Appendix — Edison Electric Institute v. Costle

Supreme Court brief1981

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FILED

OCT 20 1980

805649

-™ - » aR., CLERK |

IN THE

Suprene Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, et al,,

Petitioners,

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE, et al.,

Respondents.

APPENDIX TO THE

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

GEORGE C, FREEMAN, JR.

HUNTON & WILLIAMS

P. O. Box 1531

707 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 28212

HENRY V. NICKEL

(Attorney of Record)

F. WILLIAM BROWNELL

HUNTON & WILLIAMS

P. O. Box 19280

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 200386

(202) 2238-8650

Counsel for Petitioners

Edison Electric Institute, et al.

October 20, 1980

WILSON - Eres PRINTING Co.. ING. .- 789.0096. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Letter from Earl Salo, EPA, to H. V. Nickel, Hunton

& Williams (March 18, 1980) ....00000000 ee 1

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co-

lumbia Circuit, Order Dismissing Utilities’ Petition for

hE SEA SC ee 3

United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia, Order Denying Utilities’ Suggestion for Re-

i i ssnnahiudouusnsonmasvoubevdecsoeumees 4

Clean Air Act, as amended §§ 109, 110(a), 307(b)....

44 Fed. Reg. 27557 et seq. (1979) -.0....-2c 15

36 Fed. Reg. 8185 et seq. (1971) 220... cece eens 92

I I TI sso cnecensnasescnasocieocnreoncccasessececceanactnecanees 117

Letter from H. V. Nickel, Hunton & Williams, to D. M.

Costle, EPA (November 9, 1979) 2.000000. 132

Edison Electric Institute’s Suggestion for Rehearing

En Bane (July 3, 1980) 2. cece cece eeeeeeee eee 144

Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for the

Interpretation of Air Quality Standards (February

ee Lik ss nitcntsmmntsnntnnonmeneeddsasaccenscostsnsncesesemnecese 157

[SEAL]

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Washington, D.C. 20460

March 18, 1980

Office of

General Counsel

Henry V. Nickel, Esq.

Hunton & Williams

1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Nickel:

Your letter of November 9, 1979 to the Administrator,

styled “Request for Clarification of Interpretation” has

been referred to me for response. Your letter requests

that the Agency “clarify that new [40 CFR] § 58.26

and Appendix F are reporting requirements only and in

no way affect the Part 50 and 58 requirements that com-

pliance with the 24-hour [national ambient air quality]

standard [for SO,] be determined on a calendar-day

basis.” You have also filed a brief as amicus curiae in

the pending case of PPG Industries v. Costle, Nos. 79-

1708, ete. (D.C. Cir.), in which you urge the same posi-

tion.

As you know from the brief EPA has recently filed

and served on you in the PPG case, the Agency does not

share your views. Since that brief states the Agency’s

views in detail, and responds to the arguments made in

your Request for Clarification of Interpretation, I re-

spectfully refer you to the brief.

Sincerely,

/s/ Earl Salo

EARL SALO

Attorney

Air, Noise & Radiation

Division (A-133)

ec: Kenneth A. Reich, Department of Justice

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

September Term, 1979

No. 80-1441

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, et al.,

Petitioners,

Vv.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Filed June 17, 1980

Before: McGowan,* Mikva and Edwards; Circuit

Judges.

ORDER

On consideration of respondent’s motion to dismiss

petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, the opposition

and the corrected opposition thereto and of the reply, it is

ORDERED by the Court that respondent’s motion is

granted and the petition for review herein is dismissed.

Per Curiam

* Circuit Judge McGowan did not participate in the foregoing

order.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

September Term, 1979

No. 80-1441

EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, et al.,

Petitioners,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Filed July 22, 1980

Before: Wright, Chief Judge, McGowan, Tamm, Robin-

son, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey, Wald, Mikva, Edwards

and Ginsburg, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Petitioners’ suggestion for rehearing en banc has been

circulated to the full Court and no judge in regular

active service has requested a vote thereon. On con-

sideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED by the Court en banc that the aforesaid

suggestion is denied.

Per Curiam

For the Court:

GEORGE A. FISHER,

Clerk

By: /s/ Robert A. Bonner

ROBERT A. BONNER

Chief Deputy Clerk

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

STANDARDS

Sec. 109. (a) (1) The Administrator—

(A) within 30 days after the date of enactment of the

Clean Air Amendments of 1970, shall publish proposed

regulations prescribing a national primary ambient air

quality standard and a national secondary ambient air

quality standard for each air pollutant for which air

quality critera [sic] have been issued prior to such date

of enactment; and

(B) after a reasonable time for interested persons to

submit written comments thereon (but no later than 90

days after the initial publication of such proposed stan-

dards) shall by regulation promulgate such proposed na-