements at NCore 

sites fundamentally changed how QC is 

implemented in appendix A and has 

been a cause of confusion with these 

parties. Since PM10-2.5 is not a NAAQS 

pollutant and the QC requirements 

cannot be cost-effectively implemented 

at a PQAO level, the EPA is proposing 

to eliminate the PM10-2.5 requirements 

including flow rate verifications, semiannual flow rate audits, collocated 

sampling procedures, and the PM10-2.5

Performance Evaluation Program (PEP). 

Similar to the technical assistance 

documents associated for the CSN 18 and 

PAMS 19 networks, the EPA will 

develop QA guidance for the PM10-2.5

network which will afford more 

flexibility for implementation and 

revision of QC activities for PM10-2.5. 

The EPA proposes that the QA Pb 

requirements of collocated sampling 

(see current section 3.3.4.3) and Pb 

performance evaluation procedures (see 

current section 3.3.4.4) for non-source 

NCore sites be eliminated. The 2010 Pb 

rule in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 4.5(b), added a requirement to 

conduct non-source oriented Pb 

monitoring at each NCore site in a core 

based statistical area (CBSA) with a 

population of 500,000 or more. This 

requirement had some monitoring 

organizations implementing Pb 

monitoring at only one site, the NCore 

site. Since the appendix A requirements 

are focused on PQAOs, the QC 

requirements would increase at PQAOs 

who were required to implement Pb 

monitoring at NCore. Similar to the 

PM10-2.5 QA requirements, the 

requirement for Pb at NCore sites forced 

the EPA away from a focus on PQAOs 

to working with the EPA regions and 

monitoring organizations for 

implementation of the Pb Performance 

Evaluation Program (Pb-PEP) at national 

levels. Therefore, the EPA is proposing 

to eliminate the collocation requirement 

and the Pb-PEP requirements while 

retaining the requirements for flow rate 

verifications and flow rate audits which 

do not require additional monitors or 

independent sampling and analysis. 

Similar to the CSN and PAMS programs, 

the EPA will develop QA guidance for 

the Pb NCore network which will afford 

more flexibility for change/revision to 

accommodate Pb monitoring at nonsource NCore sites. Additionally, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

20See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

npepqa.html. 

21QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 

Vol. II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html. 

EPA is proposing to delete the 

requirement to measure Pb at these 

specific NCore sites, either as Pb-TSP or 

as Pb-PM10 (see section II.I of this rule). 

If that proposed change is finalized, it 

will eliminate the need for any 

associated QA requirements including 

collocation, Pb-PEP or any QC 

requirements for these monitors. If the 

proposed change to NCore Pb 

requirements is not finalized, then the 

EPA will consider the proposed revision 

to QA requirements as described above 

on its own merits. 

The EPA proposes that quality 

management plan (QMP) (current 

section 2.1.1) and quality assurance 

project plan (QAPP) (current section 

2.1.2) submission and approval dates be 

reported by monitoring organizations 

and the EPA. This will allow for timely 

and accurate reporting of this 

information. Since 2007, the EPA has 

been tracking the submission and 

approval of QMPs and QAPPs by 

polling the EPA regions each year and 

updating a spreadsheet to the AMTIC 

Web site. The development of the 

annual spreadsheet is time consuming 

on the part of monitoring organizations 

and the EPA. It is expected that 

simplified reporting at the monitoring 

organization and the EPA regional office 

level to AQS will reduce entry errors 

and the burden of incorporating this 

information into annual spreadsheets, 

and increase transparency of this 

important quality system 

documentation. In order to reduce the 

initial burden of this data entry activity, 

the EPA has populated AQS with the 

last set of updated QMP and QAPP data 

from the annual spreadsheet review 

cycle. If this portion of the proposal is 

finalized, monitoring organizations will 

only need to update AQS as necessary. 

In addition, some monitoring 

organizations have received delegation 

of authority to approve their QAPP 

through the monitoring organization’s 

own QA organization. The EPA 

proposes that if a PQAO or monitoring 

organization has been delegated 

authority to review and approve their 

QAPP, an electronic copy must be 

submitted to the EPA regional office at 

the time it is submitted to the PQAO/

monitoring organization’s QAPP 

approving authority. Submission of an 

electronic version to the EPA at the time 

of completion is not considered an 

added burden on the monitoring 

organization because such submission is 

already a standard practice as part of the 

review process for technical systems 

audits. 

The EPA proposes to add some 

clarifying language to the section 

describing the National Performance 

Evaluation Program (NPEP) (current 

section 2.4) explaining selfimplementation of the performance 

evaluation by the monitoring 

organization. The clarification also adds 

the definition of independent 

assessment which is included in the 

PEP (PM2.5-PEP, Pb-PEP and National 

Performance Audit Program (NPAP)) 

QAPPs and guidance and is included in 

the self-implementation memo sent to 

the monitoring organizations on an 

annual basis and posted on the AMTIC 

Web site 20. The clarification is not a 

new requirement but provides a better 

reference for this information in 

addition to the annual memo sent to the 

monitoring organizations. 

The EPA proposes to add some 

clarifying language to the technical 

systems audits (TSA) section (current 

section 2.4). The current TSA 

requirements are performed at the 

monitoring organization level. Since the 

EPA is revising the language in 

appendix A to focus on PQAOs instead 

of monitoring organizations, this may 

have an effect on those EPA Regions 

that want to perform TSA on monitoring 

organizations within a PQAO (a PQAO 

can be a single monitoring organization 

or a consolidation of a number of local 

monitoring organizations). The EPA 

proposes a TSA frequency of 3 years for 

each PQAO, but includes language that 

if a PQAO is made up of a number of 

monitoring organizations, all monitoring 

organizations within the PQAO be 

audited within 6 years. This proposed 

language maintains the every 3 years 

TSA requirement as it applies to PQAOs 

but provides additional flexibility for 

the EPA regions to audit every 

monitoring organization within the 

PQAO every 6 years. This change does 

not materially affect the burden on 

monitoring organizations. 

The EPA proposes to require 

monitoring organizations to complete an 

annual survey for the Ambient Air 

Protocol Gas Verification Program (AA– 

PGVP) (current section 2.6.1). Since 

2009, the EPA has had a separate 

information collection request (ICR) 

requiring monitoring organizations to 

complete an annual survey of the 

producers that supply their gas 

standards (for calibrations and QC) in 

order to be able to select standards from 

these producers for verification. The 

survey generally takes less than 10 

minutes to complete. The EPA proposes 

to add the requirement to appendix A. 

In addition, the EPA proposes to add 

language that monitoring organizations 

participate, at the request of the EPA, in 

the AA–PGVP by sending a gas standard 

to one of the verification laboratories 

every 5 years. Since many monitoring 

organizations already volunteer to send 

in cylinders, this proposed new 

requirement may not materially affect 

most agencies and will not affect those 

agencies not using gas standards. 

3. Quality Control Checks for Gases 

The EPA proposes to lower the audit 

concentrations (current section 3.2.1) of 

the one-point QC checks to 0.005 and 

0.08 parts per million (ppm) for SO2, 

NO2, and O3 (currently 0.01 to 0.1 ppm), 

and to between 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO 

monitors (currently 1 and 10 ppm). 

With the development of more sensitive 

monitoring instruments with lower 

detection limits, technical 

improvements in calibrators, and lower 

ambient air concentrations in general, 

the EPA feels this revision will better 

reflect the precision and bias of the data. 

Since the audit concentrations are 

selected using the mean or median 

concentration of typical ambient air 

concentrations (guidance on this is 

provided in the QA Handbook 21), the 

EPA is proposing to add some 

clarification to the current language by 

requiring monitoring organizations to 

select either the highest or lowest 

concentration in the ranges identified if 

their mean or median concentrations are 

above or below the prescribed range. 

There is no additional burden to this 

requirement since the frequency is the 

same and the audit concentrations are 

not so low as to make them 

unachievable to generate or measure. 

The EPA proposes to remove 

reference to zero and span adjustments 

(current section 3.2.1.1) and revise the 

one-point QC language to simply require 

that the QC check be conducted before 

any calibration or adjustment to the 

monitor. Recent revisions of the QA 

Handbook discourage the 

implementation of frequent span 

adjustments so the proposed language 

helps to clarify that no adjustment be 

made prior to implementation of the 

one-point QC check. 

The EPA proposes to remove the 

requirement (current section 3.2.2) to 

implement an annual performance 

evaluation for one monitor in each 

calendar quarter when monitoring 

organizations have less than four 

monitoring instruments. The minimum 

requirement for the annual performance 

evaluation for the primary monitor at a 

site is one per year. The current 

regulation requires evaluation of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54367 

22See supporting information in Excess NO Issue 

paper, Mike Papp and Lewis Weinstock, Docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0619. 

monitors at 25 percent per quarter so 

that the performance evaluations are 

performed in all four quarters. There are 

cases where some monitoring 

organizations have less than four 

primary monitors for a gaseous 

pollutant, and the current language 

suggests that a monitor already 

receiving a performance evaluation be 

re-audited to provide for performance 

evaluations in all four quarters. This is 

a burden reduction for monitoring 

agencies operating smaller networks and 

does not change the requirement of an 

annual performance evaluation for each 

primary monitor. 

The current annual performance 

evaluation language (current section 

3.2.2.1) requires that the audits be 

conducted by selecting three 

consecutive audit levels (currently five 

audit levels are provided in appendix 

A). Due to the implementation of the 

NCore network, the inception of trace 

gas monitors, and lower ambient air 

concentrations being measured under 

typical circumstances, there is a need 

for audit levels at lower concentrations 

to more accurately represent the 

uncertainties present in much of the 

ambient data. The EPA proposes to 

expand the audit levels from five to ten 

and remove the requirement to audit 

three consecutive levels. The current 

regulation also requires that the three 

audit levels should bracket 80 percent of 

the ambient air concentrations 

measured by the analyzer. This current 

language has caused some confusion 

and monitoring organizations have 

requested the use of an audit point to 

establish monitor accuracy around the 

NAAQS levels. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to revise the language so that 

two of the audits levels selected 

represent 10–80 percent of routinelycollected ambient concentrations either 

measured by the monitor or in the 

PQAOs network of monitors. The 

proposed revision allows the third point 

to be selected at the NAAQS level (e.g., 

75 ppb for SO2) or above the highest 3- 

year routine hourly concentration, 

whichever is greater. 

The EPA proposes to revise the 

language (current section 3.2.2.2(a)) 

addressing the limits on excess nitric 

oxide (NO) that must be followed during 

gas phase titration (GPT) procedures 

involving NO2 audits. The current NO 

limit (maintaining at least 0.08 ppm) is 

very restrictive and requires auditors to 

make numerous mid-audit adjustments 

during a GPT that result in making the 

NO2 audit a very time consuming 

procedure. Monitoring agency staff have 

advised us that the observance of such 

excess NO limits has no apparent effect 

on NO2 calibrations being conducted 

with modern-day GPT capable 

calibration equipment and, therefore, 

that the requirement in the context of 

performing audits is unnecessary.22 We 

also note the increasing availability of 

the EPA approved direct NO2 methods 

that do not utilize converters, rendering 

the use of GPT techniques that require 

the output of NO and NOX to be a 

potentially diminishingly used 

procedure in the future. Accordingly, 

we have proposed a more general 

statement regarding GPT that 

acknowledges the ongoing usage of 

monitoring agency procedures and 

guidance documents that have 

successfully supported NO2 calibration 

activities. The EPA believes that if such 

procedures have been successfully used 

during calibrations when instrument 

adjustments are potentially being made, 

then such procedures are appropriate 

for audit use when instruments are not 

subject to adjustment. The EPA solicits 

comment on this proposed 

generalization of the GPT requirements, 

including whether a more specific set of 

requirements similar to the current 

excess NO levels can be developed 

based on operational experience and/or 

peer reviewed literature. 

The EPA proposes to remove language 

(current section 3.2.2.2(b)) in the annual 

performance evaluation section that 

requires regional approval for audit 

gases for any monitors operating at 

ranges higher that 1.0 ppm for O3, SO2

and NO2 and greater than 50 ppm for 

CO. The EPA does not need to approve 

a monitoring organization’s use of audit 

gases to audit above proposed 

concentration levels. There should be 

very few cases where a performance 

evaluation needs to be performed above 

level 10, but there may be some 

legitimate instances (e.g., SO2 audits in 

areas impacted by volcanic emissions). 

Since data reported to AQS above the 

highest level may be flagged or rejected, 

the EPA proposes that PQAOs notify the 

EPA regions of sites auditing at 

concentrations above level 10 so that 

reporting accommodations can be made. 

The EPA proposes to provide 

additional explanatory language in 

appendix A to describe the NPAP 

(current section 2.4). The NPAP has 

been a long standing program for the 

ambient air monitoring community. The 

NPAP is a performance evaluation 

which is a type of audit where 

quantitative data are collected 

independently in order to evaluate the 

proficiency of an analyst, monitoring 

instrument or laboratory. It has been 

briefly mentioned in section 2.4 of the 

current appendix A requirements. Since 

2007, the EPA has distributed a memo 

to all monitoring organizations in order 

to determine whether the monitoring 

organization plans to self-implement the 

NPAP program or utilize the federally 

implemented program. In order to make 

this decision, the NPAP adequacy and 

independence requirements are 

described in the memo. The EPA 

proposes to include these same 

requirements in appendix A in a 

separate section for NPAP. In addition, 

the memo currently states that 20 

percent of the sites would be audited 

each year and, therefore, all sites would 

be audited in a 5-year period. Since 

there is a possibility that monitoring 

organizations may want some higher 

priority sites audited more frequently, 

the EPA is proposing to revise the 

language to require all sites to be 

audited within a 6-year period to 

provide more flexibility and discretion 

for monitoring agencies. This revision 

does not change the number of sites 

audited in any given year, but allows for 

increased frequency of sites deemed as 

high priority. 

4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate 

Monitors 

The EPA proposes to require that flow 

rate verifications (current section 3.2.3) 

be reported to AQS. Particulate matter 

concentrations (e.g., PM2.5, PM10, Pb) are 

reported in mass per unit of volume 

(e.g., mg/m3). Flow rate verifications are 

implemented at required frequencies in 

order to ensure that the PM sampler is 

providing an accurate and repeatable 

measure of volume which is critical for 

the determination of concentration. If a 

given flow rate verification does not 

meet acceptance criteria, the EPA 

guidance suggests that data may be 

invalidated back to the most recent 

acceptable verification which is why 

these checks are performed at higher 

frequencies. Implementation of the flow 

rate verification is currently a 

requirement, but the reporting to AQS 

has only been a requirement for PM10

continuous instruments. This is the only 

QC requirement in appendix A that was 

not fully required for reporting for all 

pollutants and has been a cause of 

confusion. When performing TSAs, the 

EPA regions review the flow rate 

verification information. There are cases 

where it is difficult to find the flow rate 

verification information to ascertain 

completeness, data quality and whether 

corrective actions have been 

implemented in the case of flow rate 

verification failures. In addition, the 

EPA regions have mentioned that some 

of the monitoring organizations have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54368 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23QA EYE Issue 9 Page 3 at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/amtic/qanews.html. 

24See 78 FR 40000, July 3, 2013. 25MDL is described as the minimum 

concentration of a substance that can be measured 

and reported with 99-percent confidence that the 

analyte concentration is greater than zero. 26FEMS approved on or after March 4, 2010, have 

the required sensitivity to utilize the 0.002 mg/m3

reporting limit with the exception of manual 

equivalent method EQLA–0813–803, the previous 

FRM based on flame atomic absorption 

spectroscopy. 

been reporting this data to AQS in an 

effort to increase transparency and 

reliability in data quality. In a recent 

review of 2012 data, out of the 1,110 

SLAMS PM2.5 samplers providing flow 

rate audit data (which are required to be 

reported), flow rate verification data was 

also reported for 543 samplers or about 

49 percent for the samplers with flow 

rate audit data. With the development of 

a new QA transaction in AQS, we 

believe that the reporting of flow rate 

verification data would improve the 

evaluation of data quality for data 

certification and at national levels, 

provide consistent interpretation in the 

regulation for all PM pollutants without 

being overly burdensome 

(approximately 12 per sampler per 

year). 

In addition, the flow rate verification 

requirements for all the particulate 

monitors suggest randomization of the 

implementation of flow rate 

verifications with respect to time of day, 

day of the week and routine service and 

adjustments. Since this is a suggestion, 

the EPA proposes to remove this 

language from the regulation and 

instead include it in QA guidance. 

The EPA proposes to add clarifying 

language to the PM2.5 collocation 

requirements (current section 3.2.5) that 

a site can only count for the collocation 

of the method designation of the 

primary monitor at that site. Precision is 

estimated at the PQAO level and at 15 

percent of the sites for each method 

designation that is designated as a 

primary monitor. When developing the 

collocation requirements, the EPA 

intended to have the collocated 

monitors distributed to as many sites as 

possible in order to capture as much of 

the temporal and spatial variability in 

the PQAO. Therefore, since there can be 

only one primary monitor at a site for 

any given time period, it was originally 

intended that the primary monitor and 

the QA collocated monitor (for the 

primary) at a monitoring site count as 

one collocation. There have been some 

cases where multiple monitoring 

methods have been placed at a single 

site to fulfill multiple collocation 

requirements, which is not the intent of 

the current requirement. For example, a 

site (Site A) may have a primary 

monitor that is designated as a FRM 

(FRM A). This site may also have a FEM 

(FEM B) at the site that is not the 

primary monitor. If this site was 

selected for collocation, then the QA 

collocated monitor must be the same 

method designation as the primary, so 

the site would be collocated with 

another FRM A monitor. For primary 

monitors that are FEMs, the current 

requirement calls for the first QA 

collocated monitor of a FEM primary 

monitor be a FRM monitor. Some 

monitoring organizations have been 

using the collocated FRM monitors at 

Site A to satisfy the collocation 

requirements for other sites (e.g., Sites 

B, C, D) that have a FEM (FEM B or 

other FEM) as the primary monitor 

rather than placing a QA collocated 

FRM monitor at Site B (C or D). This 

was not the intent of the original 

regulation and the EPA provided 

additional guidance to monitoring 

organizations in 2010 23 on the correct 

(intended) interpretation. This revision 

does not change the current regulation 

and does not increase or decrease 

burden, but is intended to provide 

clarity on how the PQAO identifies the 

number and types of monitors needed to 

achieve the collocation requirements. 

The EPA proposes to provide more 

flexibility to monitoring organizations 

when selecting sites for collocation. 

Appendix A currently (current section 

3.2.5.3) requires 80 percent of the 

collocated monitors be deployed at sites 

within ±20 percent of the NAAQS and 

if the monitoring organization does not 

have sites within that range, then 60 

percent of the sites are to be deployed 

among the highest 25 percent of all sites 

within the network. Monitoring 

organizations have found this difficult 

to achieve. Some monitoring 

organizations do not have many sites 

and, at times, due to permission, access 

and limited space issues, the 

requirement was not always achievable. 

Realizing that the collocated monitors 

provide precision estimates for the 

PQAO (since only 15 percent of the sites 

are collocated), while also 

acknowledging that sites that measure 

concentrations close to the NAAQS are 

important, the EPA proposes to require 

that 50 percent (reduction from 80 

percent) of the collocated monitors be 

deployed at sites within ±20 percent of 

the NAAQS, and if the monitoring 

organization does not have sites within 

that range, then 50 percent of the sites 

are to be deployed among the highest 

sites within the network. Although this 

requirement does not change the 

number of sites requiring collocation, it 

does provide the monitoring 

organizations additional flexibility in its 

choice of collocated sites. 

5. Calculations for Data Quality 

Assessment 

In order to provide reasonable 

estimates of data quality, the EPA uses 

data above an established threshold 

concentration usually related to the 

detection limits of the measurement. 

Measurement pairs are selected for use 

in the precision and bias calculations 

only when both measurements are 

above a threshold concentration. 

For many years, the threshold 

concentration for Pb precision and bias 

data was 0.02 ug/m3. The EPA 

promulgated a new Pb FRM (see 78 FR 

40000) utilizing the Inductively 

Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry 

(ICP–MS) analysis technique in 2013 as 

a revision to appendix G of 40 CFR part 

50 24. This new FRM demonstrated 

method detection limits (MDLs) 25

below 0.0002 mg/m3, which is well 

below the EPA requirement of five 

percent of the current Pb NAAQS level 

of 0.15 mg/m3 or 0.0075 mg/m3. As a 

result of the increased sensitivity 

inherent in this new FRM, the EPA 

proposes to lower the acceptable Pb 

concentration (current section 4) from 

the current value of 0.02 ug/m3 to 0.002 

mg/m3 for measurements obtained using 

the new Pb FRM and other more 

recently approved equivalent methods 

that have the requisite increased 

sensitivity.26 The current 0.02 ug/m3

value will be retained for the previous 

Pb FRM that has subsequently been redesignated as Federal Equivalent 

Method EQLA–0813–803, as well as 

older equivalent methods that were 

approved prior to the more recent work 

on developing more sensitive methods. 

Since ambient Pb concentrations are 

lower and methods more sensitive, 

lowering the threshold concentration 

will allow much more collocated 

information to be evaluated which will 

provide more representative estimates of 

precision and bias. 

The EPA also proposes to remove the 

total suspended particulate (TSP) 

threshold concentration for precision 

and bias since TSP is no longer a 

NAAQS required pollutant and the EPA 

no longer has QC requirements for it. 

The EPA proposes to remove the 

statistical check currently described in 

section 4.1.5 of appendix A. The check 

was developed to perform a comparison 

of the one-point QC checks and the 

annual performance evaluation data 

performed by the same PQAO. The 

section suggests that 95 percent of all 

the bias estimates from the annual 

performance evaluation (reported as a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54369 

27Permitting authority and reviewing authority 

are often used synonymously in PSD permitting. 

Since reviewing authority has been defined in 40 

CFR 51.166(b), it is used throughout appendix B. 

percent difference) should fall within 

the 95 percent probability interval 

developed using the one-point QC 

checks. The problem with this check is 

that PQAOs with very good repeatability 

on the one-point QC check data had a 

hard time meeting this requirement 

since the probability interval became 

very tight, making it more difficult for 

better performing PQAOs to meet the 

requirement. Separate statistics to 

evaluate the one-point QC checks and 

the performance evaluations are already 

promulgated, so the removal of this 

check does not affect data quality 

assessments. 

Similar to the statistical comparison 

of performance evaluations data, the 

EPA proposes to remove the statistical 

check (current section 4.2.4) to compare 

the flow rate audit data and flow rate 

verification data. The existing language 

suggests that 95 percent of all the flow 

rate audit data results (reported as 

percent difference) should fall within 

the 95 percent probability interval 

developed from the flow rate 

verification data for the PQAO. The 

problem, as with the one-point QC 

check, was that monitoring 

organizations with very good 

repeatability on the flow rate 

verifications had a hard time meeting 

this requirement since the probability 

interval became very tight, making it 

difficult for better performing PQAOs to 

meet the requirement. Separate statistics 

to evaluate the flow rate verifications 

and flow rate audits are already 

promulgated, so the removal of this 

check does not affect data quality 

assessments. 

B. Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Monitors Used in Evaluations of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Projects-Appendix B 

1. General Information 

The following proposed changes to 

monitoring requirements impact these 

subparts of part 58—Ambient Air 

Quality Surveillance; appendix B— 

Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Air Monitoring. Changes that 

affect the overall appendix follow while 

those specific to the various sections of 

the appendix will be addressed under 

specific section headings. Since the PSD 

QA have been included in appendix A 

since 2006, section headings refer to the 

current appendix A sections. 

The quality assurance requirements in 

appendix B have been developed for 

measuring the criteria pollutants of O3, 

NO2, SO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10 and Pb and 

are minimum QA requirements for the 

control and assessment of the quality of 

the PSD ambient air monitoring data 

submitted to the PSD reviewing 

authority 27 or the EPA by an 

organization operating a network of PSD 

stations. 

In the 2006 monitoring rule revisions, 

the PSD QA requirements, which were 

previously in appendix B, were 

consolidated with appendix A and 

appendix B was held in reserve. The 

PSD requirements, in most cases, 

parallel appendix A in structure and 

content but because PSD monitoring is 

only required for a period of one year 

or less, some of the frequencies of 

implementation of the QC requirements 

for PSD are higher than the 

corresponding appendix A 

requirements. In addition, the agencies 

governing the implementation, 

assessment and approval of the QA 

requirements are different; the 

reviewing authorities for PSD 

monitoring and the EPA regions for 

ambient air monitoring for NAAQS 

decisions. The combined regulations 

have caused confusion or 

misinterpretations of the regulations 

among the public and monitoring 

organizations implementing NAAQS or 

PSD requirements, and have resulted in 

failure, in some cases, to perform the 

necessary QC requirements. 

Accordingly, the EPA proposes that the 

PSD QA requirements be removed from 

appendix A and returned to appendix B 

which is currently reserved. Separating 

the two sets of QA requirements would 

clearly distinguish the PSD QA 

requirements and allow more flexibility 

for future revisions to either monitoring 

program. 

With this proposed rule, the EPA 

would not change most of the QC 

requirements for PSD. Therefore, the 

discussion that follows will cover those 

sections of the PSD requirements that 

the EPA proposes to change from the 

current appendix A requirements. 

The applicability section of appendix 

B clarifies that the PSD QA 

requirements are not assumed to be 

minimum requirements for data used in 

NAAQS decisions. One reason for this 

distinction is in the flexibility allowed 

in PSD monitoring for the NPEP (current 

appendix A section 2.4). The proposed 

PSD requirements allow the PSD 

reviewing authority to decide whether 

implementation of the NPEP will be 

performed. The NPEP, which is 

described in appendix A, includes the 

NPAP, PM2.5 Performance Evaluation 

Program (PM2.5-PEP), and the Pb-PEP. 

Accordingly, under the proposed rule, if 

a PSD reviewing authority were to have 

the intent of using PSD data for any 

official comparison to the NAAQS 

beyond the permitting application, such 

as for attainment/nonattainment 

designations or clean data 

determinations, then all requirements in 

appendix B including implementation 

of the NPEP would apply. In this case, 

monitoring would more closely conform 

to the appendix A requirements. The 

EPA proposes this flexibility for PSD 

because the NPEP requires either federal 

implementation or implementation by a 

qualified individual, group or 

organization that is not part of the 

organization directly performing and 

accountable for the work being assessed. 

The NPEP may require specialized 

equipment, certified auditors and a 

number of activities which are 

enumerated in the sections associated 

with these programs. Arranging this 

type of support service may be more 

difficult for the operator of a single or 

small number of PSD monitoring 

stations operating for only a year or less. 

The EPA cannot accept funding from 

private contractors or industry, and 

federal implementation of the NPEP for 

PSD would face several funding and 

logistical hurdles. This creates an 

inequity in the NPEP implementation 

options available to the PSD monitoring 

organizations compared to the state/

local/tribal monitoring organization 

monitoring for NAAQS compliance. The 

EPA has had success in training and 

certifying private contractors in various 

categories of performance evaluations 

conducted under NPEP, but many have 

not made the necessary investments in 

capital equipment to implement all 

categories of the performance 

evaluations. Since the monitoring 

objectives for the collection of data for 

PSD are not necessarily the same as 

those for NAAQS evaluations, the EPA 

proposes to allow the PSD reviewing 

authority to determine whether a PSD 

monitoring project must implement the 

NPEP. 

The EPA proposes to clarify the 

definition of PSD PQAO. The PQAO 

was first defined in appendix A in 2006 

(current appendix A section 3.1.1) when 

the PSD requirements were combined 

with appendix A. The definition is not 

substantially changed for PSD, but the 

EPA proposes to clarify that a PSD 

PQAO can only be associated with one 

PSD reviewing authority. Distinguishing 

among the PSD PQAOs that coordinate 

with a PSD reviewing authority would 

be consistent with discrete jurisdictions 

for PSD permitting, and it would 

simplify oversight of the QA 

requirements for each PSD network. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54370 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

28 Graded approach to Tribal QAPP and QMPs 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html. 29http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html. 

Given that companies may apply for 

PSD permits throughout the United 

States, it is expected that some PSD 

monitoring organizations will work with 

multiple reviewing authorities. The PSD 

PQAO code which may appear in the 

AQS data base and other records defines 

the PSD monitoring organization or a 

coordinated aggregation of such 

organizations that is responsible for a 

set of stations within one PSD reviewing 

authority that monitors the same 

pollutant and for which data quality 

assessments will be pooled. The PSD 

monitoring organizations that work with 

multiple PSD reviewing authorities 

would have individual PSD PQAO 

codes for each PSD reviewing authority. 

This approach will allow for the 

flexibility to develop appropriate 

quality systems for each PSD reviewing 

authority. 

The EPA proposes to add definitions 

of ‘‘PSD monitoring organization’’ and 

‘‘PSD monitoring network’’ to 40 CFR 

58.1. The definitions have been 

developed to improve understanding of 

the appendix B regulations. 

Since the EPA uses the term 

‘‘monitoring organization’’ quite 

frequently in the NAAQS associated 

ambient air regulations, the EPA wants 

to provide a better definition of the term 

in the PSD QA requirements. Therefore, 

the EPA proposes the term ‘‘PSD 

monitoring organization’’ to identify ‘‘a 

source owner/operator, a government 

agency, or its contractor that operates an 

ambient air pollution monitoring 

network for PSD purposes.’’ 

The EPA also proposes to define ‘‘PSD 

monitoring network’’ in order to 

distinguish ‘‘a set of monitors that 

provide concentration information for a 

specific PSD permit.’’ The EPA will 

place both definitions in 40 CFR 58.1. 

2. Quality System Requirements 

The EPA proposes to remove the 

PM10-2.5 requirements for flow rate 

verifications, semi-annual flow rate 

audits, collocated sampling procedures 

and PM10-2.5 Performance Evaluation 

Program from appendix B (current 

appendix A sections 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 3.3.6, 

3.3.8, 4.3). In 2006, the EPA proposed a 

PM10-2.5 NAAQS along with requisite 

QA requirements in appendix A. While 

the PM10-2.5 NAAQS was not 

promulgated, PM10-2.5 monitoring was 

required to be performed at NCore sites 

and the EPA proposed requisite QA 

requirements in appendix A. Since PSD 

monitoring is distinct from monitoring 

at NCore sites and PM10-2.5 is not a 

criteria pollutant, it will be removed 

from the PSD QA requirements. 

The EPA proposes that the Pb QA 

requirements of collocated sampling 

(current appendix A section 3.3.4.3) and 

Pb performance evaluation procedures 

(current appendix A section 3.3.4.4) for 

non-source oriented NCore sites be 

eliminated for PSD. The 2010 Pb rule in 

40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 

4.5(b), added a requirement to conduct 

non-source oriented Pb monitoring at 

each NCore site in a CBSA with a 

population of 500,000 or more. Since 

PSD does not implement NCore sites, 

the EPA proposes to eliminate the Pb 

QA language specific to non-source 

NCore sites from PSD while retaining 

the PSD QA requirements for routine Pb 

monitoring. 

The EPA proposes that elements of 

QMPs and QAPPs which are separate 

documents and are described in 

appendix A, sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, 

can be combined into a single document 

for PSD monitoring networks. The QMP 

provides a ‘‘blueprint’’ of a PSD 

monitoring organization’s quality 

system. It includes quality policies and 

describes how the organization as a 

whole manages and implements its 

quality system regardless of what 

monitoring is being performed. The 

QAPP includes details for implementing 

a specific PSD monitoring activity. For 

PSD monitoring, the EPA believes the 

project-specific QAPP takes priority but 

there are important aspects of the QMP 

that could be incorporated into the 

QAPP. The current appendix A 

requirements allow smaller 

organizations or organizations that do 

infrequent work with EPA to combine 

the QMP with the QAPP based on 

negotiations with the funding agency 

and provided guidance 28 on a graded 

approach to developing these 

documents. In the case of PSD QMPs 

and QAPPs, the EPA proposes that the 

PSD reviewing authority, which has the 

approval authority for these documents, 

also have the flexibility for allowing the 

PSD PQAO to combine pertinent 

elements of the QMP into the QAPP 

rather than requiring the submission of 

both QMP and QAPP documents 

separately. 

The EPA proposes to add language to 

the appendix B version of the data 

quality objectives (DQO) section 

(current appendix A section 2.3.1) 

which allows flexibility for the PSD 

reviewing authority and the PSD 

monitoring organization to determine if 

adherence to the DQOs specified in 

appendix A, which are the DQO goals 

for NAAQS decisions, are appropriate or 

whether project-specific goals are 

necessary. Allowing the PSD reviewing 

authority and the PSD monitoring 

organization flexibility to change the 

DQOs does not change the 

implementation requirements for the 

types and frequency of the QC checks in 

appendix B, but does give some 

flexibility in the acceptance of data for 

use in specific projects for which the 

PSD data are collected. As an example, 

the goal for acceptable measurement 

uncertainty for the collection of O3 data 

for NAAQS determinations is defined 

for precision as an upper 90 percent 

confidence limit for CV of seven percent 

and for bias as an upper 95 percent 

confidence limit for the absolute bias of 

seven percent. The precision and bias 

estimates are made with 3 years of onepoint QC check data. A single or a few 

one-point QC checks over seven percent 

would not have a significant effect on 

meeting the DQO goal. The PSD 

monitoring DQO, depending on the 

objectives of the PSD monitoring 

network, may require a stricter DQO 

goal or one less restrictive. Since PSD 

monitoring covers a period of 1 year or 

less, one-point QC checks over seven 

percent will increase the likelihood of 

failing to meet the DQO goal since there 

would be fewer QC checks available in 

the monitoring period to estimate 

precision and bias. With fewer checks, 

any individual check will statistically 

have more influence over the precision 

or bias estimate. Realizing that PSD 

monitoring may have different 

monitoring objectives, the EPA proposes 

to add language that would allow 

decisions on data quality objectives to 

be determined through consultation 

between the appropriate PSD reviewing 

authority and PSD monitoring 

organization. 

The EPA proposes to add some 

clarifying language to the section 

describing the NPEP (current appendix 

A section 2.4) to explain selfimplementation of the performance 

evaluation by the PSD monitoring 

organization. Self-implementation of 

NPEP has always been an option for 

monitoring organizations but the 

requirements for self-implementation 

were described in the technical 

implementation documents (i.e., 

implementation plans and QAPPs) for 

the program and in an annual selfimplementation decision memo that is 

distributed to monitoring 

organizations.29 These major 

requirements for self-implementation 

are proposed to be included in the 

appendix B sections pertaining to the 

NPEP program (NPAP, PM2.5-PEP and 

Pb-PEP). 

The NPEP clarification also adds a 

definition of ‘‘independent assessment.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54371 

30http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html. 

31QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 

Vol. II Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html. 

32See supporting information in Excess NO Issue 

paper, Mike Papp and Lewis Weinstock, Docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0619. 

The proposed definition is derived from 

the NPEP (NPAP, PM2.5-PEP, and PbPEP) QAPPs and guidance; it also 

appears in the annual selfimplementation memo described above. 

The clarification is not a new 

requirement but consolidates this 

information. 

The EPA proposes to require PSD 

PQAOs to provide information to the 

PSD reviewing authority on the vendors 

of gas standards that they use (or will 

use) for the duration of the PSD 

monitoring project. A QAPP or 

monitoring plan may incorporate this 

information; however, that document 

must then be updated if there is a 

change in the vendor used. The current 

regulation (current appendix A section 

2.6.1) requires any gas vendor 

advertising and distributing ‘‘EPA 

Protocol Gas’’ to participate in the AA– 

PGVP. The EPA posts a list of these 

vendors on the AMTIC Web site.30 This 

is not expected to be a burden since 

information of this type is normally 

included in a QAPP or standard 

operating procedure for a monitoring 

activity. 

3. Quality Control Checks for Gases 

The EPA proposes to lower the audit 

concentrations (current appendix A 

section 3.2.1) of the one-point QC 

checks to 0.005 and 0.08 ppm for SO2, 

NO2, and O3 (currently 0.01 to 0.1 ppm), 

and to between 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO 

monitors (currently 1 and 10 ppm). 

With the development of more sensitive 

monitoring instruments with lower 

detection limits, technical 

improvements in calibrators, and lower 

ambient air concentrations in general, 

the EPA believes this revision will 

better reflect the precision and bias of 

the routinely-collected ambient air data. 

Since the audit concentrations are 

selected using the mean or median 

concentration of typical ambient air data 

(guidance on this is provided in the QA 

Handbook 31), the EPA is proposing to 

add some clarification to the current 

language by requiring PSD monitoring 

organizations to select either the highest 

or lowest concentration in the ranges 

identified if the mean or median values 

of the routinely-collected concentrations 

are above or below the prescribed range. 

There is no additional burden added by 

this requirement since the frequency is 

the same and the audit concentrations 

are not so low as to make them 

unachievable to generate or measure. 

The EPA proposes to remove the 

existing reference to zero and span 

adjustments (current appendix A, 

section 3.2.1.1) and to revise the onepoint QC language to simply require 

that the QC check be conducted before 

making any calibration or adjustment to 

the monitor. Recent revisions of the QA 

Handbook discourage the practice of 

making frequent span adjustments so 

the proposed language helps to clarify 

that no adjustment be made prior to 

implementation of the one-point QC 

check. 

The current annual performance 

evaluation language (current appendix 

A, section 3.2.2.1) requires that the 

audits be conducted by selecting three 

consecutive audit levels (currently 

appendix A recognizes five audit 

levels). Due to the implementation of 

the NCore network, the inception of 

trace gas monitors, and lower ambient 

air concentrations being measured 

under typical circumstances, there is a 

need for audit levels at lower 

concentrations to more accurately 

represent the uncertainties present in 

the ambient air data. The EPA proposes 

to expand the audit levels from five to 

ten and remove the requirement to audit 

three consecutive levels. The current 

regulation also requires that the three 

audit levels should bracket 80 percent of 

the ambient air concentrations 

measured by the analyzer. This current 

‘‘bracketing language’’ has caused some 

confusion and monitoring organizations 

have requested the use of an audit point 

to establish monitor accuracy around 

the NAAQS levels. Therefore, the EPA 

is proposing to revise the language so 

that two of the audit levels selected 

represent 10 to 80 percent of routinelycollected ambient concentrations either 

measured by the monitor or in the PSD 

PQAOs network of monitors. The 

proposed revision allows the third point 

to be selected at a concentration that is 

consistent with PSD-specific DQOs (e.g., 

the 75 ppb NAAQS level for SO2). 

The EPA proposes to revise the 

language (current appendix A, section 

3.2.2.2(a)) addressing the limits on 

excess NO that must be followed during 

GPT procedures involving NO2 audits. 

The current NO limit (maintaining at 

least 0.08 ppm) is very restrictive and 

requires auditors to make numerous 

mid-audit adjustments during a GPT 

that result in making the NO2 audit a 

very time consuming procedure. 

Monitoring agency staff have advised us 

that the observance of such excess NO 

limits has no apparent effect on NO2

calibrations being conducted with 

modern-day GPT-capable calibration 

equipment and, therefore, that the 

requirements in the context of 

performing audits is unnecessary.32 We 

also note the increasing availability of 

the EPA-approved direct NO2 methods 

that do not utilize converters, rendering 

the use of GPT techniques that require 

the output of NO and NOX to be a 

potentially diminishingly used 

procedure in the future. Accordingly, 

we have proposed a more general 

statement regarding GPT that 

acknowledges the ongoing usage of 

monitoring agency procedures and 

guidance documents that have 

successfully supported NO2 calibration 

activities. The EPA believes that if such 

procedures have been successfully used 

during calibrations when instrument 

adjustments are potentially being made, 

than such procedures are appropriate 

for audit use when instruments are not 

subject to adjustment. The EPA solicits 

comment on this proposed 

generalization of the GPT requirements, 

including whether a more specific set of 

requirements similar to the current 

excess NO levels can be developed 

based on operational experience and/or 

peer reviewed literature. 

The EPA proposes to remove language 

(current appendix A section 3.2.2.2(b)) 

in the annual performance evaluation 

section that requires regional approval 

for audit gases for any monitors 

operating at ranges higher that 1.0 ppm 

for O3, SO2 and NO2 and greater than 50 

ppm for CO. The EPA does not need to 

approve a monitoring organization’s use 

of audit gases to audit above proposed 

concentration levels since the EPA has 

identified the requirements for all audit 

gases used in the program in current 

appendix A, section 2.6.1. There should 

be very few cases where a performance 

evaluation needs to be performed above 

level 10 but there may be some 

legitimate instances (e.g., an SO2 audit 

in areas impacted by volcanic 

emissions). Since data reported to AQS 

above the highest level may be rejected 

(if PSD PE data are reported to AQS), 

the EPA proposes that PQAOs notify the 

PSD reviewing authority of sites 

auditing at concentrations above level 

10 so that reporting accommodations 

can be made. 

The EPA proposes to describe the 

NPAP (current appendix A, section 2.4) 

in more detail. The NPAP is a longstanding program for the ambient air 

monitoring community. The NPAP is a 

performance evaluation which is a type 

of audit where quantitative data are 

collected independently in order to 

evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, 

monitoring instrument or laboratory. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54372 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

33http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/

pm25/qa/npappep2014.pdf. 

34See 78 FR 40000, July 3, 2013. 35MDL is described as the minimum 

concentration of a substance that can be measured 

and reported with 99 percent confidence that the 

analyte concentration is greater than zero. 36FEMs approved on or after March 4, 2010, have 

the required sensitivity to utilize the 0.002 mg/m3

reporting limit with the exception of manual 

equivalent method EQLA–0813–803, the previous 

FRM based on flame atomic absorption 

spectroscopy. 

This program has been briefly 

mentioned in section 2.4 of the current 

appendix A requirements. In appendix 

A, the EPA is proposing to add language 

consistent with an annual decision 

memorandum 33 distributed to all state 

and local monitoring organizations in 

order to determine whether the 

monitoring organization plans to selfimplement the NPAP program or utilize 

the federally implemented program. In 

order to make this decision, the NPAP 

adequacy and independence 

requirements are described in the 

decision memorandum. The EPA 

proposes to include these same 

requirements in appendix B in a 

separate section for NPAP. As described 

in the applicability section, the 

implementation of NPAP is at the 

discretion of the PSD reviewing 

authority but must be implemented if 

data are used in any NAAQS 

determinations. Since PSD monitoring 

is implemented at shorter intervals 

(usually a year) and with fewer 

monitors, if NPAP is performed, it is 

required to be performed annually on 

each monitor operated in the PSD 

network. 

4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate 

Monitors 

The EPA proposes to have one flow 

rate verification frequency requirement 

for all PM PSD monitors. The current 

regulations (current appendix A, table 

A–2) provides for monthly flow rate 

verifications for most samplers used to 

monitor PM2.5, PM10 and Pb and 

quarterly flow rate verifications for 

high-volume PM10 or TSP samplers (for 

Pb). With longer duration NAAQS 

monitoring, the quarterly verification 

frequencies are adequate for these highvolume PM10 or TSP samplers. 

However, with the short duration of 

PSD monitoring, the EPA believes that 

monthly flow rate verifications are more 

appropriate to ensure that any sampler 

flow rate problems are identified more 

quickly and to reduce the potential for 

a significant amount of data invalidation 

that could extend monitoring activities. 

The EPA proposes to grant more 

flexibility to PSD monitoring 

organizations when selecting PM2.5

method designations for sites that 

require collocation. Appendix A 

currently (current appendix A, section 

3.2.5.2(b)) requires that if a primary 

monitor is a FEM, then the first QC 

collocated monitor must be a FRM 

monitor. Most of the FEM monitors are 

continuous monitors while the FRM 

monitors are filter-based. Continuous 

monitors (which are all FEMs) may be 

advantageous for use at the more remote 

PSD monitoring locations, since the site 

operator would not need to visit a site 

as often to retrieve filters (current FRMs 

are filter-based). The current collocation 

requirements for FEMs require a filterbased FRM for collocation which would 

mean a visit to retrieve the FRM filters 

at least one week after the QC collocated 

monitor operated. Therefore, the EPA 

proposes that the FRM be selected as the 

QC collocated monitor unless the PSD 

PQAO submits a waiver request to allow 

for collocation with a FEM to the PSD 

reviewing authority. If the request for a 

waiver is approved, then the QC 

monitor must be the same method 

designation as the primary FEM 

monitor. 

The EPA proposes to allow the PSD 

reviewing authority to waive the PM2.5

3 mg/m3 concentration validity 

threshold for implementation of the 

PM2.5-PEP in the last quarter of PSD 

monitoring. The PM2.5-PEP (current 

appendix A section 3.2.7) requires five 

valid PM2.5-PEP audits per year for 

PM2.5 monitoring networks with less 

than or equal to five sites and eight 

valid PM2.5-PEP audits per year with 

PM2.5 monitoring networks greater than 

five sites. Any PEP sample collected 

with a concentration less than 3 mg/m3

are not considered valid, since they 

cannot be used for bias estimates, and 

re-sampling is required at a later date. 

With NAAQS related monitoring, which 

aggregates the PM2.5-PEP data over a 3- 

year period, re-sampling is easily 

accomplished. Due to the relatively 

short-term nature of most PSD 

monitoring, the likelihood of measuring 

low concentrations in many areas 

attaining the PM2.5 standard and the 

time required to weigh filters collected 

in performance evaluations, a PSD 

monitoring organization’s QAPP may 

contain a provision to waive the 3 mg/ 

m3 threshold for validity of performance 

evaluations conducted in the last 

quarter of monitoring, subject to 

approval by the PSD reviewing 

authority. 

5. Calculations for Data Quality 

Assessment 

In order to allow reasonable estimates 

of data quality, the EPA uses data above 

an established threshold concentration 

usually related to the detection limits of 

the measurement method. Measurement 

pairs are selected for use in the 

precision and bias calculations only 

when both measurements are above a 

threshold concentration. 

For many years, the threshold 

concentration for Pb precision and bias 

data has been 0.02 ug/m3. The EPA 

promulgated a new Pb FRM utilizing the 

ICP–MS analysis technique in 2013 as a 

revision to appendix G of 40 CFR part 

50.34 This new FRM demonstrated 

MDLs 35 below 0.0002 mg/m3 which is 

well below the EPA requirement of five 

percent of the current Pb NAAQS level 

of 0.15 mg/m3 or 0.0075 mg/m3. As a 

result of the increased sensitivity 

inherent in this new FRM, the EPA 

proposes to lower the acceptable Pb 

concentration (current section 4) from 

the current value of 0.02 ug/m3 to 0.002 

mg/m3 for measurements obtained using 

the new Pb FRM and other more 

recently approved equivalent methods 

that have the requisite increased 

sensitivity.36 The current 0.02 ug/m3

value will be retained for the previous 

Pb FRM that has subsequently been 

redesignated as Federal Equivalent 

Method EQLA–0813–803 as well as 

older equivalent methods that were 

approved prior to the more recent work 

on developing more sensitive methods. 

Since ambient Pb concentrations are 

lower and methods more sensitive, 

lowering the threshold concentration 

will allow much more collocated 

information to be evaluated, which will 

provide more representative estimates of 

precision and bias. 

The EPA also proposes to remove the 

TSP threshold concentration since TSP 

is no longer an ambient indicator of PM 

NAAQS required pollutant and the EPA 

no longer applies QC requirements for 

it. 

The EPA proposes to remove the 

statistical check currently described in 

section 4.1.5 of appendix A. The check 

was developed to perform a comparison 

of the one-point QC checks and the 

annual performance evaluation data 

performed by the same PQAO. The 

section suggests that 95 percent of all 

the bias estimates of the annual 

performance evaluations (reported as a 

percent difference) should fall within 

the 95 percent probability interval 

developed using the one-point QC 

checks. The problem with this check is 

that PQAOs with very good repeatability 

on the one-point QC check data had a 

hard time meeting this requirement 

since the probability interval became 

very tight, making it more difficult for 

better performing PQAOs to meet the 

requirement. Separate statistics to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54373 

evaluate the one-point QC checks and 

the performance evaluations are already 

promulgated, so the removal of this 

check does not affect data quality 

assessments. 

Similar to the statistical comparison 

of performance evaluation data, the EPA 

proposes to remove the statistical check 

(current appendix A, section 4.2.4) to 

compare the flow rate audit data and 

flow rate verification data. The existing 

language suggests that 95 percent of all 

the flow rate audit data (reported as 

percent difference) should fall within 

the 95 percent probability interval 

developed from the flow rate 

verification data for the PQAO. The 

problem, as with the one-point QC 

check, was that monitoring 

organizations with very good 

repeatability on the flow rate 

verifications had a hard time meeting 

this requirement since the probability 

interval became very tight, making it 

difficult for better performing PQAOs to 

meet the requirement. Separate statistics 

to evaluate the flow rate verifications 

and flow rate audits are already 

promulgated so the removal of this 

check does not affect data quality 

assessments. 

The EPA proposes to remove the 

reporting requirements that are 

currently in section 5 of appendix A 

because they do not pertain to PSD 

monitoring (current sections 5.1, 5.1.1 

and 5.1.2.1). Since PSD organizations 

are not required to certify their data to 

the EPA nor report to AQS, the EPA will 

remove language related to these 

requirements and language that required 

the EPA to calculate and report the 

measurement uncertainty for the entire 

calendar year. The EPA will retain the 

quarterly PSD reporting requirements 

(current section 5.2 in appendix A) and 

require that those requirements be 

consistent with Part 58.16 as it pertains 

to PSD ambient air quality data and QC 

data, as described in appendix B. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). While the 

EPA believes that the net effect of the 

proposed changes to requirements is a 

net decrease in burden, the current 

information collection request 

calculation tools are not sufficiently 

detailed to show a material change in 

burden compared with the existing 

requirements. 

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 this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as (1) a small business 

as 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 this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will neither impose 

emission measurement requirements 

beyond those specified in the current 

regulations, nor will it change any 

emission standard. As such, it will not 

present a significant economic impact 

on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This 

action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

proposes minor changes to existing 

monitoring requirements and will not 

materially impact the time required to 

operate monitoring networks. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. In the spirit of Executive 

Order 13132, and consistent with the 

EPA policy to promote communications 

between the EPA and state and local 

governments, the EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from state and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This proposed rule imposes no 

requirements on tribal governments. 

This action proposes minor changes to 

existing monitoring requirements and 

will not materially impact the time 

required to operate monitoring 

networks. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. In the 

spirit of Executive order 13175, the EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54374 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action proposes minor changes to 

existing monitoring requirements. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 

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 the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

proposed rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore this 

action is not subject to the NTTAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations. 

Dated: August 13, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter 1 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 58—AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 

SURVEILLANCE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 58 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7405, 7410, 

7414, 7601, 7611, 7614, and 7619. 

■ 2. Revise § 58.1 to read as follows: 

§ 58.1 Definitions. 

As used in this part, all terms not 

defined herein have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act. 

AADT means the annual average daily 

traffic. 

Act means the Clean Air Act as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) 

Additive and multiplicative bias 

means the linear regression intercept 

and slope of a linear plot fitted to 

corresponding candidate and reference 

method mean measurement data pairs. 

Administrator means the 

Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) or his or her 

authorized representative. 

Air Quality System (AQS) means the 

EPA’s computerized system for storing 

and reporting of information relating to 

ambient air quality data. 

Approved regional method (ARM) 

means a continuous PM2.5 method that 

has been approved specifically within a 

state or local air monitoring network for 

purposes of comparison to the NAAQS 

and to meet other monitoring objectives. 

AQCR means air quality control 

region. 

Area-wide means all monitors sited at 

neighborhood, urban, and regional 

scales, as well as those monitors sited at 

either micro- or middle-scale that are 

representative of many such locations in 

the same CBSA. 

Certifying agency means a state, local, 

or tribal agency responsible for meeting 

the data certification requirements in 

accordance with § 58.15 of this part for 

a unique set of monitors. 

Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) 

includes Speciation Trends Network 

stations (STN) as specified in paragraph 

4.7.4 of appendix D of this part and 

supplemental speciation stations that 

provide chemical species data of fine 

particulate. 

CO means carbon monoxide. 

Combined statistical area (CSA) is 

defined by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget as a 

geographical area consisting of two or 

more adjacent Core Based Statistical 

Areas (CBSA) with employment 

interchange of at least 15 percent. 

Combination is automatic if the 

employment interchange is 25 percent 

and determined by local opinion if more 

than 15 but less than 25 percent. 

Core-based statistical area (CBSA) is 

defined by the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget, as a statistical 

geographic entity consisting of the 

county or counties associated with at 

least one urbanized area/urban cluster 

of at least 10,000 population, plus 

adjacent counties having a high degree 

of social and economic integration. 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) 

and micropolitan statistical areas are the 

two categories of CBSA (metropolitan 

areas have populations greater than 

50,000; and micropolitan areas have 

populations between 10,000 and 

50,000). In the case of very large cities 

where two or more CBSAs are 

combined, these larger areas are referred 

to as combined statistical areas (CSAs) 

Corrected concentration pertains to 

the result of an accuracy or precision 

assessment test of an open path analyzer 

in which a high-concentration test or 

audit standard gas contained in a short 

test cell is inserted into the optical 

measurement beam of the instrument. 

When the pollutant concentration 

measured by the analyzer in such a test 

includes both the pollutant 

concentration in the test cell and the 

concentration in the atmosphere, the 

atmospheric pollutant concentration 

must be subtracted from the test 

measurement to obtain the corrected 

concentration test result. The corrected 

concentration is equal to the measured 

concentration minus the average of the 

atmospheric pollutant concentrations 

measured (without the test cell) 

immediately before and immediately 

after the test. 

Design value means the calculated 

concentration according to the 

applicable appendix of part 50 of this 

chapter for the highest site in an 

attainment or nonattainment area. 

EDO means environmental data 

operations. 

Effective concentration pertains to 

testing an open path analyzer with a 

high-concentration calibration or audit 

standard gas contained in a short test 

cell inserted into the optical 

measurement beam of the instrument. 

Effective concentration is the equivalent 

ambient-level concentration that would 

produce the same spectral absorbance 

over the actual atmospheric monitoring 

path length as produced by the highconcentration gas in the short test cell. 

Quantitatively, effective concentration 

is equal to the actual concentration of 

the gas standard in the test cell 

multiplied by the ratio of the path 

length of the test cell to the actual 

atmospheric monitoring path length. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54375 

Federal equivalent method (FEM) 

means a method for measuring the 

concentration of an air pollutant in the 

ambient air that has been designated as 

an equivalent method in accordance 

with part 53; it does not include a 

method for which an equivalent method 

designation has been canceled in 

accordance with § 53.11 or § 53.16. 

Federal reference method (FRM) 

means a method of sampling and 

analyzing the ambient air for an air 

pollutant that is specified as a reference 

method in an appendix to part 50 of this 

chapter, or a method that has been 

designated as a reference method in 

accordance with this part; it does not 

include a method for which a reference 

method designation has been canceled 

in accordance with § 53.11 or § 5316. 

HNO3 means nitric acid. 

Implementation Plan means an 

implementation plan approved or 

promulgated by the EPA pursuant to 

section 110 of the Act. 

Local agency means any local 

government agency, other than the state 

agency, which is charged by a state with 

the responsibility for carrying out a 

portion of the annual monitoring 

network plan required by § 58.10. 

Meteorological measurements means 

measurements of wind speed, wind 

direction, barometric pressure, 

temperature, relative humidity, solar 

radiation, ultraviolet radiation, and/or 

precipitation that occur at stations 

including NCore and PAMS. 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

means a CBSA associated with at least 

one urbanized area of 50,000 population 

or greater. The central county, plus 

adjacent counties with a high degree of 

integration, comprise the area. 

Monitor means an instrument, 

sampler, analyzer, or other device that 

measures or assists in the measurement 

of atmospheric air pollutants and which 

is acceptable for use in ambient air 

surveillance under the applicable 

provisions of appendix C to this part. 

Monitoring agency means a state, 

local or Tribal agency responsible for 

meeting the requirements of this part. 

Monitoring organization means a 

monitoring agency or other monitoring 

organization responsible for operating a 

monitoring site for which the quality 

assurance regulations apply. 

Monitoring path for an open path 

analyzer means the actual path in space 

between two geographical locations over 

which the pollutant concentration is 

measured and averaged. 

Monitoring path length of an open 

path analyzer means the length of the 

monitoring path in the atmosphere over 

which the average pollutant 

concentration measurement (pathaveraged concentration) is determined. 

See also, optical measurement path 

length. 

Monitoring planning area (MPA) 

means a contiguous geographic area 

with established, well-defined 

boundaries, such as a CBSA, county or 

state, having a common area that is used 

for planning monitoring locations for 

PM2.5. A MPA may cross state 

boundaries, such as the Philadelphia 

PA–NJ MSA, and be further subdivided 

into community monitoring zones. The 

MPAs are generally oriented toward 

CBSAs or CSAs with populations 

greater than 200,000, but for 

convenience, those portions of a state 

that are not associated with CBSAs can 

be considered as a single MPA. 

NATTS means the national air toxics 

trends stations. This network provides 

hazardous air pollution ambient data. 

NCore means the National Core 

multipollutant monitoring stations. 

Monitors at these sites are required to 

measure particles (PM2.5, speciated 

PM2.5, PM10-2.5), O3, SO2, CO, nitrogen 

oxides (NO/NOy), and meteorology 

(wind speed, wind direction, 

temperature, relative humidity). 

Near-road monitor means any 

approved monitor meeting the 

applicable specifications described in 

40 CFR part 58, appendix D (sections 

4.2.1, 4.3.2, 4.7.1(b)(2)) and appendix E 

(section 6.4(a), Table E–4) for near-road 

measurement of PM2.5, CO, or NO2. 

Network means all stations of a given 

type or types. 

Network Plan means the Annual 

Monitoring Network Plan described in 

§ 58.10 of this part. 

NH3 means ammonia. 

NO2 means nitrogen dioxide. 

NO means nitrogen oxide. 

NOX means the sum of the 

concentrations of NO2 and NO. 

NOy means the sum of all total 

reactive nitrogen oxides, including NO, 

NO2, and other nitrogen oxides referred 

to as NOZ. 

O3 means ozone. 

Open path analyzer means an 

automated analytical method that 

measures the average atmospheric 

pollutant concentration in situ along 

one or more monitoring paths having a 

monitoring path length of 5 meters or 

more and that has been designated as a 

reference or equivalent method under 

the provisions of part 53 of this chapter. 

Optical measurement path length 

means the actual length of the optical 

beam over which measurement of the 

pollutant is determined. The pathintegrated pollutant concentration 

measured by the analyzer is divided by 

the optical measurement path length to 

determine the path-averaged 

concentration. Generally, the optical 

measurement path length is: 

(1) Equal to the monitoring path 

length for a (bistatic) system having a 

transmitter and a receiver at opposite 

ends of the monitoring path; 

(2) Equal to twice the monitoring path 

length for a (monostatic) system having 

a transmitter and receiver at one end of 

the monitoring path and a mirror or 

retroreflector at the other end; or 

(3) Equal to some multiple of the 

monitoring path length for more 

complex systems having multiple passes 

of the measurement beam through the 

monitoring path. 

PAMS means photochemical 

assessment monitoring stations. 

Pb means lead. 

PM means particulate matter, 

including but not limited to PM10, 

PM10C, PM2.5, and PM10-2.5. 

PM2.5 means particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as 

measured by a reference method based 

on appendix L of part 50 and designated 

in accordance with part 53, by an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with part 53, or by an 

approved regional method designated in 

accordance with appendix C to this part. 

PM10 means particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as 

measured by a reference method based 

on appendix J of part 50 and designated 

in accordance with part 53 or by an 

equivalent method designated in 

accordance with part 53. 

PM10C means particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as 

measured by a reference method based 

on appendix O of part 50 and 

designated in accordance with part 53 

or by an equivalent method designated 

in accordance with part 53. 

PM10-2.5 means particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers and 

greater than a nominal 2.5 micrometers 

as measured by a reference method 

based on appendix O to part 50 and 

designated in accordance with part 53 

or by an equivalent method designated 

in accordance with part 53. 

Point analyzer means an automated 

analytical method that measures 

pollutant concentration in an ambient 

air sample extracted from the 

atmosphere at a specific inlet probe 

point, and that has been designated as 

a reference or equivalent method in 

accordance with part 53 of this chapter. 

Primary Monitor means the monitor 

identified by the monitoring 

organization that provides concentration 

data used for comparison to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54376 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

NAAQS. For any specific site, only one 

monitor for each pollutant can be 

designated in AQS as primary monitor 

for a given period of time. The primary 

monitor identifies the default data 

source for creating a combined site 

record for purposes of NAAQS 

comparisons. 

Primary quality assurance 

organization (PQAO) means a 

monitoring organization, a group of 

monitoring organizations or other 

organization that is responsible for a set 

of stations that monitor the same 

pollutant and for which data quality 

assessments can be pooled. Each criteria 

pollutant sampler/monitor at a 

monitoring station in the SLAMS and 

SPM networks must be associated with 

only one PQAO. 

Probe means the actual inlet where an 

air sample is extracted from the 

atmosphere for delivery to a sampler or 

point analyzer for pollutant analysis. 

PSD monitoring network means a set 

of stations that provide concentration 

information for a specific PSD permit. 

PSD monitoring organization means a 

source owner/operator, a government 

agency, or a contractor of the source or 

agency that operates an ambient air 

pollution monitoring network for PSD 

purposes. 

PSD reviewing authority means the 

state air pollution control agency, local 

agency, other state agency, tribe, or 

other agency authorized by the 

Administrator to carry out a permit 

program under § 51.165 and § 51.166, or 

the Administrator in the case of EPAimplemented permit programs under 

§ 52.21. 

PSD station means any station 

operated for the purpose of establishing 

the effect on air quality of the emissions 

from a proposed source for purposes of 

prevention of significant deterioration 

as required by § 51.24(n). 

Regional Administrator means the 

Administrator of one of the ten EPA 

regional offices or his or her authorized 

representative. 

Reporting organization means an 

entity, such as a state, local, or tribal 

monitoring agency, that reports air 

quality data to the EPA. 

Site means a geographic location. One 

or more stations may be at the same site. 

SLAMS means state or local air 

monitoring stations. The SLAMS 

include the ambient air quality 

monitoring sites and monitors that are 

required by appendix D of this part and 

are needed for the monitoring objectives 

of appendix D, including NAAQS 

comparisons, but may serve other data 

purposes. The SLAMS includes NCore, 

PAMS, CSN, and all other state or 

locally operated criteria pollutant 

monitors operated in accordance to this 

part, that have not been designated and 

approved by the Regional Administrator 

as SPM stations in an annual monitoring 

network plan. 

SO2 means sulfur dioxide. 

Special purpose monitor (SPM) 

station means a monitor included in an 

agency’s monitoring network that the 

agency has designated as a special 

purpose monitor station in its annual 

monitoring network plan and in the 

AQS, and which the agency does not 

count when showing compliance with 

the minimum requirements of this 

subpart for the number and siting of 

monitors of various types. Any SPM 

operated by an air monitoring agency 

must be included in the periodic 

assessments and annual monitoring 

network plan required by § 58.10 and 

approved by the Regional 

Administrator. 

State agency means the air pollution 

control agency primarily responsible for 

development and implementation of a 

State Implementation Plan under the 

Act. 

Station means a single monitor, or a 

group of monitors, located at a 

particular site. 

STN station means a PM2.5 chemical 

speciation station designated to be part 

of the speciation trends network. This 

network provides chemical species data 

of fine particulate. 

Supplemental speciation station 

means a PM2.5 chemical speciation 

station that is operated for monitoring 

agency needs and not part of the STN. 

Traceable means that a local standard 

has been compared and certified, either 

directly or via not more than one 

intermediate standard, to a National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST)-certified primary standard such 

as a NIST-traceable Reference Material 

(NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas 

Manufacturer’s Internal Standard 

(GMIS). 

TSP (total suspended particulates) 

means particulate matter as measured 

by the method described in appendix B 

of part 50. 

Urbanized area means an area with a 

minimum residential population of at 

least 50,000 people and which generally 

includes core census block groups or 

blocks that have a population density of 

at least 1,000 people per square mile 

and surrounding census blocks that 

have an overall density of at least 500 

people per square mile. The Census 

Bureau notes that under certain 

conditions, less densely settled territory 

may be part of each Urbanized Area. 

VOCs means volatile organic 

compounds. 

■ 3. In § 58.10: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). 

■ b. Add paragraph (a)(9). 

■ c. Add paragraph (b)(14). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan 

and periodic network assessment. 

(a)(1) Beginning July 1, 2007, the 

state, or where applicable local, agency 

shall submit to the Regional 

Administrator an annual monitoring 

network plan which shall provide for 

the documentation of the establishment 

and maintenance of an air quality 

surveillance system that consists of a 

network of SLAMS monitoring stations 

that can include FRM, FEM, and ARM 

monitors that are part of SLAMS, NCore, 

CSN, PAMS, and SPM stations. The 

plan shall include a purpose statement 

for each monitor along with a statement 

of whether the operation of each 

monitor meets the requirements of 

appendices A, B, C, D, and E of this 

part, where applicable. The Regional 

Administrator may require the 

submission of additional information as 

needed to evaluate compliance with 

applicable requirements of part 58 and 

its appendices. The annual monitoring 

network plan must be made available 

for public inspection and comment for 

at least 30 days prior to submission to 

the EPA and the submitted plan shall 

reference and address any such received 

comments. 

(2) Any annual monitoring network 

plan that proposes SLAMS network 

modifications (including new or 

discontinued monitoring sites, new 

determinations that data are not of 

sufficient quality to be compared to the 

NAAQS, and changes in identification 

of monitors as suitable or not suitable 

for comparison against the annual PM2.5

NAAQS) is subject to the approval of 

the EPA Regional Administrator, who 

shall approve or disapprove the plan 

within 120 days of submission of a 

complete plan to the EPA. 

* * * * * 

(9) A detailed description of the 

PAMS network being operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

appendix D to this part shall be 

submitted as part of the annual 

monitoring network plan for review by 

the EPA Administrator. The PAMS 

Network Description described in 

section 5 of appendix D may be used to 

meet this requirement. 

(b) * * * 

(14) The identification of any SPMs 

operating for a longer period than 24 

months that utilize FRM, FEM, and/or 

ARM monitors accompanied by a 

discussion of the rationale for retention 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54377 

as an SPM rather than a reclassification 

to SLAMS. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 58.11, revise paragraph (a)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 58.11 Network technical requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The owner or operator of an 

existing or a proposed source shall 

follow the quality assurance criteria in 

appendix B to this part that apply to 

PSD monitoring when operating a PSD 

site. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 58.12: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (d)(1). 

■ b. Revise paragraph (d)(3). 

The revisions 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 unless a waiver for an 

alternative schedule has been approved 

per paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(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. Other requests for a 

reduction to 1-in-6 day PM2.5 sampling 

or for seasonal sampling may be 

approved on a case-by-case basis. 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) if the 

Regional Administrator determines that 

the reduction in sampling frequency 

will not compromise data needed for 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

Required SLAMS stations whose 

measurements determine the design 

value for their area and that are within 

plus or minus 10 percent of the annual 

NAAQS, and all required sites where 

one or more 24-hour values have 

exceeded the 24-hour 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 until the 

design value no longer meets these 

criteria for 3 consecutive years. A 

continuously operating FEM or ARM 

PM2.5 monitor satisfies this requirement 

unless it is identified in the monitoring 

agency’s annual monitoring network 

plan as not appropriate for comparison 

to the NAAQS and the EPA Regional 

Administrator has approved that the 

data from that monitor may be excluded 

from comparison to the NAAQS. 

(iii) Required SLAMS stations whose 

measurements determine the 24-hour 

design value for their area and whose 

data are within plus or minus 5 percent 

of the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

must have an FRM or FEM operate on 

a daily schedule if that area’s design 

value for the annual NAAQS is less than 

the level of the annual PM2.5 standard. 

A continuously operating FEM or ARM 

PM2.5 monitor satisfies this requirement 

unless it is identified in the monitoring 

agency’s annual monitoring network 

plan as not appropriate for comparison 

to the NAAQS and the EPA Regional 

Administrator has approved that the 

data from that monitor may be excluded 

from comparison to the NAAQS. The 

daily schedule must be maintained until 

the referenced design values no longer 

meets these criteria for 3 consecutive 

years. 

(iv) Changes in sampling frequency 

attributable to changes in design values 

shall be implemented no later than 

January 1 of the calendar year following 

the certification of such data as 

described in § 58.15. 

* * * * * 

(3) Manual PM2.5 speciation samplers 

at STN stations must operate on at least 

a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency unless 

a reduction in sampling frequency has 

been approved by the EPA 

Administrator based on factors such as 

area’s design value, the role of the 

particular site in national health studies, 

the correlation of the site’s species data 

with nearby sites, and presence of other 

leveraged measurements. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 58.14, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 58.14 System modification. 

(a) The state, or where appropriate 

local, agency shall develop and 

implement a network modification plan 

and schedule to modify the ambient air 

quality monitoring network that 

implements the findings of the network 

assessment required every 5 years by 

§ 58.10(d). The network modification 

plan shall be submitted as part of the 

Annual Monitoring Network Plan that is 

due no later than the year after 

submittal of the network assessment. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Revise § 58.15 to read as follows: 

§ 58.15 Annual air monitoring data 

certification. 

(a) The state, or where appropriate 

local, agency shall submit to the EPA 

Regional Administrator an annual air 

monitoring data certification letter to 

certify data collected by FRM, FEM, and 

ARM monitors at SLAMS and SPM sites 

that meet criteria in appendix A to this 

part from January 1 to December 31 of 

the previous year. The head official in 

each monitoring agency, or his or her 

designee, shall certify that the previous 

year of ambient concentration and 

quality assurance data are completely 

submitted to AQS and that the ambient 

concentration data are accurate to the 

best of her or his knowledge, taking into 

consideration the quality assurance 

findings. The annual data certification 

letter is due by May 1 of each year. 

(b) Along with each certification 

letter, the state shall submit to the 

Regional Administrator an annual 

summary report of all the ambient air 

quality data collected by FRM, FEM, 

and ARM monitors at SLAMS and SPM 

sites. The annual report(s) shall be 

submitted for data collected from 

January 1 to December 31 of the 

previous year. The annual summary 

serves as the record of the specific data 

that is the object of the certification 

letter. 

(c) Along with each certification 

letter, the state shall submit to the 

Regional Administrator a summary of 

the precision and accuracy data for all 

ambient air quality data collected by 

FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors at 

SLAMS and SPM sites. The summary of 

precision and accuracy shall be 

submitted for data collected from 

January 1 to December 31 of the 

previous year. 

■ 8. In § 58.16, revise paragraphs (a), (c), 

and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 58.16 Data submittal and archiving 

requirements. 

(a) The state, or where appropriate, 

local agency, shall report to the 

Administrator, via AQS all ambient air 

quality data and associated quality 

assurance data for SO2; CO; O3; NO2; 

NO; NOy; NOX; Pb-TSP mass 

concentration; Pb-PM10 mass 

concentration; PM10 mass concentration; 

PM2.5 mass concentration; for filterbased PM2.5 FRM/FEM, the field blank 

mass; chemically speciated PM2.5 mass 

concentration data; PM10–2.5 mass 

concentration; meteorological data from 

NCore and PAMS sites; and metadata 

records and information specified by the 

AQS Data Coding Manual (http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/

manuals.htm). Air quality data and 

information must be submitted directly 

to the AQS via electronic transmission 

on the specified schedule described in 

paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) Air quality data submitted for each 

reporting period must be edited, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54378 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

validated, and entered into the AQS 

(within the time limits specified in 

paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section) 

pursuant to appropriate AQS 

procedures. The procedures for editing 

and validating data are described in the 

AQS Data Coding Manual and in each 

monitoring agency’s quality assurance 

project plan. 

(d) The state shall report VOC and if 

collected, carbonyl, NH3, and HNO3

data from PAMS sites, and chemically 

speciated PM2.5 mass concentration data 

to AQS within 6 months following the 

end of each quarterly reporting period 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Revise Appendix A to part 58 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 58—Quality 

Assurance Requirements for Monitors 

Used in Evaluations of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

1. General Information 

2. Quality System Requirements 

3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements 

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessments 

5. Reporting Requirements 

6. References 

1. General Information 

1.1 Applicability. (a) This appendix 

specifies the minimum quality system 

requirements applicable to SLAMS and other 

monitor types whose data are intended to be 

used to determine compliance with the 

NAAQS (e.g., SPMs, tribal, CASTNET, 

industrial, etc), unless the EPA Regional 

Administrator has reviewed and approved 

the monitor for exclusion from NAAQS use 

and these quality assurance requirements. 

(b) Primary quality assurance organizations 

are encouraged to develop and maintain 

quality systems more extensive than the 

required minimums. Additional guidance for 

the requirements reflected in this appendix 

can be found in the ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 

Systems,’’ Volume II (see reference 10 of this 

appendix) and at a national level in 

references 1, 2, and 3 of this appendix. 

1.2 Primary Quality Assurance 

Organization (PQAO). A PQAO is defined as 

a monitoring organization or a coordinated 

aggregation of such organizations that is 

responsible for a set of stations that monitors 

the same pollutant and for which data quality 

assessments will be pooled. Each criteria 

pollutant/monitor must be associated with 

only one PQAO. In some cases, data quality 

is assessed at the PQAO level. 

1.2.1 Each PQAO shall be defined such 

that measurement uncertainty among all 

stations in the organization can be expected 

to be reasonably homogeneous as a result of 

common factors. Common factors that should 

be considered in defining PQAOs include: 

(a) Operation by a common team of field 

operators according to a common set of 

procedures; 

(b) Use of a common quality assurance 

project plan (QAPP) or standard operating 

procedures; 

(c) Common calibration facilities and 

standards; 

(d) Oversight by a common quality 

assurance organization; and 

(e) Support by a common management 

organization (i.e., state agency) or laboratory. 

Since data quality assessments are made 

and data certified at the PQAO level, the 

monitoring organization identified as the 

PQAO will be responsible for the oversight 

of the quality of data of all monitoring 

organizations within the PQAO. 

1.2.2 Monitoring organizations having 

difficulty describing its PQAO or in assigning 

specific monitors to primary quality 

assurance organizations should consult with 

the appropriate EPA regional office. Any 

consolidation of monitoring organizations to 

PQAOs shall be subject to final approval by 

the appropriate EPA regional office. 

1.2.3 Each PQAO is required to 

implement a quality system that provides 

sufficient information to assess the quality of 

the monitoring data. The quality system 

must, at a minimum, include the specific 

requirements described in this appendix. 

Failure to conduct or pass a required check 

or procedure, or a series of required checks 

or procedures, does not by itself invalidate 

data for regulatory decision making. Rather, 

PQAOs and the EPA shall use the checks and 

procedures required in this appendix in 

combination with other data quality 

information, reports, and similar 

documentation that demonstrate overall 

compliance with part 58. Accordingly, the 

EPA and PQAOs shall use a ‘‘weight of 

evidence’’ approach when determining the 

suitability of data for regulatory decisions. 

The EPA reserves the authority to use or not 

use monitoring data submitted by a 

monitoring organization when making 

regulatory decisions based on the EPA’s 

assessment of the quality of the data. 

Consensus built validation templates or 

validation criteria already approved in 

Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) 

should be used as the basis for the weight of 

evidence approach. 

1.3 Definitions. 

(a) Measurement Uncertainty. A term used 

to describe deviations from a true 

concentration or estimate that are related to 

the measurement process and not to spatial 

or temporal population attributes of the air 

being measured. 

(b) Precision. A measurement of mutual 

agreement among individual measurements 

of the same property usually under 

prescribed similar conditions, expressed 

generally in terms of the standard deviation. 

(c) Bias. The systematic or persistent 

distortion of a measurement process which 

causes errors in one direction. 

(d) Accuracy. The degree of agreement 

between an observed value and an accepted 

reference value. Accuracy includes a 

combination of random error (imprecision) 

and systematic error (bias) components 

which are due to sampling and analytical 

operations. 

(e) Completeness. A measure of the amount 

of valid data obtained from a measurement 

system compared to the amount that was 

expected to be obtained under correct, 

normal conditions. 

(f) Detection Limit. The lowest 

concentration or amount of target analyte that 

can be determined to be different from zero 

by a single measurement at a stated level of 

probability. 

1.4 Measurement Quality Checks. The 

measurement quality checks described in 

sections 3 of this appendix shall be reported 

to AQS and are included in the data required 

for certification. 

1.5 Assessments and Reports. Periodic 

assessments and documentation of data 

quality are required to be reported to the 

EPA. To provide national uniformity in this 

assessment and reporting of data quality for 

all networks, specific assessment and 

reporting procedures are prescribed in detail 

in sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix. On 

the other hand, the selection and extent of 

the quality assurance and quality control 

activities used by a monitoring organization 

depend on a number of local factors such as 

field and laboratory conditions, the 

objectives for monitoring, the level of data 

quality needed, the expertise of assigned 

personnel, the cost of control procedures, 

pollutant concentration levels, etc. Therefore, 

quality system requirements in section 2 of 

this appendix are specified in general terms 

to allow each monitoring organization to 

develop a quality system that is most 

efficient and effective for its own 

circumstances while achieving the data 

quality objectives described in this appendix. 

2. Quality System Requirements 

A quality system (reference 1 of this 

appendix) is the means by which an 

organization manages the quality of the 

monitoring information it produces in a 

systematic, organized manner. It provides a 

framework for planning, implementing, 

assessing and reporting work performed by 

an organization and for carrying out required 

quality assurance and quality control 

activities. 

2.1 Quality Management Plans and 

Quality Assurance Project Plans. All PQAOs 

must develop a quality system that is 

described and approved in quality 

management plans (QMP) and QAPPs to 

ensure that the monitoring results: 

(a) Meet a well-defined need, use, or 

purpose (reference 5 of this appendix); 

(b) Provide data of adequate quality for the 

intended monitoring objectives; 

(c) Satisfy stakeholder expectations; 

(d) Comply with applicable standards 

specifications; 

(e) Comply with statutory (and other legal) 

requirements; and 

(f) Reflect consideration of cost and 

economics. 

2.1.1 The QMP describes the quality 

system in terms of the organizational 

structure, functional responsibilities of 

management and staff, lines of authority, and 

required interfaces for those planning, 

implementing, assessing and reporting 

activities involving environmental data 

operations (EDO). The QMP must be suitably 

documented in accordance with EPA 

requirements (reference 2 of this appendix), 

and approved by the appropriate Regional 

Administrator, or his or her representative. 

The quality system described in the QMP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54379 

will be reviewed during the systems audits 

described in section 2.5 of this appendix. 

Organizations that implement long-term 

monitoring programs with EPA funds should 

have a separate QMP document. Smaller 

organizations, organizations that do 

infrequent work with the EPA or have 

monitoring programs of limited size or scope 

may combine the QMP with the QAPP if 

approved by, and subject to any conditions 

of the EPA. Additional guidance on this 

process can be found in reference 10 of this 

appendix. Approval of the recipient’s QMP 

by the appropriate Regional Administrator or 

his or her representative may allow 

delegation of authority to review and approve 

environmental data collection activities 

adequately described and covered under the 

scope of the QMP and documented in 

appropriate planning documents (QAPP) to 

the PQAOs independent quality assurance 

function. Where a PQAO or monitoring 

organization has been delegated authority to 

review and approve their QAPP, an 

electronic copy must be submitted to the EPA 

region at the time it is submitted to the 

PQAO/monitoring organizations QAPP 

approving authority. The QAPP will be 

reviewed by the EPA during systems audits 

or circumstances related to data quality. The 

QMP submission and approval dates for 

PQAOs/monitoring organizations must be 

reported to AQS. 

2.1.2 The QAPP is a formal document 

describing, in sufficient detail, the quality 

system that must be implemented to ensure 

that the results of work performed will satisfy 

the stated objectives. PQAOs must develop 

QAPPs that describe how the organization 

intends to control measurement uncertainty 

to an appropriate level in order to achieve the 

data quality objectives for the EDO. The 

quality assurance policy of the EPA requires 

every EDO to have a written and approved 

QAPP prior to the start of the EDO. It is the 

responsibility of the PQAO/monitoring 

organization to adhere to this policy. The 

QAPP must be suitably documented in 

accordance with EPA requirements (reference 

3 of this appendix) which include standard 

operating procedures for all EDOs either 

within the document or by appropriate 

reference. The QAPP must identify each 

PQAO operating monitors under the QAPP as 

well as generally identify the sites and 

monitors to which it is applicable. The QAPP 

submission and approval dates must be 

reported to AQS. 

2.1.3 ’The PQAO/monitoring 

organization’s quality system must have 

adequate resources both in personnel and 

funding to plan, implement, assess and 

report on the achievement of the 

requirements of this appendix and its 

approved QAPP. 

2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance. 

The PQAO must provide for a quality 

assurance management function; that aspect 

of the overall management system of the 

organization that determines and implements 

the quality policy defined in a PQAO’s QMP. 

Quality management includes strategic 

planning, allocation of resources and other 

systematic planning activities (e.g., planning, 

implementation, assessing and reporting) 

pertaining to the quality system. The quality 

assurance management function must have 

sufficient technical expertise and 

management authority to conduct 

independent oversight and assure the 

implementation of the organization’s quality 

system relative to the ambient air quality 

monitoring program and should be 

organizationally independent of 

environmental data generation activities. 

2.3. Data Quality Performance 

Requirements. 

2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives. The DQOs, 

or the results of other systematic planning 

processes, are statements that define the 

appropriate type of data to collect and 

specify the tolerable levels of potential 

decision errors that will be used as a basis 

for establishing the quality and quantity of 

data needed to support the monitoring 

objectives (reference 5 of this appendix). The 

DQOs will be developed by the EPA to 

support the primary regulatory objectives for 

each criteria pollutant. As they are 

developed, they will be added to the 

regulation. The quality of the conclusions 

derived from data interpretation can be 

affected by population uncertainty (spatial or 

temporal uncertainty) and measurement 

uncertainty (uncertainty associated with 

collecting, analyzing, reducing and reporting 

concentration data). This appendix focuses 

on assessing and controlling measurement 

uncertainty. 

2.3.1.1 Measurement Uncertainty for 

Automated and Manual PM2.5 Methods. The 

goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty 

is defined for precision as an upper 90 

percent confidence limit for the coefficient of 

variation (CV) of 10 percent and plus or 

minus 10 percent for total bias. 

2.3.1.2 Measurement Uncertainty for 

Automated O3 Methods. The goal for 

acceptable measurement uncertainty is 

defined for precision as an upper 90 percent 

confidence limit for the CV of 7 percent and 

for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence 

limit for the absolute bias of 7 percent. 

2.3.1.3 Measurement Uncertainty for Pb 

Methods. The goal for acceptable 

measurement uncertainty is defined for 

precision as an upper 90 percent confidence 

limit for the CV of 20 percent and for bias 

as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for 

the absolute bias of 15 percent. 

2.3.1.4 Measurement Uncertainty for 

NO2. The goal for acceptable measurement 

uncertainty is defined for precision as an 

upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV 

of 15 percent and for bias as an upper 95 

percent confidence limit for the absolute bias 

of 15 percent. 

2.3.1.5 Measurement Uncertainty for SO2.

The goal for acceptable measurement 

uncertainty for precision is defined as an 

upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV 

of 10 percent and for bias as an upper 95 

percent confidence limit for the absolute bias 

of 10 percent. 

2.4 National Performance Evaluation 

Programs. The PQAO shall provide for the 

implementation of a program of independent 

and adequate audits of all monitors providing 

data for NAAQS compliance purposes 

including the provision of adequate resources 

for such audit programs. A monitoring plan 

(or QAPP) which provides for PQAO 

participation in the EPA’s National 

Performance Audit Program (NPAP), the 

PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program 

(PM2.5-PEP) program and the Pb Performance 

Evaluation Program (Pb-PEP) and indicates 

the consent of the PQAO for the EPA to apply 

an appropriate portion of the grant funds, 

which the EPA would otherwise award to the 

PQAO for these QA activities, will be 

deemed by the EPA to meet this requirement. 

For clarification and to participate, PQAOs 

should contact either the appropriate EPA 

regional quality assurance (QA) coordinator 

at the appropriate EPA regional office 

location, or the NPAP coordinator at the EPA 

Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, in 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The 

PQAOs that plan to implement these 

programs (self-implement) rather than use 

the federal programs must meet the adequacy 

requirements found in the appropriate 

sections that follow, as well as meet the 

definition of independent assessment that 

follows. 

2.4.1 Independent assessment. An 

assessment performed by a qualified 

individual, group, or organization that is not 

part of the organization directly performing 

and accountable for the work being assessed. 

This auditing organization must not be 

involved with the generation of the ambient 

air monitoring data. An organization can 

conduct the performance evaluation (PE) if it 

can meet this definition and has a 

management structure that, at a minimum, 

will allow for the separation of its routine 

sampling personnel from its auditing 

personnel by two levels of management. In 

addition, the sample analysis of audit filters 

must be performed by a laboratory facility 

and laboratory equipment separate from the 

facilities used for routine sample analysis. 

Field and laboratory personnel will be 

required to meet PE field and laboratory 

training and certification requirements to 

establish comparability to federally 

implemented programs. 

2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. 

Technical systems audits of each PQAO shall 

be conducted at least every 3 years by the 

appropriate EPA regional office and reported 

to the AQS. If a PQAO is made up of more 

than one monitoring organization, all 

monitoring organizations in the PQAO 

should be audited within 6 years (two TSA 

cycles of the PQAO). As an example, if a state 

has five local monitoring organizations that 

are consolidated under one PQAO, all five 

local monitoring organizations will receive a 

technical systems audit within a 6-year 

period. Systems audit programs are described 

in reference 10 of this appendix. For further 

instructions, PQAOs should contact the 

appropriate EPA regional QA coordinator. 

2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit 

Standards. 

2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration 

standards (permeation devices or cylinders of 

compressed gas) used to obtain test 

concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), 

and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) must be traceable 

to either a National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference 

Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54380 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Manufacturer’s Internal Standard (GMIS), 

certified in accordance with one of the 

procedures given in reference 4 of this 

appendix. Vendors advertising certification 

with the procedures provided in reference 4 

of this appendix and distributing gases as 

‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ for ambient air 

monitoring purposes must participate in the 

EPA Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification 

Program or not use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of 

advertising. Monitoring organizations must 

provide information to the EPA on the gas 

producers they use on an annual basis and 

those PQAOs purchasing standards will be 

obligated, at the request of the EPA, to 

participate in the program at least once every 

5 years by sending a new unused standard to 

a designated verification laboratory. 

2.6.2 Test concentrations for ozone (O3) 

must be obtained in accordance with the 

ultraviolet photometric calibration procedure 

specified in appendix D to part 50 of this 

chapter and by means of a certified NISTtraceable O3 transfer standard. Consult 

references 7 and 8 of this appendix for 

guidance on transfer standards for O3. 

2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be 

made by a flow measuring instrument that is 

NIST-traceable to an authoritative volume or 

other applicable standard. Guidance for 

certifying some types of flowmeters is 

provided in reference 10 of this appendix. 

2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. 

Requirements and guidance documents for 

developing the quality system are contained 

in references 1 through 11 of this appendix, 

which also contain many suggested 

procedures, checks, and control 

specifications. Reference 10 describes 

specific guidance for the development of a 

quality system for data collected for 

comparison to the NAAQS. Many specific 

quality control checks and specifications for 

methods are included in the respective 

reference methods described in part 50 of 

this chapter or in the respective equivalent 

method descriptions available from the EPA 

(reference 6 of this appendix). Similarly, 

quality control procedures related to 

specifically designated reference and 

equivalent method monitors are contained in 

the respective operation or instruction 

manuals associated with those monitors. 

3. Measurement Quality Check 

Requirements 

This section provides the requirements for 

PQAOs to perform the measurement quality 

checks that can be used to assess data 

quality. Data from these checks are required 

to be submitted to the AQS within the same 

time frame as routinely-collected ambient 

concentration data as described in 40 CFR 

58.16. Table A–1 of this appendix provides 

a summary of the types and frequency of the 

measurement quality checks that will be 

described in this section. 

3.1. Gaseous Monitors of SO2, NO2, O3, 

and CO. 

3.1.1 One-Point Quality Control (QC) 

Check for SO2, NO2, O3, and CO. (a) A onepoint QC check must be performed at least 

once every 2 weeks on each automated 

monitor used to measure SO2, NO2, O3 and 

CO. With the advent of automated calibration 

systems, more frequent checking is strongly 

encouraged. See Reference 10 of this 

appendix for guidance on the review 

procedure. The QC check is made by 

challenging the monitor with a QC check gas 

of known concentration (effective 

concentration for open path monitors) 

between the prescribed range of 0.005 and 

0.08 parts per million (ppm) for SO2, NO2, 

and O3, and between the prescribed range of 

0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors. The QC 

check gas concentration selected within the 

prescribed range must be related to the mean 

or median of the ambient air concentrations 

normally measured at sites within the 

monitoring network in order to appropriately 

reflect the precision and bias at these 

ambient air concentration ranges. If the mean 

or median concentrations at the sites are 

below or above the prescribed range for the 

relevant pollutant, select the lowest or 

highest concentration in the range. An 

additional QC check point is encouraged for 

those organizations that may have occasional 

high values or would like to confirm the 

monitors’ linearity at the higher end of the 

operational range or around NAAQS 

concentrations. 

(b) Point analyzers must operate in their 

normal sampling mode during the QC check 

and the test atmosphere must pass through 

all filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other 

components used during normal ambient 

sampling and as much of the ambient air 

inlet system as is practicable. The QC check 

must be conducted before any calibration or 

adjustment to the monitor. 

(c) Open path monitors are tested by 

inserting a test cell containing a QC check gas 

concentration into the optical measurement 

beam of the instrument. If possible, the 

normally used transmitter, receiver, and as 

appropriate, reflecting devices should be 

used during the test, and the normal 

monitoring configuration of the instrument 

should be altered as little as possible to 

accommodate the test cell for the test. 

However, if permitted by the associated 

operation or instruction manual, an alternate 

local light source or an alternate optical path 

that does not include the normal atmospheric 

monitoring path may be used. The actual 

concentration of the QC check gas in the test 

cell must be selected to produce an effective 

concentration in the range specified earlier in 

this section. Generally, the QC test 

concentration measurement will be the sum 

of the atmospheric pollutant concentration 

and the QC test concentration. As such, the 

result must be corrected to remove the 

atmospheric concentration contribution. The 

corrected concentration is obtained by 

subtracting the average of the atmospheric 

concentrations measured by the open path 

instrument under test immediately before 

and immediately after the QC test from the 

QC check gas concentration measurement. If 

the difference between these before and after 

measurements is greater than 20 percent of 

the effective concentration of the test gas, 

discard the test result and repeat the test. If 

possible, open path monitors should be 

tested during periods when the atmospheric 

pollutant concentrations are relatively low 

and steady. 

(d) Report the audit concentration of the 

QC gas and the corresponding measured 

concentration indicated by the monitor to 

AQS. The percent differences between these 

concentrations are used to assess the 

precision and bias of the monitoring data as 

described in sections 4.1.2 (precision) and 

4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix. 

3.1.2 Annual performance evaluation for 

SO2, NO2, O3, or CO. A performance 

evaluation must be conducted on each 

primary monitor once a year. This can be 

accomplished by evaluating 25 percent of the 

primary monitors each quarter. The 

evaluation should be conducted by a trained 

experienced technician other than the 

routine site operator. 

3.1.2.1 The evaluation is made by 

challenging the monitor with audit gas 

standards of known concentration from at 

least three audit levels. Two of the audit 

levels selected will represent a range of 10– 

80 percent of the typical ambient air 

concentrations either measured by the 

monitor or in the PQAOs network of 

monitors. The third point should be at the 

NAAQS level or above the highest 3-year 

ambient air hourly concentration, whichever 

is greater. An additional 4th level is 

encouraged for those agencies that would like 

to confirm the monitors’ linearity at the 

higher end of the operational range. In rare 

circumstances, there may be sites measuring 

concentrations above audit level 10. Notify 

the appropriate EPA region and the AQS 

program in order to make accommodations 

for auditing at levels above level 10. 

Audit level 

Concentration range, ppm 

O3 SO2 NO2 CO 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.004–0.0059 0.0003–0.0029 0.0003–0.0029 0.020–0.059 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.006–0.019 0.0030–0.0049 0.0030–0.0049 0.060–0.199 

3 ............................................................................................... 0.020–0.039 0.0050–0.0079 0.0050–0.0079 0.200–0.899 

4 ............................................................................................... 0.040–0.069 0.0080–0.0199 0.0080–0.0199 0.900–2.999 

5 ............................................................................................... 0.070–0.089 0.0200–0.0499 0.0200–0.0499 3.000–7.999 

6 ............................................................................................... 0.090–0.119 0.0500–0.0999 0.0500–0.0999 8.000–15.999 

7 ............................................................................................... 0.120–0.139 0.1000–0.1499 0.1000–0.2999 16.000–30.999 

8 ............................................................................................... 0.140–0.169 0.1500–0.2599 0.3000–0.4999 31.000–39.999 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54381 

Audit level 

Concentration range, ppm 

O3 SO2 NO2 CO 

9 ............................................................................................... 0.170–0.189 0.2600–0.7999 0.5000–0.7999 40.000–49.999 

10 ............................................................................................. 0.190–0.259 0.8000–1.000 0.8000–1.000 50.000–60.000 

3.1.2.2 The NO2 audit techniques may 

vary depending on the ambient monitoring 

method. For chemiluminescence-type NO2

analyzers, gas phase titration (GPT) 

techniques should be based on EPA guidance 

documents and monitoring agency 

experience. The NO2 gas standards may be 

more appropriate than GPT for direct NO2

methods that do not employ converters. Care 

should be taken to ensure the stability of 

such gas standards prior to use. 

3.1.2.3 The standards from which audit 

gas test concentrations are obtained must 

meet the specifications of section 2.6.1 of this 

appendix. The gas standards and equipment 

used for the performance evaluation must not 

be the same as the standards and equipment 

used for one-point QC, calibrations, span 

evaluations or NPAP. 

3.1.2.4 For point analyzers, the 

evaluation shall be carried out by allowing 

the monitor to analyze the audit gas test 

atmosphere in its normal sampling mode 

such that the test atmosphere passes through 

all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other 

sample inlet components used during normal 

ambient sampling and as much of the 

ambient air inlet system as is practicable. 

3.1.2.5 Open path monitors are evaluated 

by inserting a test cell containing the various 

audit gas concentrations into the optical 

measurement beam of the instrument. If 

possible, the normally used transmitter, 

receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting 

devices should be used during the 

evaluation, and the normal monitoring 

configuration of the instrument should be 

modified as little as possible to accommodate 

the test cell for the evaluation. However, if 

permitted by the associated operation or 

instruction manual, an alternate local light 

source or an alternate optical path that does 

not include the normal atmospheric 

monitoring path may be used. The actual 

concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell 

must be selected to produce effective 

concentrations in the evaluation level ranges 

specified in this section of this appendix. 

Generally, each evaluation concentration 

measurement result will be the sum of the 

atmospheric pollutant concentration and the 

evaluation test concentration. As such, the 

result must be corrected to remove the 

atmospheric concentration contribution. The 

corrected concentration is obtained by 

subtracting the average of the atmospheric 

concentrations measured by the open path 

instrument under test immediately before 

and immediately after the evaluation test (or 

preferably before and after each evaluation 

concentration level) from the evaluation 

concentration measurement. If the difference 

between the before and after measurements is 

greater than 20 percent of the effective 

concentration of the test gas standard, 

discard the test result for that concentration 

level and repeat the test for that level. If 

possible, open path monitors should be 

evaluated during periods when the 

atmospheric pollutant concentrations are 

relatively low and steady. Also, if the open 

path instrument is not installed in a 

permanent manner, the monitoring path 

length must be reverified to be within plus 

or minus 3 percent to validate the evaluation 

since the monitoring path length is critical to 

the determination of the effective 

concentration. 

3.1.2.6 Report both the evaluation 

concentrations (effective concentrations for 

open path monitors) of the audit gases and 

the corresponding measured concentration 

(corrected concentrations, if applicable, for 

open path monitors) indicated or produced 

by the monitor being tested to AQS. The 

percent differences between these 

concentrations are used to assess the quality 

of the monitoring data as described in section 

4.1.1 of this appendix. 

3.1.3 National Performance Audit 

Program (NPAP). 

The NPAP is a performance evaluation 

which is a type of audit where quantitative 

data are collected independently in order to 

evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, 

monitoring instrument or laboratory. Details 

of the program can be found in reference 11 

of this appendix. The program requirements 

include: 

3.1.3.1 Performing audits of the primary 

monitors at 20 percent of monitoring sites per 

year, and 100 percent of the sites in 6 years. 

High-priority sites may be visited more often. 

Since not all gaseous criteria pollutants are 

monitored at every site within a PQAO, it is 

not required that 20 percent of the primary 

monitors for each pollutant receive an NPAP 

audit each year only that 20 percent of the 

PQAOs monitoring sites receive an NPAP 

audit. It is expected that over the 6-year 

period all primary monitors for all gaseous 

pollutants will receive an NPAP audit. 

3.1.3.2 Developing a delivery system that 

will allow for the audit concentration gasses 

to be introduced to the probe inlet where 

logistically feasible. 

3.1.3.3 Using audit gases that are verified 

against the NIST standard reference methods 

or special review procedures and validated 

annually for CO, SO2 and NO2, and at the 

beginning of each quarter of audits for O3. 

3.1.3.4 As described in section 2.4 of this 

appendix, the PQAO may elect, on an annual 

basis, to utilize the federally implemented 

NPAP program. If the PQAO plans to selfimplement NPAP, the EPA will establish 

training and other technical requirements for 

PQAOs to establish comparability to 

federally implemented programs. In addition 

to meeting the requirements in sections 

3.1.3.1 through 3.1.3.3 of this appendix, the 

PQAO must: 

(a) Utilize an audit system equivalent to 

the federally implemented NPAP audit 

system and is separate from equipment used 

in annual performance evaluations. 

(b) Perform a whole system check by 

having the NPAP system tested against an 

independent and qualified EPA lab, or 

equivalent. 

(c) Evaluate the system with the EPA NPAP 

program through collocated auditing at an 

acceptable number of sites each year (at least 

one for an agency network of five or less 

sites; at least two for a network with more 

than five sites). 

(d) Incorporate the NPAP in the PQAO’s 

quality assurance project plan. 

(e) Be subject to review by independent, 

EPA-trained personnel. 

(f) Participate in initial and update 

training/certification sessions. 

3.2 PM2.5. 

3.2.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM2.5. A 

one-point flow rate verification check must 

be performed at least once every month (each 

verification minimally separated by 14 days) 

on each monitor used to measure PM2.5. The 

verification is made by checking the 

operational flow rate of the monitor. If the 

verification is made in conjunction with a 

flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior 

to such flow rate adjustment. For the 

standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer 

standard certified in accordance with section 

2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor’s 

normal flow rate. Care should be used in 

selecting and using the flow rate 

measurement device such that it does not 

alter the normal operating flow rate of the 

monitor. Report the flow rate of the transfer 

standard and the corresponding flow rate 

measured by the monitor to AQS. The 

percent differences between the audit and 

measured flow rates are used to assess the 

bias of the monitoring data as described in 

section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow 

rates in lieu of concentrations). 

3.2.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for 

PM2.5. Audit the flow rate of the particulate 

monitor twice a year. The two audits should 

ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months 

apart. The EPA strongly encourages more 

frequent auditing. The audit should 

(preferably) be conducted by a trained 

experienced technician other than the 

routine site operator. The audit is made by 

measuring the monitor’s normal operating 

flow rate(s) using a flow rate transfer 

standard certified in accordance with section 

2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard 

used for auditing must not be the same flow 

rate standard used for verifications or to 

calibrate the monitor. However, both the 

calibration standard and the audit standard 

may be referenced to the same primary flow 

rate or volume standard. Care must be taken 

in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the 

flow measurement device does not alter the 

normal operating flow rate of the monitor. 

Report the audit flow rate of the transfer 

standard and the corresponding flow rate 

measured by the monitor to AQS. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54382 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

percent differences between these flow rates 

are used to evaluate monitor performance. 

3.2.3 Collocated Quality Control 

Sampling Procedures for PM2.5. For each pair 

of collocated monitors, designate one 

sampler as the primary monitor whose 

concentrations will be used to report air 

quality for the site, and designate the other 

as the quality control monitor. There can be 

only one primary monitor at a monitoring 

site for a given time period. 

3.2.3.1 For each distinct monitoring 

method designation (FRM or FEM) that a 

PQAO is using for a primary monitor, the 

PQAO must: 

(a) Have 15 percent of the primary 

monitors of each method designation 

collocated (values of 0.5 and greater round 

up); and 

(b) Have at least one collocated quality 

control monitor (if the total number of 

monitors is less than three). The first 

collocated monitor must be a designated 

FRM monitor. 

3.2.3.2 In addition, monitors selected for 

collocation must also meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) A primary monitor designated as an 

EPA FRM shall be collocated with a quality 

control monitor having the same EPA FRM 

method designation. 

(b) For each primary monitor designated as 

an EPA FEM used by the PQAO, 50 percent 

of the monitors designated for collocation, or 

the first if only one collocation is necessary, 

shall be collocated with a FRM quality 

control monitor and 50 percent of the 

monitors shall be collocated with a monitor 

having the same method designation as the 

FEM primary monitor. If an odd number of 

collocated monitors is required, the 

additional monitor shall be a FRM quality 

control monitor. An example of the 

distribution of collocated monitors for each 

unique FEM is provided below. Table A–2 of 

this appendix demonstrates the procedure 

with a PQAO having an FRM and multiple 

FEMs. 

#Primary FEMS of a unique method designation #Collocated #Collocated 

with an FRM 

#Collocated 

with same 

method 

designation 

‘‘1–9’’ ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1 0 

‘‘10–16’’ ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1 1 

‘‘17–23’’ ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2 1 

‘‘24–29’’ ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2 2 

‘‘30–36’’ ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3 2 

‘‘37–43’’ ........................................................................................................................................ 6 3 3 

3.2.3.3 Since the collocation 

requirements are used to assess precision of 

the primary monitors and there can only be 

one primary monitor at a monitoring site, a 

site can only count for the collocation of the 

method designation of the primary monitor at 

that site. 

3.2.3.4 The collocated monitors should be 

deployed according to the following protocol: 

(a) Fifty percent of the collocated quality 

control monitors should be deployed at sites 

with annual average or daily concentrations 

estimated to be within ±20 percent of either 

the annual or 24-hour NAAQS and the 

remainder at the PQAOs discretion; 

(b) If an organization has no sites with 

annual average or daily concentrations 

within ±20 percent of the annual NAAQS or 

24-hour NAAQS, 50 percent of the collocated 

quality control monitors should be deployed 

at those sites with the annual mean 

concentrations or 24-hour concentrations 

among the highest for all sites in the network 

and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion. 

(c) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other 

and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates 

greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter 

apart for samplers having flow rates less than 

200 liters/min to preclude airflow 

interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 

meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters 

vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a 

primary and collocated sampler may be 

approved by the Regional Administrator for 

sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of 

representation during the annual network 

plan approval process. Calibration, sampling, 

and analysis must be the same for both 

primary and collocated quality control 

samplers and the same as for all other 

samplers in the network. 

(d) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report 

the measurements from both primary and 

collocated quality control monitors at each 

collocated sampling site to AQS. The 

calculations for evaluating precision between 

the two collocated monitors are described in 

section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

3.2.4 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation 

Program (PEP) Procedures. The PEP is an 

independent assessment used to estimate 

total measurement system bias. These 

evaluations will be performed under the 

NPEP as described in section 2.4 of this 

appendix or a comparable program. 

Performance evaluations will be performed 

annually within each PQAO. For PQAOs 

with less than or equal to five monitoring 

sites, five valid performance evaluation 

audits must be collected and reported each 

year. For PQAOs with greater than five 

monitoring sites, eight valid performance 

evaluation audits must be collected and 

reported each year. A valid performance 

evaluation audit means that both the primary 

monitor and PEP audit concentrations are 

valid and above 3 mg/m3. Siting of the PEP 

monitor should be consistent with section 

3.2.3.7. However, any horizontal distance 

greater than 4 meters and any vertical 

distance greater than one meter must be 

reported to the EPA regional PEP 

coordinator. Additionally for every monitor 

designated as a primary monitor, a primary 

quality assurance organization must: 

3.2.4.1 Have each method designation 

evaluated each year; and, 

3.2.4.2 Have all FRM, FEM or ARM 

samplers subject to a PEP audit at least once 

every six years; which equates to 

approximately 15 percent of the monitoring 

sites audited each year. 

3.2.4.3 Additional information 

concerning the PEP is contained in reference 

10 of this appendix. The calculations for 

evaluating bias between the primary monitor 

and the performance evaluation monitor for 

PM2.5 are described in section 4.2.5 of this 

appendix. 

3.3 PM10. 

3.3.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM10 Low 

Volume Samplers (less than 200 liter/

minute). A one-point flow rate verification 

check must be performed at least once every 

month (each verification minimally separated 

by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure 

PM10. The verification is made by checking 

the operational flow rate of the monitor. If 

the verification is made in conjunction with 

a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior 

to such flow rate adjustment. For the 

standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer 

standard certified in accordance with section 

2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor’s 

normal flow rate. Care should be taken in 

selecting and using the flow rate 

measurement device such that it does not 

alter the normal operating flow rate of the 

monitor. The percent differences between the 

audit and measured flow rates are reported 

to AQS and used to assess the bias of the 

monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 

of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of 

concentrations). 

3.3.2 Flow Rate Verification for PM10

High Volume Samplers (greater than 200 

liters/minute). For PM10 high volume 

samplers, the verification frequency is one 

verification every 90 days (quarter) with 4 in 

a year. Other than verification frequency, 

follow the same technical procedure as 

described in section 3.3.1 of this appendix. 

3.3.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for 

PM10. Audit the flow rate of the particulate 

monitor twice a year. The two audits should 

ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months 

apart. The EPA strongly encourages more 

frequent auditing. The audit should 

(preferably) be conducted by a trained 

experienced technician other than the 

routine site operator. The audit is made by 

measuring the monitor’s normal operating 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54383 

flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard 

certified in accordance with section 2.6 of 

this appendix. The flow rate standard used 

for auditing must not be the same flow rate 

standard used for verifications or to calibrate 

the monitor. However, both the calibration 

standard and the audit standard may be 

referenced to the same primary flow rate or 

volume standard. Care must be taken in 

auditing the flow rate to be certain that the 

flow measurement device does not alter the 

normal operating flow rate of the monitor. 

Report the audit flow rate of the transfer 

standard and the corresponding flow rate 

measured by the monitor to AQS. The 

percent differences between these flow rates 

are used to evaluate monitor performance. 

3.3.4 Collocated Quality Control 

Sampling Procedures for Manual PM10. 

Collocated sampling for PM10 is only 

required for manual samplers. For each pair 

of collocated monitors, designate one 

sampler as the primary monitor whose 

concentrations will be used to report air 

quality for the site and designate the other as 

the quality control monitor. 

3.3.4.1 For manual PM10 samplers, a 

PQAO must: 

(a) Have 15 percent of the primary 

monitors collocated (values of 0.5 and greater 

round up); and 

(b) Have at least one collocated quality 

control monitor (if the total number of 

monitors is less than three). 

3.3.4.2 The collocated quality control 

monitors should be deployed according to 

the following protocol: 

(a) Fifty percent of the collocated quality 

control monitors should be deployed at sites 

with daily concentrations estimated to be 

within ±20 percent of the applicable NAAQS 

and the remainder at the PQAOs discretion; 

(b) If an organization has no sites with 

daily concentrations within ±20 percent of 

the NAAQS, 50 percent of the collocated 

quality control monitors should be deployed 

at those sites with the daily mean 

concentrations among the highest for all sites 

in the network and the remainder at the 

PQAOs discretion. 

(c) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other 

and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates 

greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter 

apart for samplers having flow rates less than 

200 liters/min to preclude airflow 

interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 

meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters 

vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a 

primary and collocated sampler may be 

approved by the Regional Administrator for 

sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of 

representation. This waiver may be approved 

during the annual network plan approval 

process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis 

must be the same for both collocated 

samplers and the same as for all other 

samplers in the network. 

(d) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report 

the measurements from both primary and 

collocated quality control monitors at each 

collocated sampling site to AQS. The 

calculations for evaluating precision between 

the two collocated monitors are described in 

section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

(e) In determining the number of collocated 

quality control sites required for PM10, 

monitoring networks for lead (Pb-PM10) 

should be treated independently from 

networks for particulate matter (PM), even 

though the separate networks may share one 

or more common samplers. However, a single 

quality control monitor that meets the 

collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and 

PM10 may serve as a collocated quality 

control monitor for both networks. Extreme 

care must be taken when using the filter from 

a quality control monitor for both PM10 and 

Pb analysis. A PM10 filter weighing should 

occur prior to any Pb analysis. 

3.4 Pb. 

3.4.1 Flow Rate Verification for Pb–PM10

Low Volume Samplers (less than 200 liter/

minute). A one-point flow rate verification 

check must be performed at least once every 

month (each verification minimally separated 

by 14 days) on each monitor used to measure 

Pb. The verification is made by checking the 

operational flow rate of the monitor. If the 

verification is made in conjunction with a 

flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior 

to such flow rate adjustment. For the 

standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer 

standard certified in accordance with section 

2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor’s 

normal flow rate. Care should be taken in 

selecting and using the flow rate 

measurement device such that it does not 

alter the normal operating flow rate of the 

monitor. The percent differences between the 

audit and measured flow rates are reported 

to AQS and used to assess the bias of the 

monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 

of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of 

concentrations). 

3.4.2 Flow Rate Verification for Pb High 

Volume Samplers (greater than 200 liters/

minute). For high volume samplers, the 

verification frequency is one verification 

every 90 days (quarter) with four in a year. 

Other than verification frequency, follow the 

same technical procedure as described in 

section 3.4.1 of this appendix. 

3.4.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for 

Pb. Audit the flow rate of the particulate 

monitor twice a year. The two audits should 

ideally be spaced between 5 and 7 months 

apart. The EPA strongly encourages more 

frequent auditing. The audit should 

(preferably) be conducted by a trained 

experienced technician other than the 

routine site operator. The audit is made by 

measuring the monitor’s normal operating 

flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard 

certified in accordance with section 2.6 of 

this appendix. The flow rate standard used 

for auditing must not be the same flow rate 

standard used for verifications or to calibrate 

the monitor. However, both the calibration 

standard and the audit standard may be 

referenced to the same primary flow rate or 

volume standard. Care must be taken in 

auditing the flow rate to be certain that the 

flow measurement device does not alter the 

normal operating flow rate of the monitor. 

Report the audit flow rate of the transfer 

standard and the corresponding flow rate 

measured by the monitor to AQS. The 

percent differences between these flow rates 

are used to evaluate monitor performance. 

3.4.4 Collocated Quality Control 

Sampling for TSP Pb for monitoring sites 

other than non-source NCore. For each pair 

of collocated monitors for manual TSP Pb 

samplers, designate one sampler as the 

primary monitor whose concentrations will 

be used to report air quality for the site, and 

designate the other as the quality control 

monitor. 

3.4.4.1 A PQAO must: 

(a) Have 15 percent of the primary 

monitors (not counting non-source NCore 

sites in PQAO) collocated. Values of 0.5 and 

greater round up; and 

(b) Have at least one collocated quality 

control monitor (if the total number of 

monitors is less than three). 

3.4.4.2 The collocated quality control 

monitors should be deployed according to 

the following protocol: 

(a) The first collocated Pb site selected 

must be the site measuring the highest Pb 

concentrations in the network. If the site is 

impractical, alternative sites, approved by the 

EPA Regional Administrator, may be 

selected. If additional collocated sites are 

necessary, collocated sites may be chosen 

that reflect average ambient air Pb 

concentrations in the network. 

(b) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other 

and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates 

greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter 

apart for samplers having flow rates less than 

200 liters/min to preclude airflow 

interference. 

(c) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report 

the measurements from both primary and 

collocated quality control monitors at each 

collocated sampling site to AQS. The 

calculations for evaluating precision between 

the two collocated monitors are described in 

section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

3.4.5 Collocated Quality Control 

Sampling for Pb-PM10 at monitoring sites 

other than non-source NCore. If a PQAO is 

monitoring for Pb-PM10 at sites other than at 

a non-source oriented NCore site then the 

PQAO must: 

3.4.5.1 Have 15 percent of the primary 

monitors (not counting non-source NCore 

sites in PQAO) collocated. Values of 0.5 and 

greater round up; and 

3.4.5.2 Have at least one collocated 

quality control monitor (if the total number 

of monitors is less than three). 

3.4.5.3 The collocated monitors should be 

deployed according to the following protocol: 

(a) Fifty percent of the collocated quality 

control monitors should be deployed at sites 

with the highest 3-month average 

concentrations and the remainder at the 

PQAOs discretion. 

(b) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters (inlet to inlet) of each other 

and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates 

greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter 

apart for samplers having flow rates less than 

200 liters/min to preclude airflow 

interference. A waiver allowing up to 10 

meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters 

vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a 

primary and collocated sampler may be 

approved by the Regional Administrator for 

sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of 

representation. This waiver may be approved 

during the annual network plan approval 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54384 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis 

must be the same for both collocated 

samplers and the same as for all other 

samplers in the network. 

(c) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 1-in-12 day schedule. Report 

the measurements from both primary and 

collocated quality control monitors at each 

collocated sampling site to AQS. The 

calculations for evaluating precision between 

the two collocated monitors are described in 

section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

(d) In determining the number of 

collocated quality control sites required for 

Pb-PM10, monitoring networks for PM10

should be treated independently from 

networks for Pb-PM10, even though the 

separate networks may share one or more 

common samplers. However, a single quality 

control monitor that meets the collocation 

requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10 may 

serve as a collocated quality control monitor 

for both networks. Extreme care must be 

taken when using a using the filter from a 

quality control monitor for both PM10 and Pb 

analysis. A PM10 filter weighing should occur 

prior to any Pb analysis. 

3.4.6 Pb Analysis Audits. Each calendar 

quarter, audit the Pb reference or equivalent 

method analytical procedure using filters 

containing a known quantity of Pb. These 

audit filters are prepared by depositing a Pb 

standard on unexposed filters and allowing 

them to dry thoroughly. The audit samples 

must be prepared using batches of reagents 

different from those used to calibrate the Pb 

analytical equipment being audited. Prepare 

audit samples in the following concentration 

ranges: 

Range Equivalent ambient Pb 

concentration, μg/m3

1 ................... 30–100% of Pb NAAQS. 

2 ................... 200–300% of Pb NAAQS. 

(a) Extract the audit samples using the 

same extraction procedure used for exposed 

filters. 

(b) Analyze three audit samples in each of 

the two ranges each quarter samples are 

analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be 

distributed as much as possible over the 

entire calendar quarter. 

(c) Report the audit concentrations (in mg 

Pb/filter or strip) and the corresponding 

measured concentrations (in mg Pb/filter or 

strip) to AQS using AQS unit code 077. The 

percent differences between the 

concentrations are used to calculate 

analytical accuracy as described in section 

4.2.6 of this appendix. 

3.4.7 Pb PEP Procedures for monitoring 

sites other than non-source NCore. The PEP 

is an independent assessment used to 

estimate total measurement system bias. 

These evaluations will be performed under 

the NPEP described in section 2.4 of this 

appendix or a comparable program. Each 

year, one performance evaluation audit must 

be performed at one Pb site in each primary 

quality assurance organization that has less 

than or equal to five sites and two audits at 

PQAOs with greater than five sites. Nonsource oriented NCore sites are not counted. 

In addition, each year, four collocated 

samples from PQAOs with less than or equal 

to five sites and six collocated samples at 

PQAOs with greater than five sites must be 

sent to an independent laboratory, the same 

laboratory as the performance evaluation 

audit, for analysis. Siting of this PEP monitor 

should be consistent with section 3.4.5.4. 

However, any horizontal distance greater 

than 4 meters and any vertical distance 

greater than 1 meter must be reported to the 

EPA regional PEP coordinator. The 

calculations for evaluating bias between the 

primary monitor and the performance 

evaluation monitor for Pb are described in 

section 4.2.4 of this appendix. 

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment 

(a) Calculations of measurement 

uncertainty are carried out by the EPA 

according to the following procedures. The 

PQAOs must report the data to AQS for all 

measurement quality checks as specified in 

this appendix even though they may elect to 

perform some or all of the calculations in this 

section on their own. 

(b) The EPA will provide annual 

assessments of data quality aggregated by site 

and PQAO for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO and by 

PQAO for PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. 

(c) At low concentrations, agreement 

between the measurements of collocated 

quality control samplers, expressed as 

relative percent difference or percent 

difference, may be relatively poor. For this 

reason, collocated measurement pairs are 

selected for use in the precision and bias 

calculations only when both measurements 

are equal to or above the following limits: 

(1) Pb: 0.002 mg/m3 (Methods approved 

after 3/04/2010, with exception of manual 

equivalent method EQLA–0813–803). 

(2) Pb: 0.02 mg/m3 (Methods approved 

before 3/04/2010, and manual equivalent 

method EQLA–0813–803). 

(3) PM10(Hi-Vol): 15 mg/m3. 

(4) PM10(Lo-Vol): 3 mg/m3. 

(5) PM2.5: 3 mg/m3. 

4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC 

Checks for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO. 

4.1.1 Percent Difference. Many of the 

measurement quality checks start with a 

comparison of an audit concentration or 

value (flow rate) to the concentration/value 

measured by the monitor and use percent 

difference as the comparison statistic as 

described in equation 1 of this section. For 

each single point check, calculate the percent 

difference, di, as follows: 

where, meas is the concentration indicated 

by the PQAO’s instrument and audit is the 

audit concentration of the standard used in 

the QC check being measured. 

4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision 

estimate is used to assess the one-point QC 

checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in 

section 3.1.1 of this appendix. The precision 

estimator is the coefficient of variation upper 

bound and is calculated using equation 2 of 

this section: 

where, n is the number of single point checks 

being aggregated; X 2 0.1,n-1 is the 10th 

percentile of a chi-squared distribution with 

n-1 degrees of freedom. 

4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is 

calculated using the one-point QC checks for 

SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section 

3.1.1 of this appendix. The bias estimator is 

an upper bound on the mean absolute value 

of the percent differences as described in 

equation 3 of this section: 

where, n is the number of single point checks 

being aggregated; t0.95,-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 section: 

and the quantity AS is the standard deviation 

of the absolute value of the di’s and is 

calculated using equation 5 of this section: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11SE14.000</GPH> EP11SE14.001</GPH> EP11SE14.002</GPH> EP11SE14.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54385 

4.1.3.1 Assigning a sign (positive/

negative) to the bias estimate. Since the bias 

statistic as calculated in equation 3 of this 

appendix uses absolute values, it does not 

have a tendency (negative or positive bias) 

associated with it. A sign will be designated 

by rank ordering the percent differences of 

the QC check samples from a given site for 

a particular assessment interval. 

4.1.3.2 Calculate the 25th and 75th 

percentiles of the percent differences for each 

site. The absolute bias upper bound should 

be flagged as positive if both percentiles are 

positive and negative if both percentiles are 

negative. The absolute bias upper bound 

would not be flagged if the 25th and 75th 

percentiles are of different signs. 

4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10, 

PM2.5, and Pb. 

4.2.1 Collocated Quality Control Sampler 

Precision Estimate for PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. 

Precision is estimated via duplicate 

measurements from collocated samplers. It is 

recommended that the precision be 

aggregated at the PQAO level quarterly, 

annually, and at the 3-year level. The data 

pair would only be considered valid if both 

concentrations are greater than or equal to 

the minimum values specified in section 4(c) 

of this appendix. For each collocated data 

pair, calculate the relative percent difference, 

di, using equation 6 of this appendix: 

where, Xi is the concentration from the 

primary sampler and Yi is the concentration 

value from the audit sampler. The coefficient 

of variation upper bound is calculated using 

equation 7 of this appendix: 

where, n is the number of valid data pairs 

being aggregated, and X 2 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 One-Point Flow Rate Verification 

Bias Estimate for PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. For 

each one-point flow rate verification, 

calculate the percent difference in volume 

using equation 1 of this appendix where 

meas is the value indicated by the sampler’s 

volume measurement and audit is the actual 

volume indicated by the auditing flow meter. 

The absolute volume bias upper bound is 

then calculated using equation 3, where n is 

the number of flow rate audits being 

aggregated; t0.95,n-1is the 95th quantile of a tdistribution 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 if 

the di’s and is calculated using equation 5 of 

this appendix. 

4.2.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit Bias 

Estimate for PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. Use the 

same procedure described in section 4.2.2 for 

the evaluation of flow rate audits. 

4.2.4 Performance Evaluation Programs 

Bias Estimate for Pb. The Pb bias estimate is 

calculated using the paired routine and the 

PEP monitor as described in section 3.4.7. 

Use the same procedures as described in 

section 4.1.3 of this appendix. 

4.2.5 Performance Evaluation Programs 

Bias Estimate for PM2.5. The bias estimate is 

calculated using the PEP audits described in 

section 4.1.3 of this appendix. The bias 

estimator is based on the mean percent 

differences (Equation 1). The mean percent 

difference, D, is calculated by Equation 8 

below. 

where, nj is the number of pairs and d1, 

d2,...dnj are the biases for each pair to be 

averaged. 

4.2.6 Pb Analysis Audit Bias Estimate. 

The bias estimate is calculated using the 

analysis audit data described in section 3.4.6. 

Use the same bias estimate procedure as 

described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix. 

5. Reporting Requirements 

5.1 Reporting Requirements. For each 

pollutant, prepare a list of all monitoring 

sites and their AQS site identification codes 

in each PQAO and submit the list to the 

appropriate EPA regional office, with a copy 

to AQS. Whenever there is a change in this 

list of monitoring sites in a PQAO, report this 

change to the EPA regional office and to 

AQS. 

5.1.1 Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, 

each PQAO shall report to AQS directly (or 

via the appropriate EPA regional office for 

organizations not direct users of AQS) the 

results of all valid measurement quality 

checks it has carried out during the quarter. 

The quarterly reports must be submitted 

consistent with the data reporting 

requirements specified for air quality data as 

set forth in 40 CFR 58.16. The EPA strongly 

encourages early submission of the quality 

assurance data in order to assist the PQAOs 

ability to control and evaluate the quality of 

the ambient air data. 

5.1.2 Annual Reports. 

5.1.2.1 When the PQAO has certified 

relevant data for the calendar year, the EPA 

will calculate and report the measurement 

uncertainty for the entire calendar year. 

6.0 References 

(1) American National Standard— 

Specifications and Guidelines for 

Quality Systems for Environmental Data 

Collection and Environmental 

Technology Programs. ANSI/ASQC E4– 

2004. February 2004. Available from 

American Society for Quality Control, 

611 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, 

WI 53202. 

(2) EPA Requirements for Quality 

Management Plans. EPA QA/R–2. EPA/ 

240/B–01/002. March 2001, Reissue May 

2006. Office of Environmental 

Information, Washington DC 20460. 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r2- 

final.pdf. 

(3) EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance 

Project Plans for Environmental Data 

Operations. EPA QA/R–5. EPA/240/B– 

01/003. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. 

Office of Environmental Information, 

Washington DC 20460. http://

www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5- 

final.pdf. 

(4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards. EPA–600/R–12/531. May, 

2012. Available from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, 

Research Triangle Park NC 27711. http:// 

www.epa.gov/nrmrl/appcd/mmd/dbtraceability-protocol.html. 

(5) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives 

Process. EPA QA/G–4. EPA/240/B–06/

001. February, 2006. Office of 

Environmental Information, Washington 

DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/

qs-docs/g4-final.pdf. 

(6) List of Designated Reference and 

Equivalent Methods. Available from U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Exposure Research Laboratory, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11SE14.004</GPH> EP11SE14.005</GPH> EP11SE14.006</GPH> EP11SE14.007</GPH>
54386 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Human Exposure and Atmospheric 

Sciences Division, MD–D205–03, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

criteria.html. 

(7) Transfer Standards for the Calibration of 

Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for 

Ozone. EPA–454/B–13–004 U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

October, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

amtic/qapollutant.html. 

(8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical 

Assistance Document for the Calibration 

of Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA–600/

4–79–057. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, September, 1979. http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html. 

(9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 

1–A Field Guide to Environmental 

Quality Assurance. EPA–600/R–94/038a. 

April 1994. Available from U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, ORD 

Publications Office, Center for 

Environmental Research Information 

(CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, 

Cincinnati, OH 45268. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html. 

(10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 

II: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program Quality System Development. 

EPA–454/B–13–003. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html. 

(11) National Performance Evaluation 

Program Standard Operating Procedures. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

npapsop.html. 

TABLE A–1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58—MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR NAAQS RELATED CRITERIA

POLLUTANT MONITORS

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum 

frequency Parameters reported 

AQS 

assessment 

type 

Gaseous Methods (CO, NO2, SO2, O3) 

1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, O3, CO Response check at concentration 

0.005–0.08 ppm SO2, NO2, O3, 

and 0.5 and 5 ppm CO.

Each analyzer ... Once per 2 

weeks.

Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2.1-Point QC. 

Annual performance evaluation for 

SO2, NO2, O3, CO.

See section 3.1.2 of this appendix Each analyzer ... Once per year ... Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each 

level.

Annual PE. 

NPAP for SO2, NO2, O3, CO ........ Independent Audit ........................ 20% of sites 

each year.

Once per year ... Audit concentration 1 and measured concentration 2 for each 

level.

NPAP. 

Particulate Methods 

Continuous 4 method-collocated 

quality control sampling PM2.5.

Collocated samplers ..................... 15% ................... 1-in-12 days ...... Primary sampler concentration 

and duplicate sampler concentration.3

No Transaction 

reported as 

raw data. 

Manual method-collocated quality 

control sampling PM10, PM2.5, 

Pb–TSP, Pb–PM10.

Collocated samplers ..................... 15% ................... 1-in-12 days ...... Primary sampler concentration 

and duplicate sampler concentration.3

No Transaction 

reported as 

raw data. 

Flow rate verification PM10 (low 

Vol) PM2.5, Pb-PM10.

Check of sampler flow rate .......... Each sampler .... Once every 

month.

Audit flow rate and measured flow 

rate indicated by the sampler.

Flow Rate 

Verification. 

Flow rate verification PM10 (HighVol), Pb-TSP.Check of sampler flow rate .......... Each sampler .... Once every 

quarter.

Audit flow rate and measured flow 

rate indicated by the sampler.

Flow Rate 

Verification. 

Semi-annual flow rate audit PM10, 

TSP, PM10-2.5, PM2.5, Pb-TSP, 

Pb-PM10..

Check of sampler flow rate using 

independent standard.

Each sampler .... Once every 6 

months.

Audit flow rate and measured flow 

rate indicated by the sampler.

Semi Annual 

Flow Rate 

Audit. 

Pb analysis audits Pb-TSP, PbPM10.

Check of analytical system with 

Pb audit strips/filters.

Analytical ........... Once each quarter.Measured value and audit value 

(μg Pb/filter) using AQS unit 

code 077.

Pb Analysis Audits. 

Performance Evaluation Program 

PM2.5.

Collocated samplers ..................... (1) 5 valid audits 

for primary QA 

orgs, with <=5 

sites. (2) 8 

valid audits for 

primary QA 

orgs, with >5 

sites. (3) All 

samplers in 6 

years.

Distributed over 

all 4 quarters.

Primary sampler concentration 

and performance evaluation 

sampler concentration.

PEP. 

Performance Evaluation Program 

Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10.

Collocated samplers ..................... (1) 1 valid audit 

and 4 collocated samples 

for primary QA 

orgs, with <=5 

sites. (2) 2 

valid audits 

and 6 collocated samples 

for primary QA 

orgs with >5 

sites.

Distributed over 

all 4 quarters.

Primary sampler concentration 

and performance evaluation 

sampler concentration. Primary 

sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration.

PEP. 

1Effective concentration for open path analyzers. 

2 Corrected concentration, if applicable for open path analyzers. 

3Both primary and collocated sampler values are reported as raw data. 

4PM2.5 is the only particulate criteria pollutant requiring collocation of continuous and manual primary monitors. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54387 

TABLE A–2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 58—SUMMARY OF PM2.5 NUMBER AND TYPE OF COLLOCATION (15% COLLOCATION

REQUIREMENT) REQUIRED USING AN EXAMPLE OF A PQAO THAT HAS 54 PRIMARY MONITORS (54 SITES) WITH ONE

FEDERAL REFERENCE METHOD TYPE AND THREE TYPES OF APPROVED FEDERAL EQUIVALENT METHODS

Primary sampler method designation Total number 

of monitors 

Total number 

of collocated 

Number of 

collocated 

with FRM 

Number of 

collocated 

with same 

method designation 

as primary 

FRM ......................................................................................... 20 3 3 3 

FEM (A) ................................................................................... 20 3 2 1 

FEM (B) ................................................................................... 2 1 1 0 

FEM (C) ................................................................................... 12 2 1 1 

■ 10. Add Appendix B to part 58 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 58—Quality 

Assurance Requirements for Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air 

Monitoring 

1. General Information 

2. Quality System Requirements 

3. Measurement Quality Check 

Requirements 

4. Calculations for Data Quality 

Assessments 

5. Reporting Requirements 

6. References 

1. General Information 

1.1 Applicability. 

(a) This appendix specifies the minimum 

quality assurance requirements for the 

control and assessment of the quality of the 

ambient air monitoring data submitted to a 

PSD reviewing authority or the EPA by an 

organization operating an air monitoring 

station, or network of stations, operated in 

order to comply with Part 51 New Source 

Review—Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD). Such organizations are 

encouraged to develop and maintain quality 

assurance programs more extensive than the 

required minimum. Additional guidance for 

the requirements reflected in this appendix 

can be found in the ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 

Systems,’’ Volume II (Ambient Air) and 

‘‘Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems,’’ Volume IV 

(Meteorological Measurements) and at a 

national level in references 1, 2, and 3 of this 

appendix. 

(b) It is not assumed that data generated for 

PSD under this appendix will be used in 

making NAAQS decisions. However, if all 

the requirements in this appendix are 

followed (including the NPEP programs) and 

reported to AQS, with review and 

concurrence from the EPA region, data may 

be used for NAAQS decisions. With the 

exception of the NPEP programs (NPAP, 

PM2.5 PEP, Pb–PEP) for which 

implementation is at the discretion of the 

PSD reviewing authority, all other quality 

assurance and quality control requirements 

found in the appendix must be met. 

1.2 PSD Primary Quality Assurance 

Organization (PQAO). A PSD PQAO is 

defined as a monitoring organization or a 

coordinated aggregation of such 

organizations that is responsible for a set of 

stations within one reviewing authority that 

monitors the same pollutant and for which 

data quality assessments will be pooled. Each 

criteria pollutant/monitor must be associated 

with only one PSD PQAO. 

1.2.1 Each PSD PQAO shall be defined 

such that measurement uncertainty among all 

stations in the organization can be expected 

to be reasonably homogeneous, as a result of 

common factors. A PSD PQAO must be 

associated with only one PSD reviewing 

authority. Common factors that should be 

considered in defining PSD PQAOs include: 

(a) Operation by a common team of field 

operators according to a common set of 

procedures; 

(b) Use of a common QAPP and/or 

standard operating procedures; 

(c) Common calibration facilities and 

standards; 

(d) Oversight by a common quality 

assurance organization; and 

(e) Support by a common management 

organization or laboratory. 

1.2.2 PSD monitoring organizations 

having difficulty describing its PQAO or in 

assigning specific monitors to a PSD PQAO 

should consult with the reviewing authority. 

Any consolidation of PSD PQAOs shall be 

subject to final approval by the PSD 

reviewing authority. 

1.2.3 Each PSD PQAO is required to 

implement a quality system that provides 

sufficient information to assess the quality of 

the monitoring data. The quality system 

must, at a minimum, include the specific 

requirements described in this appendix. 

Failure to conduct or pass a required check 

or procedure, or a series of required checks 

or procedures, does not by itself invalidate 

data for regulatory decision making. Rather, 

PSD PQAOs and the PSD reviewing authority 

shall use the checks and procedures required 

in this appendix in combination with other 

data quality information, reports, and similar 

documentation that demonstrate overall 

compliance with parts 51, 52 and 58 of this 

chapter. Accordingly, the PSD reviewing 

authority shall use a ‘‘weight of evidence’’ 

approach when determining the suitability of 

data for regulatory decisions. The PSD 

reviewing authority reserves the authority to 

use or not use monitoring data submitted by 

a PSD monitoring organization when making 

regulatory decisions based on the PSD 

reviewing authority’s assessment of the 

quality of the data. Generally, consensus 

built validation templates or validation 

criteria already approved in quality 

assurance project plans (QAPPs) should be 

used as the basis for the weight of evidence 

approach. 

1.3 Definitions. 

(a) Measurement Uncertainty. A term used 

to describe deviations from a true 

concentration or estimate that are related to 

the measurement process and not to spatial 

or temporal population attributes of the air 

being measured. 

(b) Precision. A measurement of mutual 

agreement among individual measurements 

of the same property usually under 

prescribed similar conditions, expressed 

generally in terms of the standard deviation. 

(c) Bias. The systematic or persistent 

distortion of a measurement process which 

causes errors in one direction. 

(d) Accuracy. The degree of agreement 

between an observed value and an accepted 

reference value. Accuracy includes a 

combination of random error (imprecision) 

and systematic error (bias) components 

which are due to sampling and analytical 

operations. 

(e) Completeness. A measure of the amount 

of valid data obtained from a measurement 

system compared to the amount that was 

expected to be obtained under correct, 

normal conditions. 

(f) Detectability. The low critical range 

value of a characteristic that a method 

specific procedure can reliably discern. 

1.4 Measurement Quality Check 

Reporting. The measurement quality checks 

described in section 3 of this appendix, are 

required to be submitted to the PSD 

reviewing authority within the same time 

frame as routinely-collected ambient 

concentration data as described in 40 CFR 

58.16. The PSD reviewing authority may as 

well require that the measurement quality 

check data be reported to AQS. 

1.5 Assessments and Reports. Periodic 

assessments and documentation of data 

quality are required to be reported to the PSD 

reviewing authority. To provide national 

uniformity in this assessment and reporting 

of data quality for all networks, specific 

assessment and reporting procedures are 

prescribed in detail in sections 3, 4, and 5 of 

this appendix. 

2. Quality System Requirements 

A quality system (reference 1 of this 

appendix) is the means by which an 

organization manages the quality of the 

monitoring information it produces in a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54388 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

systematic, organized manner. It provides a 

framework for planning, implementing, 

assessing and reporting work performed by 

an organization and for carrying out required 

quality assurance and quality control 

activities. 

2.1 Quality Assurance Project Plans. All 

PSD PQAOs must develop a quality system 

that is described and approved in quality 

assurance project plans (QAPP) to ensure that 

the monitoring results: 

(a) Meet a well-defined need, use, or 

purpose (reference 5 of this appendix); 

(b) Provide data of adequate quality for the 

intended monitoring objectives; 

(c) Satisfy stakeholder expectations; 

(d) Comply with applicable standards 

specifications; 

(e) Comply with statutory (and other legal) 

requirements; and 

(f) Assure quality assurance and quality 

control adequacy and independence. 

2.1.1 The QAPP is a formal document 

that describes these activities in sufficient 

detail and is supported by standard operating 

procedures. The QAPP must describe how 

the organization intends to control 

measurement uncertainty to an appropriate 

level in order to achieve the objectives for 

which the data are collected. The QAPP must 

be documented in accordance with EPA 

requirements (reference 3 of this appendix). 

2.1.2 The PSD PQAO’s quality system 

must have adequate resources both in 

personnel and funding to plan, implement, 

assess and report on the achievement of the 

requirements of this appendix and it’s 

approved QAPP. 

2.1.3 Incorporation of quality 

management plan (QMP) elements into the 

QAPP. The QMP describes the quality system 

in terms of the organizational structure, 

functional responsibilities of management 

and staff, lines of authority, and required 

interfaces for those planning, implementing, 

assessing and reporting activities involving 

environmental data operations (EDO). The 

PSD PQAOs may combine pertinent elements 

of the QMP into the QAPP rather than 

requiring the submission of both QMP and 

QAPP documents separately, with prior 

approval of the PSD reviewing authority. 

Additional guidance on QMPs can be found 

in reference 2 of this appendix. 

2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance 

Management. The PSD PQAO must provide 

for a quality assurance management function 

for its PSD data collection operation, that 

aspect of the overall management system of 

the organization that determines and 

implements the quality policy defined in a 

PSD PQAO’s QAPP. Quality management 

includes strategic planning, allocation of 

resources and other systematic planning 

activities (e.g., planning, implementation, 

assessing and reporting) pertaining to the 

quality system. The quality assurance 

management function must have sufficient 

technical expertise and management 

authority to conduct independent oversight 

and assure the implementation of the 

organization’s quality system relative to the 

ambient air quality monitoring program and 

should be organizationally independent of 

environmental data generation activities. 

2.3. Data Quality Performance 

Requirements. 

2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). 

The DQOs, or the results of other systematic 

planning processes, are statements that 

define the appropriate type of data to collect 

and specify the tolerable levels of potential 

decision errors that will be used as a basis 

for establishing the quality and quantity of 

data needed to support air monitoring 

objectives (reference 5 of the appendix). The 

DQOs have been developed by the EPA to 

support attainment decisions for comparison 

to national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The reviewing authority and the 

PSD monitoring organization will be jointly 

responsible for determining whether 

adherence to the EPA developed NAAQS 

DQOs specified in appendix A of this part are 

appropriate or if DQOs from a projectspecific systematic planning process are 

necessary. 

2.3.1.1 Measurement Uncertainty for 

Automated and Manual PM2.5 Methods. The 

goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty 

for precision is defined as an upper 90 

percent confidence limit for the coefficient of 

variation (CV) of 10 percent and plus or 

minus 10 percent for total bias. 

2.3.1.2 Measurement Uncertainty for 

Automated Ozone Methods. The goal for 

acceptable measurement uncertainty is 

defined for precision as an upper 90 percent 

confidence limit for the CV of 7 percent and 

for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence 

limit for the absolute bias of 7 percent. 

2.3.1.3 Measurement Uncertainty for Pb 

Methods. The goal for acceptable 

measurement uncertainty is defined for 

precision as an upper 90 percent confidence 

limit for the CV of 20 percent and for bias 

as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for 

the absolute bias of 15 percent. 

2.3.1.4 Measurement Uncertainty for 

NO2. The goal for acceptable measurement 

uncertainty is defined for precision as an 

upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV 

of 15 percent and for bias as an upper 95 

percent confidence limit for the absolute bias 

of 15 percent. 

2.3.1.5 Measurement Uncertainty for SO2. 

The goal for acceptable measurement 

uncertainty for precision is defined as an 

upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV 

of 10 percent and for bias as an upper 95 

percent confidence limit for the absolute bias 

of 10 percent. 

2.4 National Performance Evaluation 

Program. Organizations operating PSD 

monitoring networks are required to 

implement the EPA’s national performance 

evaluation program (NPEP) if the data will be 

used for NAAQS decisions and at the 

discretion of the PSD reviewing authority if 

PSD data is not used for NAAQS decisions. 

The NPEP includes the National Performance 

Audit Program (NPAP), the PM2.5

Performance Evaluation Program (PM2.5-PEP) 

and the Pb Performance Evaluation Program 

(Pb-PEP). The PSD QAPP shall provide for 

the implementation of NPEP including the 

provision of adequate resources for such 

audit programs. Contact the PSD reviewing 

authority to determine the best procedure for 

implementing the audits which may include 

an audit by the PSD reviewing authority, a 

contractor certified for the activity, or 

through self-implementation which is 

described in sections below. A determination 

of which entity will be performing this audit 

program should be made as early as possible 

and during the QAPP development process. 

The PSD PQAOs, including contractors that 

plan to implement these programs on behalf 

of PSD PQAOs, that plan to implement these 

programs (self-implement) rather than use 

the federal programs, must meet the 

adequacy requirements found in the 

appropriate sections that follow, as well as 

meet the definition of independent 

assessment that follows. 

2.4.1 Independent Assessment. An 

assessment performed by a qualified 

individual, group, or organization that is not 

part of the organization directly performing 

and accountable for the work being assessed. 

This auditing organization must not be 

involved with the generation of the routinelycollected ambient air monitoring data. An 

organization can conduct the performance 

evaluation (PE) if it can meet this definition 

and has a management structure that, at a 

minimum, will allow for the separation of its 

routine sampling personnel from its auditing 

personnel by two levels of management. In 

addition, the sample analysis of audit filters 

must be performed by a laboratory facility 

and laboratory equipment separate from the 

facilities used for routine sample analysis. 

Field and laboratory personnel will be 

required to meet the performance evaluation 

field and laboratory training and certification 

requirements. The PSD PQAO will be 

required to participate in the centralized field 

and laboratory standards certification and 

comparison processes to establish 

comparability to federally implemented 

programs. 

2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. 

The PSD reviewing authority or the EPA, 

may conduct system audits of the ambient air 

monitoring programs or organizations 

operating PSD networks. The PSD monitoring 

organizations shall consult with the PSD 

reviewing authority to verify the schedule of 

any such technical systems audit. Systems 

audit programs are described in reference 10 

of this appendix. 

2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit 

Standards. 

2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration 

standards (permeation devices or cylinders of 

compressed gas) used to obtain test 

concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), 

and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) must be traceable 

to either a National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference 

Material (NTRM) or a NIST-certified Gas 

Manufacturer’s Internal Standard (GMIS), 

certified in accordance with one of the 

procedures given in reference 4 of this 

appendix. Vendors advertising certification 

with the procedures provided in reference 4 

of this appendix and distributing gases as 

‘‘EPA Protocol Gas’’ must participate in the 

EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not 

use ‘‘EPA’’ in any form of advertising. The 

PSD PQAOs must provide information to the 

PSD reviewing authority on the gas vendors 

they use (or will use) for the duration of the 

PSD monitoring project. This information can 

be provided in the QAPP or monitoring plan, 

but must be updated if there is a change in 

the producer used. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54389 

2.6.2 Test concentrations for ozone (O3) 

must be obtained in accordance with the 

ultraviolet photometric calibration procedure 

specified in appendix D to part 50, and by 

means of a certified NIST-traceable O3

transfer standard. Consult references 7 and 8 

of this appendix for guidance on transfer 

standards for O3. 

2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be 

made by a flow measuring instrument that is 

NIST-traceable to an authoritative volume or 

other applicable standard. Guidance for 

certifying some types of flow-meters is 

provided in reference 10 of this appendix. 

2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. 

Requirements and guidance documents for 

developing the quality system are contained 

in references 1 through 11 of this appendix, 

which also contain many suggested 

procedures, checks, and control 

specifications. Reference 10 describes 

specific guidance for the development of a 

quality system for data collected for 

comparison to the NAAQS. Many specific 

quality control checks and specifications for 

methods are included in the respective 

reference methods described in part 50 or in 

the respective equivalent method 

descriptions available from the EPA 

(reference 6 of this appendix). Similarly, 

quality control procedures related to 

specifically designated reference and 

equivalent method monitors are contained in 

the respective operation or instruction 

manuals associated with those monitors. For 

PSD monitoring, the use of reference and 

equivalent method monitors are required. 

3. Measurement Quality Check 

Requirements 

This section provides the requirements for 

PSD PQAOs to perform the measurement 

quality checks that can be used to assess data 

quality. Data from these checks are required 

to be submitted to the PSD reviewing 

authority within the same time frame as 

routinely-collected ambient concentration 

data as described in 40 CFR 58.16. Table B– 

1 of this appendix provides a summary of the 

types and frequency of the measurement 

quality checks that are described in this 

section. Reporting these results to AQS may 

be required by the PSD reviewing authority. 

3.1 Gaseous monitors of SO2, NO2, O3, and 

CO. 

3.1.1 One-Point Quality Control (QC) 

Check for SO2, NO2, O3, and CO. (a) A onepoint QC check must be performed at least 

once every 2 weeks on each automated 

monitor used to measure SO2, NO2, O3 and 

CO. With the advent of automated calibration 

systems, more frequent checking is strongly 

encouraged and may be required by the PSD 

reviewing authority. See Reference 10 of this 

appendix for guidance on the review 

procedure. The QC check is made by 

challenging the monitor with a QC check gas 

of known concentration (effective 

concentration for open path monitors) 

between the prescribed range of 0.005 and 

0.08 parts per million (ppm) for SO2, NO2, 

and O3, and between the prescribed range of 

0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors. The QC 

check gas concentration selected within the 

prescribed range must be related to the mean 

or median of the ambient air concentrations 

normally measured at sites within the PSD 

monitoring network in order to appropriately 

reflect the precision and bias at these routine 

concentration ranges. If the mean or median 

concentrations at the sites are below or above 

the prescribed range, select the lowest or 

highest concentration in the range. An 

additional QC check point is encouraged for 

those organizations that may have occasional 

high values or would like to confirm the 

monitors’ linearity at the higher end of the 

operational range. 

(b) Point analyzers must operate in their 

normal sampling mode during the QC check 

and the test atmosphere must pass through 

all filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other 

components used during normal ambient 

sampling and as much of the ambient air 

inlet system as is practicable. The QC check 

must be conducted before any calibration or 

adjustment to the monitor. 

(c) Open-path monitors are tested by 

inserting a test cell containing a QC check gas 

concentration into the optical measurement 

beam of the instrument. If possible, the 

normally used transmitter, receiver, and as 

appropriate, reflecting devices should be 

used during the test and the normal 

monitoring configuration of the instrument 

should be altered as little as possible to 

accommodate the test cell for the test. 

However, if permitted by the associated 

operation or instruction manual, an alternate 

local light source or an alternate optical path 

that does not include the normal atmospheric 

monitoring path may be used. The actual 

concentration of the QC check gas in the test 

cell must be selected to produce an effective 

concentration in the range specified earlier in 

this section. Generally, the QC test 

concentration measurement will be the sum 

of the atmospheric pollutant concentration 

and the QC test concentration. As such, the 

result must be corrected to remove the 

atmospheric concentration contribution. The 

corrected concentration is obtained by 

subtracting the average of the atmospheric 

concentrations measured by the open path 

instrument under test immediately before 

and immediately after the QC test from the 

QC check gas concentration measurement. If 

the difference between these before and after 

measurements is greater than 20 percent of 

the effective concentration of the test gas, 

discard the test result and repeat the test. If 

possible, open path monitors should be 

tested during periods when the atmospheric 

pollutant concentrations are relatively low 

and steady. 

(d) Report the audit concentration of the 

QC gas and the corresponding measured 

concentration indicated by the monitor. The 

percent differences between these 

concentrations are used to assess the 

precision and bias of the monitoring data as 

described in sections 4.1.2 (precision) and 

4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix. 

3.1.2 Quarterly performance evaluation 

for SO2, NO2, O3 , or CO. Evaluate each 

primary monitor each calendar quarter 

during which monitors are operated or a least 

once (if operated for less than one quarter). 

The quarterly performance evaluation 

(quarterly PE) must be performed by a 

qualified individual, group, or organization 

that is not part of the organization directly 

performing and accountable for the work 

being assessed. The person or entity 

performing the quarterly PE must not be 

involved with the generation of the routinelycollected ambient air monitoring data. A PSD 

monitoring organization can conduct the 

quarterly PE itself if it can meet this 

definition and has a management structure 

that, at a minimum, will allow for the 

separation of its routine sampling personnel 

from its auditing personnel by two levels of 

management. The quarterly PE also requires 

a set of equipment and standards 

independent from those used for routine 

calibrations or zero, span or precision checks. 

The PE personnel will be required to meet PE 

training and certification requirements. 

3.1.2.1 The evaluation is made by 

challenging the monitor with audit gas 

standards of known concentration from at 

least three audit levels. Two of the audit 

levels selected will represent a range of 

10–80 percent of the typical ambient air 

concentrations either measured by the 

monitor or in the PQAOs network of 

monitors. The third point should be at the 

NAAQS level or above the highest 

anticipated routine hourly concentration, 

whichever is greater. An additional 4th level 

is encouraged for those PSD organizations 

that would like to confirm the monitor’s 

linearity at the higher end of the operational 

range. In rare circumstances, there may be 

sites measuring concentrations above audit 

level 10. These sites should be identified to 

the PSD reviewing authority. 

Audit level 

Concentration range, ppm 

O3 SO2 NO2 CO 

1 ............................................................................................... 0.004–0.0059 0.0003–0.0029 0.0003–0.0029 0.020–0.059 

2 ............................................................................................... 0.006–0.019 0.0030–0.0049 0.0030–0.0049 0.060–0.199 

3 ............................................................................................... 0.020–0.039 0.0050–0.0079 0.0050–0.0079 0.200–0.899 

4 ............................................................................................... 0.040–0.069 0.0080–0.0199 0.0080–0.0199 0.900–2.999 

5 ............................................................................................... 0.070–0.089 0.0200–0.0499 0.0200–0.0499 3.000–7.999 

6 ............................................................................................... 0.090–0.119 0.0500–0.0999 0.0500–0.0999 8.000–15.999 

7 ............................................................................................... 0.120–0.139 0.1000–0.1499 0.1000–0.2999 16.000–30.999 

8 ............................................................................................... 0.140–0.169 0.1500–0.2599 0.3000–0.4999 31.000–39.999 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54390 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Audit level 

Concentration range, ppm 

O3 SO2 NO2 CO 

9 ............................................................................................... 0.170–0.189 0.2600–0.7999 0.5000–0.7999 40.000–49.999 

10 ............................................................................................. 0.190–0.259 0.8000–1.000 0.8000–1.000 50.000–60.000 

3.1.2.2 The NO2 audit techniques may 

vary depending on the ambient monitoring 

method. For chemiluminescence-type NO2

analyzers, gas phase titration (GPT) 

techniques should be based on the EPA 

guidance documents and monitoring agency 

experience. The NO2 gas standards may be 

more appropriate than GPT for direct NO2

methods that do not employ converters. Care 

should be taken to ensure the stability of 

such gas standards prior to use. 

3.1.2.3 The standards from which audit 

gas test concentrations are obtained must 

meet the specifications of section 2.6.1 of this 

appendix. 

3.1.2.4 For point analyzers, the evaluation 

shall be carried out by allowing the monitor 

to analyze the audit gas test atmosphere in 

its normal sampling mode such that the test 

atmosphere passes through all filters, 

scrubbers, conditioners, and other sample 

inlet components used during normal 

ambient sampling and as much of the 

ambient air inlet system as is practicable. 

3.1.2.5 Open-path monitors are evaluated 

by inserting a test cell containing the various 

audit gas concentrations into the optical 

measurement beam of the instrument. If 

possible, the normally used transmitter, 

receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting 

devices should be used during the 

evaluation, and the normal monitoring 

configuration of the instrument should be 

modified as little as possible to accommodate 

the test cell for the evaluation. However, if 

permitted by the associated operation or 

instruction manual, an alternate local light 

source or an alternate optical path that does 

not include the normal atmospheric 

monitoring path may be used. The actual 

concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell 

must be selected to produce effective 

concentrations in the evaluation level ranges 

specified in this section of this appendix. 

Generally, each evaluation concentration 

measurement result will be the sum of the 

atmospheric pollutant concentration and the 

evaluation test concentration. As such, the 

result must be corrected to remove the 

atmospheric concentration contribution. The 

corrected concentration is obtained by 

subtracting the average of the atmospheric 

concentrations measured by the open-path 

instrument under test immediately before 

and immediately after the evaluation test (or 

preferably before and after each evaluation 

concentration level) from the evaluation 

concentration measurement. If the difference 

between the before and after measurements is 

greater than 20 percent of the effective 

concentration of the test gas standard, 

discard the test result for that concentration 

level and repeat the test for that level. If 

possible, open path monitors should be 

evaluated during periods when the 

atmospheric pollutant concentrations are 

relatively low and steady. Also, if the openpath instrument is not installed in a 

permanent manner, the monitoring path 

length must be reverified to be within plus 

or minus 3 percent to validate the evaluation, 

since the monitoring path length is critical to 

the determination of the effective 

concentration. 

3.1.2.6 Report both the evaluation 

concentrations (effective concentrations for 

open-path monitors) of the audit gases and 

the corresponding measured concentration 

(corrected concentrations, if applicable, for 

open-path monitors) indicated or produced 

by the monitor being tested. The percent 

differences between these concentrations are 

used to assess the quality of the monitoring 

data as described in section 4.1.1 of this 

appendix. 

3.1.3 National Performance Evaluation 

Program (NPAP). 

As stated in sections 1.1 and 2.4, PSD 

monitoring networks may be subject to the 

NPEP, which includes the NPAP. The NPAP 

is a performance evaluation which is a type 

of audit where quantitative data are collected 

independently in order to evaluate the 

proficiency of an analyst, monitoring 

instrument and laboratory. The NPAP should 

not be confused with the quarterly PE 

program described in section 3.1.2. The PSD 

organizations shall consult with the PSD 

reviewing authority or the EPA regarding 

whether the implementation of NPAP is 

required and the implementation options 

available. Details of the EPA NPAP can be 

found in reference 11 of this appendix. The 

program requirements include: 

3.1.3.1 Performing audits on 100 percent 

of monitors and sites each year including 

monitors and sites that may be operated for 

less than 1 year. The reviewing authority has 

the authority to require more frequent audits 

at sites they consider to be high priority. 

3.1.3.2 Developing a delivery system that 

will allow for the audit concentration gasses 

to be introduced at the probe inlet where 

logistically feasible. 

3.1.3.3 Using audit gases that are verified 

against the National Institute for Standards 

and Technology (NIST) standard reference 

methods or special review procedures and 

validated annually for CO, SO2 and NO2, and 

at the beginning of each quarter of audits for 

O3. 

3.1.3.4 The PSD PQAO may elect to selfimplement NPAP. In these cases, the PSD 

reviewing authority will work with those 

PSD PQAOs to establish training and other 

technical requirements to establish 

comparability to federally implemented 

programs. In addition to meeting the 

requirements in sections 3.1.1.3 through 

3.1.3.3, the PSD PQAO must: 

(a) Ensure that the PSD audit system is 

equivalent to the EPA NPAP audit system 

and is an entirely separate set of equipment 

and standards from the equipment used for 

quarterly performance evaluations. If this 

system does not generate and analyze the 

audit concentrations, as the EPA NPAP 

system does, its equivalence to the EPA 

NPAP system must be proven to be as 

accurate under a full range of appropriate 

and varying conditions as described in 

section 3.1.3.6. 

(b) Perform a whole system check by 

having the PSD audit system tested at an 

independent and qualified EPA lab, or 

equivalent. 

(c) Evaluate the system with the EPA NPAP 

program through collocated auditing at an 

acceptable number of sites each year (at least 

one for a PSD network of five or less sites; 

at least two for a network with more than five 

sites). 

(d) Incorporate the NPAP into the PSD 

PQAO’s QAPP. 

(e) Be subject to review by independent, 

EPA-trained personnel. 

(f) Participate in initial and update 

training/certification sessions. 

3.2 PM2.5. 

3.2.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM2.5. A 

one-point flow rate verification check must 

be performed at least once every month (each 

verification minimally separated by 14 days) 

on each monitor used to measure PM2.5. The 

verification is made by checking the 

operational flow rate of the monitor. If the 

verification is made in conjunction with a 

flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior 

to such flow rate adjustment. For the 

standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer 

standard certified in accordance with section 

2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor’s 

normal flow rate. Care should be used in 

selecting and using the flow rate 

measurement device such that it does not 

alter the normal operating flow rate of the 

monitor. Flow rate verification results are to 

be reported to the PSD reviewing authority 

quarterly as described in section 5.1. 

Reporting these results to AQS is encouraged. 

The percent differences between the audit 

and measured flow rates are used to assess 

the bias of the monitoring data as described 

in section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow 

rates in lieu of concentrations). 

3.2.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for 

PM2.5. Every 6 months, audit the flow rate of 

the PM2.5 particulate monitors. For shortterm monitoring operations (those less than 

1 year), the flow rate audits must occur at 

start up, at the midpoint, and near the 

completion of the monitoring project. The 

audit must be conducted by a trained 

technician other than the routine site 

operator. The audit is made by measuring the 

monitor’s normal operating flow rate using a 

flow rate transfer standard certified in 

accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. 

The flow rate standard used for auditing 

must not be the same flow rate standard used 

for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. 

However, both the calibration standard and 

the audit standard may be referenced to the 

same primary flow rate or volume standard. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54391 

Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate 

to be certain that the flow measurement 

device does not alter the normal operating 

flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit 

flow rate of the transfer standard and the 

corresponding flow rate measured by the 

monitor. The percent differences between 

these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor 

performance. 

3.2.3 Collocated Sampling Procedures for 

PM2.5. A PSD PQAO must have at least one 

collocated monitor for each PSD monitoring 

network. 

3.2.3.1 For each pair of collocated 

monitors, designate one sampler as the 

primary monitor whose concentrations will 

be used to report air quality for the site, and 

designate the other as the QC monitor. There 

can be only one primary monitor at a 

monitoring site for a given time period. 

(a) If the primary monitor is a FRM, then 

the quality control monitor must be a FRM 

of the same method designation. 

(b) If the primary monitor is a FEM, then 

the quality control monitor must be a FRM 

unless the PSD PQAO submits a waiver for 

this requirement, provides a specific reason 

why a FRM cannot be implemented, and the 

waiver is approved by the PSD reviewing 

authority. If the waiver is approved, then the 

quality control monitor must be the same 

method designation as the primary FEM 

monitor. 

3.2.3.2 In addition, the collocated 

monitors should be deployed according to 

the following protocol: 

(a) The collocated quality control 

monitor(s) should be deployed at sites with 

the highest predicted daily PM2.5

concentrations in the network. If the highest 

PM2.5 concentration site is impractical for 

collocation purposes, alternative sites 

approved by the PSD reviewing authority 

may be selected. If additional collocated sites 

are necessary, the PSD PQAO and the 

reviewing authority should determine the 

appropriate location(s) based on data needs. 

(b) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 

meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 

liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for 

samplers having flow rates less than 200 

liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A 

waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal 

distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance 

(inlet to inlet) between a primary and 

collocated quality control monitor may be 

approved by the PSD reviewing authority for 

sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of 

representation. This waiver may be approved 

during the QAPP review and approval 

process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis 

must be the same for both collocated 

samplers and the same as for all other 

samplers in the network. 

(c) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 6-day schedule for sites not 

requiring daily monitoring and on a 3-day 

schedule for any site requiring daily 

monitoring. Report the measurements from 

both primary and collocated quality control 

monitors at each collocated sampling site. 

The calculations for evaluating precision 

between the two collocated monitors are 

described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

3.2.4 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation 

Program (PEP) Procedures. As stated in 

sections 1.1 and 2.4 of this appendix, PSD 

monitoring networks may be subject to the 

NPEP, which includes the PM2.5 PEP. The 

PSD monitoring organizations shall consult 

with the PSD reviewing authority or the EPA 

regarding whether the implementation of 

PM2.5 PEP is required and the 

implementation options available for the 

PM2.5 PEP. For PSD PQAOs with less than or 

equal to five monitoring sites, five valid 

performance evaluation audits must be 

collected and reported each year. For PSD 

PQAOs with greater than five monitoring 

sites, eight valid performance evaluation 

audits must be collected and reported each 

year. Additionally, within the five or eight 

required audits, each type of method 

designation (FRM/FEM designation) used as 

a primary monitor in the PSD network shall 

be audited. For a PE to be valid, both the 

primary monitor and PEP audit 

measurements must meet quality control 

requirements and be above 3 mg/m3 or a 

predefined lower concentration level 

determined by a systematic planning process 

and approved by the PSD reviewing 

authority. Due to the relatively short-term 

nature of most PSD monitoring, the 

likelihood of measuring low concentrations 

in many areas attaining the PM2.5 standard 

and the time required to weigh filters 

collected in PEs, a PSD monitoring 

organization’s QAPP may contain a provision 

to waive the 3 mg/m3 threshold for validity 

of PEs conducted in the last quarter of 

monitoring, subject to approval by the PSD 

reviewing authority. 

3.3 PM10. 

3.3.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM10. A 

one-point flow rate verification check must 

be performed at least once every month (each 

verification minimally seperated by 14 days) 

on each monitor used to measure PM10. The 

verification is made by checking the 

operational flow rate of the monitor. If the 

verification is made in conjunction with a 

flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior 

to such flow rate adjustment. For the 

standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer 

standard certified in accordance with section 

2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor’s 

normal flow rate. Care should be taken in 

selecting and using the flow rate 

measurement device such that it does not 

alter the normal operating flow rate of the 

monitor. The percent differences between the 

audit and measured flow rates are used to 

assess the bias of the monitoring data as 

described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix 

(using flow rates in lieu of concentrations). 

3.3.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for 

PM10. Every 6 months, audit the flow rate of 

the PM10 particulate monitors. For short-term 

monitoring operations (those less than 1 

year), the flow rate audits must occur at start 

up, at the midpoint, and near the completion 

of the monitoring project. Where possible, 

the EPA strongly encourages more frequent 

auditing. The audit must be conducted by a 

trained technician other than the routine site 

operator. The audit is made by measuring the 

monitor’s normal operating flow rate using a 

flow rate transfer standard certified in 

accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. 

The flow rate standard used for auditing 

must not be the same flow rate standard used 

for verifications or to calibrate the monitor. 

However, both the calibration standard and 

the audit standard may be referenced to the 

same primary flow rate or volume standard. 

Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate 

to be certain that the flow measurement 

device does not alter the normal operating 

flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit 

flow rate of the transfer standard and the 

corresponding flow rate measured by the 

monitor. The percent differences between 

these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor 

performance 

3.3.3 Collocated Sampling Procedures for 

Manual PM10. A PSD PQAO must have at 

least one collocated monitor for each PSD 

monitoring network. 

3.3.3.1 For each pair of collocated 

monitors, designate one sampler as the 

primary monitor whose concentrations will 

be used to report air quality for the site, and 

designate the other as the quality control 

monitor. 

3.3.3.2 In addition, the collocated 

monitors should be deployed according to 

the following protocol: 

(a) The collocated quality control 

monitor(s) should be deployed at sites with 

the highest predicted daily PM10

concentrations in the network. If the highest 

PM10 concentration site is impractical for 

collocation purposes, alternative sites 

approved by the PSD reviewing authority 

may be selected. 

(b) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 

meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 

liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for 

samplers having flow rates less than 200 

liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A 

waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal 

distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance 

(inlet to inlet) between a primary and 

collocated sampler may be approved by the 

PSD reviewing authority for sites at a 

neighborhood or larger scale of 

representation. This waiver may be approved 

during the QAPP review and approval 

process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis 

must be the same for both collocated 

samplers and the same as for all other 

samplers in the network. 

(c) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 6-day schedule or 3-day 

schedule for any site requiring daily 

monitoring. Report the measurements from 

both primary and collocated quality control 

monitors at each collocated sampling site. 

The calculations for evaluating precision 

between the two collocated monitors are 

described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

(d) In determining the number of 

collocated sites required for PM10, PSD 

monitoring networks for Pb-PM10 should be 

treated independently from networks for 

particulate matter (PM), even though the 

separate networks may share one or more 

common samplers. However, a single quality 

control monitor that meets the collocation 

requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10 may 

serve as a collocated quality control monitor 

for both networks. Extreme care must be 

taken if using the filter from a quality control 

monitor for both PM10 and Pb analysis. PM10

filter weighing should occur prior to any Pb 

analysis. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
54392 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3.4 Pb. 

3.4.1 Flow Rate Verification for Pb. A 

one-point flow rate verification check must 

be performed at least once every month (each 

verification minimally separated by 14 days) 

on each monitor used to measure Pb. The 

verification is made by checking the 

operational flow rate of the monitor. If the 

verification is made in conjunction with a 

flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior 

to such flow rate adjustment. Use a flow rate 

transfer standard certified in accordance with 

section 2.6 of this appendix to check the 

monitor’s normal flow rate. Care should be 

taken in selecting and using the flow rate 

measurement device such that it does not 

alter the normal operating flow rate of the 

monitor. The percent differences between the 

audit and measured flow rates are used to 

assess the bias of the monitoring data as 

described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix 

(using flow rates in lieu of concentrations). 

3.4.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for 

Pb. Every 6 months, audit the flow rate of the 

Pb particulate monitors. For short-term 

monitoring operations (those less than 1 

year), the flow rate audits must occur at start 

up, at the midpoint, and near the completion 

of the monitoring project. Where possible, 

the EPA strongly encourages more frequent 

auditing. The audit must be conducted by a 

trained technician other than the routine site 

operator. The audit is made by measuring the 

monitor’s normal operating flow rate using a 

flow rate transfer standard certified in 

accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. 

The flow rate standard used for auditing 

must not be the same flow rate standard used 

to in verifications or to calibrate the monitor. 

However, both the calibration standard and 

the audit standard may be referenced to the 

same primary flow rate or volume standard. 

Great care must be taken in auditing the flow 

rate to be certain that the flow measurement 

device does not alter the normal operating 

flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit 

flow rate of the transfer standard and the 

corresponding flow rate measured by the 

monitor. The percent differences between 

these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor 

performance. 

3.4.3 Collocated Sampling for Pb. A PSD 

PQAO must have at least one collocated 

monitor for each PSD monitoring network. 

3.4.3.1 For each pair of collocated 

monitors, designate one sampler as the 

primary monitor whose concentrations will 

be used to report air quality for the site, and 

designate the other as the quality control 

monitor. 

3.4.3.2 In addition, the collocated 

monitors should be deployed according to 

the following protocol: 

(a) The collocated quality control 

monitor(s) should be deployed at sites with 

the highest predicted daily Pb concentrations 

in the network. If the highest Pb 

concentration site is impractical for 

collocation purposes, alternative sites 

approved by the PSD reviewing authority 

may be selected. 

(b) The two collocated monitors must be 

within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 

meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 

liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for 

samplers having flow rates less than 200 

liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A 

waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal 

distance and up to 3 meters vertical distance 

(inlet to inlet) between a primary and 

collocated sampler may be approved by the 

reviewing authority for sites at a 

neighborhood or larger scale of 

representation. This waiver may be approved 

during the QAPP review and approval 

process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis 

must be the same for both collocated 

samplers and the same as for all other 

samplers in the network. 

(c) Sample the collocated quality control 

monitor on a 6-day schedule if daily 

monitoring is not required or 3-day schedule 

for any site requiring daily monitoring. 

Report the measurements from both primary 

and collocated quality control monitors at 

each collocated sampling site. The 

calculations for evaluating precision between 

the two collocated monitors are described in 

section 4.2.1 of this appendix. 

(d) In determining the number of 

collocated sites required for Pb-PM10, PSD 

monitoring networks for PM10 should be 

treated independently from networks for PbPM10, even though the separate networks 

may share one or more common samplers. 

However, a single quality control monitor 

that meets the collocation requirements for 

Pb-PM10 and PM10 may serve as a collocated 

quality control monitor for both networks. 

Extreme care must be taken if using a using 

the filter from a quality control monitor for 

both PM10 and Pb analysis. The PM10 filter 

weighing should occur prior to any Pb 

analysis. 

3.4.4 Pb Analysis Audits. Each calendar 

quarter, audit the Pb reference or equivalent 

method analytical procedure using filters 

containing a known quantity of Pb. These 

audit filters are prepared by depositing a Pb 

standard on unexposed filters and allowing 

them to dry thoroughly. The audit samples 

must be prepared using batches of reagents 

different from those used to calibrate the Pb 

analytical equipment being audited. Prepare 

audit samples in the following concentration 

ranges: 

Range Equivalent ambient Pb 

concentration, μg/m3

1 ................... 30–100% of Pb NAAQS. 

2 ................... 200–300% of Pb NAAQS. 

(a) Audit samples must be extracted using 

the same extraction procedure used for 

exposed filters. 

(b) Analyze three audit samples in each of 

the two ranges each quarter samples are 

analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be 

distributed as much as possible over the 

entire calendar quarter. 

(c) Report the audit concentrations (in mg 

Pb/filter or strip) and the corresponding 

measured concentrations (in mg Pb/filter or 

strip) using AQS unit code 077 (if reporting 

to AQS). The percent differences between the 

concentrations are used to calculate 

analytical accuracy as described in section 

4.2.5 of this appendix. 

3.4.5 Pb Performance Evaluation Program 

(PEP) Procedures. As stated in sections 1.1 

and 2.4, PSD monitoring networks may be 

subject to the NPEP, which includes the Pb 

Performance Evaluation Program. PSD 

monitoring organizations shall consult with 

the PSD reviewing authority or the EPA 

regarding whether the implementation of PbPEP is required and the implementation 

options available for the Pb-PEP. The PEP is 

an independent assessment used to estimate 

total measurement system bias. Each year, 

one PE audit must be performed at one Pb 

site in each PSD PQAO network that has less 

than or equal to five sites and two audits for 

PSD PQAO networks with greater than five 

sites. In addition, each year, four collocated 

samples from PSD PQAO networks with less 

than or equal to five sites and six collocated 

samples from PSD PQAO networks with 

greater than five sites must be sent to an 

independent laboratory for analysis. The 

calculations for evaluating bias between the 

primary monitor and the PE monitor for Pb 

are described in section 4.2.4 of this 

appendix. 

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment 

(a) Calculations of measurement 

uncertainty are carried out by PSD PQAO 

according to the following procedures. The 

PSD PQAOs should report the data for all 

appropriate measurement quality checks as 

specified in this appendix even though they 

may elect to perform some or all of the 

calculations in this section on their own. 

(b) At low concentrations, agreement 

between the measurements of collocated 

samplers, expressed as relative percent 

difference or percent difference, may be 

relatively poor. For this reason, collocated 

measurement pairs will be selected for use in 

the precision and bias calculations only 

when both measurements are equal to or 

above the following limits: 

(1) Pb: 0.002 mg/m3 (Methods approved 

after 3/04/2010, with exception of manual 

equivalent method EQLA–0813–803). 

(2) Pb: 0.02 mg/m3 (Methods approved 

before 3/04/2010, and manual equivalent 

method EQLA–0813–803). 

(3) PM10 (Hi-Vol): 15 mg/m3. 

(4) PM10 (Lo-Vol): 3 mg/m3. 

(5) PM2.5: 3 mg/m3. 

The PM2.5 3 mg/m3 limit for the PM2.5-PEP 

may be superseded by mutual agreement 

between the PSD PQAO and the PSD 

reviewing authority as specified in section 

3.2.4 of the appendix and detailed in the 

approved QAPP. 

4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC 

Checks for SO2, NO2, O3 and CO. 

4.1.1 Percent Difference. Many of the 

measurement quality checks start with a 

comparison of an audit concentration or 

value (flow-rate) to the concentration/value 

measured by the monitor and use percent 

difference as the comparison statistic as 

described in equation 1 of this section. For 

each single point check, calculate the percent 

difference, di, as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11SE14.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54393 

where, meas is the concentration indicated 

by the PQAO’s instrument and audit is the 

audit concentration of the standard used in 

the QC check being measured. 

4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision 

estimate is used to assess the one-point QC 

checks for SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in 

section 3.1.1 of this appendix. The precision 

estimator is the coefficient of variation upper 

bound and is calculated using equation 2 of 

this section: 

where, n is the number of single point checks 

being aggregated; X2 0.1,n-1 is the 10th 

percentile of a chi-squared distribution with 

n–1 degrees of freedom. 

4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is 

calculated using the one-point QC checks for 

SO2, NO2, O3, or CO described in section 

3.1.1 of this appendix. The bias estimator is 

an upper bound on the mean absolute value 

of the percent differences as described in 

equation 3 of this section: 

where, n is the number of single point checks 

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 section: 

and the quantity AS is the standard deviation 

of the absolute value of the di’s and is 

calculated using equation 5 of this section: 

4.1.3.1 Assigning a sign (positive/

negative) to the bias estimate. Since the bias 

statistic as calculated in equation 3 of this 

appendix uses absolute values, it does not 

have a tendency (negative or positive bias) 

associated with it. A sign will be designated 

by rank ordering the percent differences of 

the QC check samples from a given site for 

a particular assessment interval. 

4.1.3.2 Calculate the 25th and 75th 

percentiles of the percent differences for each 

site. The absolute bias upper bound should 

be flagged as positive if both percentiles are 

positive and negative if both percentiles are 

negative. The absolute bias upper bound 

would not be flagged if the 25th and 75th 

percentiles are of different signs. 

4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10, 

PM2.5, and Pb. 

4.2.1 Collocated Quality Control Sampler 

Precision Estimate for PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. 

Precision is estimated via duplicate 

measurements from collocated samplers. It is 

recommended that the precision be 

aggregated at the PQAO level quarterly, 

annually, and at the 3-year level. The data 

pair would only be considered valid if both 

concentrations are greater than or equal to 

the minimum values specified in section 4(c) 

of this appendix. For each collocated data 

pair, calculate the relative percent difference, 

di, using equation 6 of this appendix: 

where, Xi is the concentration from the 

primary sampler and Yi is the concentration 

value from the audit sampler. The coefficient 

of variation upper bound is calculated using 

equation 7 of this appendix: 

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 One-Point Flow Rate Verification 

Bias Estimate for PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. For 

each one-point flow rate verification, 

calculate the percent difference in volume 

using equation 1 of this appendix where 

meas is the value indicated by the sampler’s 

volume measurement and audit is the actual 

volume indicated by the auditing flow meter. 

The absolute volume bias upper bound is 

then calculated using equation 3, where n is 

the number of flow rate audits being 

aggregated; t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a tdistribution 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 if 

the di’s and is calculated using equation 5 of 

this appendix. 

4.2.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit Bias 

Estimate for PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. Use the 

same procedure described in section 4.2.2 for 

the evaluation of flow rate audits. 

4.2.4 Performance Evaluation Programs 

Bias Estimate for Pb. The Pb bias estimate is 

calculated using the paired routine and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11SE14.009</GPH> EP11SE14.010</GPH> EP11SE14.011</GPH> EP11SE14.012</GPH> EP11SE14.013</GPH> EP11SE14.014</GPH>
54394 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

PEP monitor as described in section 3.4.5. 

Use the same procedures as described in 

section 4.1.3 of this appendix. 

4.2.5 Performance Evaluation Programs 

Bias Estimate for PM2.5. The bias estimate is 

calculated using the PEP audits described in 

section 4.1.3 of this appendix. The bias 

estimator is based on the mean percent 

differences (Equation 1). The mean percent 

difference, D, is calculated by Equation 8 

below. 

where, nj is the number of pairs and 

d1,d2,...dnj are the biases for each pair to 

be averaged. 

4.2.6 Pb Analysis Audit Bias Estimate. 

The bias estimate is calculated using the 

analysis audit data described in section 3.4.4. 

Use the same bias estimate procedure as 

described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix. 

5. Reporting Requirements 

5.1 Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, 

each PSD PQAO shall report to the PSD 

reviewing authority (and AQS if required by 

the PSD reviewing authority) the results of all 

valid measurement quality checks it has 

carried out during the quarter. The quarterly 

reports must be submitted consistent with 

the data reporting requirements specified for 

air quality data as set forth in 40 CFR 58.16 

and pertain to PSD monitoring. 

6.0 References 

(1) American National Standard— 

Specifications and Guidelines for 

Quality Systems for Environmental Data 

Collection and Environmental 

Technology Programs. ANSI/ASQC E4– 

2004. February 2004. Available from 

American Society for Quality Control, 

611 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, 

WI 53202. 

(2) EPA Requirements for Quality 

Management Plans. EPA QA/R–2. EPA/ 

240/B–01/002. March 2001, Reissue May 

2006. Office of Environmental 

Information, Washington, DC 20460. 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r2- 

final.pdf. 

(3) EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance 

Project Plans for Environmental Data 

Operations. EPA QA/R–5. EPA/240/B– 

01/003. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. 

Office of Environmental Information, 

Washington, DC 20460. http://

www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5- 

final.pdf. 

(4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards. EPA–600/R–12/531. May, 

2012. Available from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/appcd/mmd/

db-traceability-protocol.html. 

(5) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives 

Process. EPA QA/G–4. EPA/240/B–06/

001. February, 2006. Office of 

Environmental Information, Washington, 

DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/

qs-docs/g4-final.pdf. 

(6) List of Designated Reference and 

Equivalent Methods. Available from U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Exposure Research Laboratory, 

Human Exposure and Atmospheric 

Sciences Division, MD–D205–03, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

criteria.html. 

(7) Transfer Standards for the Calibration of 

Ambient Air Monitoring Analyzers for 

Ozone. EPA–454/B–13–004 U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

October, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

amtic/qapollutant.html. 

(8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical 

Assistance Document for the Calibration 

of Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA–600/

4–79–057. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, September, 1979. http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html. 

(9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 

1—A Field Guide to Environmental 

Quality Assurance. EPA–600/R–94/038a. 

April 1994. Available from U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, ORD 

Publications Office, Center for 

Environmental Research Information 

(CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, 

Cincinnati, OH 45268. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html. 

(10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume 

II: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 

Program Quality System Development. 

EPA–454/B–13–003. http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html. 

(11) National Performance Evaluation 

Program Standard Operating Procedures. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/

npapsop.html. 

TABLE B–1—MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR NAAQS RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT PSD MONITORS

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum 

frequency 

Parameters 

reported AQS assessment type 

Gaseous Methods (CO, NO2, SO2, O3) 

1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, 

O3, CO.

Response check at concentration 0.005–0.08 

ppm SO2, NO2, O3, & 

0.5 and 5 ppm CO.

Each analyzer ................. Once per 2 weeks .......... Audit concentration 1 and 

measured concentration 2.

1-Point QC. 

Quarterly performance 

evaluation for SO2, 

NO2, O3, CO.

See section 3.1.2 of this 

appendix.

Each analyzer ................. Once per quarter ............ Audit concentration 1 and 

measured concentration 2 for each level.

Annual PE. 

NPAP for SO2, NO2, O3, 

CO 3.

Independent Audit .......... Each primary monitor ..... Once per year ................ Audit concentration 1 and 

measured concentration 2 for each level.

NPAP. 

Particulate Methods 

Collocated sampling 

PM10, PM2.5, Pb.

Collocated samplers ....... 1 per PSD Network per 

pollutant.

Every 6 days or every 3 

days if daily monitoring 

required.

Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration 4.

No Transaction reported 

as raw data. 

Flow rate verification .......

PM10, PM2.5, Pb ...............

Check of sampler flow 

rate.

Each sampler ................. Once every month .......... Audit flow rate and 

measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

Flow Rate Verification. 

Semi-annual flow rate 

audit.

PM10, PM2.5, Pb ...............

Check of sampler flow 

rate using independent 

standard.

Each sampler ................. Once every 6 months or 

beginning, middle and 

end of monitoring.

Audit flow rate and 

measured flow rate indicated by the sampler.

Semi Annual Flow Rate 

Audit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11SE14.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54395 

TABLE B–1—MINIMUM DATA ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR NAAQS RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT PSD 

MONITORS—Continued 

Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum 

frequency 

Parameters 

reported AQS assessment type 

Pb analysis audits ...........

Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10 ............

Check of analytical system with Pb audit 

strips/filters.

Analytical ........................ Each quarter ................... Measured value and 

audit value (ug Pb/filter) using AQS unit 

code 077 for parameters: 

14129—Pb (TSP) LC 

FRM/FEM.

85129—Pb (TSP) LC 

Non-FRM/FEM.

Pb Analysis Audits. 

Performance Evaluation 

Program PM2.5 3.

Collocated samplers ....... (1) 5 valid audits for 

PQAOs with <= 5 sites.

(2) 8 valid audits for 

PQAOs with > 5 sites.

(3) All samplers in 6 

years.

Over all 4 quarters ......... Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration.PEP. 

Performance Evaluation 

Program.

Pb 3 ..................................

Collocated samplers ....... (1) 1 valid audit and 4 

collocated samples for 

PQAOs, with <=5 sites.

(2) 2 valid audits and 6 

collocated samples for 

PQAOs with > 5 sites.

Over all 4 quarters ......... Primary sampler concentration and performance evaluation sampler concentration. Primary sampler concentration and duplicate sampler concentration.

PEP. 

1Effective concentration for open path analyzers. 

2 Corrected concentration, if applicable for open path analyzers. 

3 NPAP, PM2.5 PEP and Pb-PEP must be implemented if data is used for NAAQS decisions otherwise implementation is at PSD reviewing authority discretion. 4Both primary and collocated sampler values are reported as raw data. 

■ 11. In Appendix D to part 58, revise 

paragraph 3(b), remove and reserve 

paragraph 4.5(b), and revise paragraph 

4.5(c) to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Part 58—Network 

Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring 

* * * * * 

3. * * * 

(b) The NCore sites must measure, at a 

minimum, PM2.5 particle mass using 

continuous and integrated/filter-based 

samplers, speciated PM2.5, PM10–2.5 particle 

mass, O3, SO2, CO, NO/NOY, wind speed, 

wind direction, relative humidity, and 

ambient temperature. 

(1) Although the measurement of NOy is 

required in support of a number of 

monitoring objectives, available commercial 

instruments may indicate little difference in 

their measurement of NOy compared to the 

conventional measurement of NOX, 

particularly in areas with relatively fresh 

sources of nitrogen emissions. Therefore, in 

areas with negligible expected difference 

between NOy and NOX measured 

concentrations, the Administrator may allow 

for waivers that permit NOX monitoring to be 

substituted for the required NOy monitoring 

at applicable NCore sites. 

(2) The EPA recognizes that, in some cases, 

the physical location of the NCore site may 

not be suitable for representative 

meteorological measurements due to the 

site’s physical surroundings. It is also 

possible that nearby meteorological 

measurements may be able to fulfill this data 

need. In these cases, the requirement for 

meteorological monitoring can be waived by 

the Administrator. 

* * * * * 

4.5 * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) The EPA Regional Administrator may 

require additional monitoring beyond the 

minimum monitoring requirements 

contained in paragraph 4.5(a) of this 

appendix where the likelihood of Pb air 

quality violations is significant or where the 

emissions density, topography, or population 

locations are complex and varied. EPA 

Regional Administrators may require 

additional monitoring at locations including, 

but not limited to, those near existing 

additional industrial sources of Pb, recently 

closed industrial sources of Pb, airports 

where piston-engine aircraft emit Pb, and 

other sources of re-entrained Pb dust. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–19758 Filed 9–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2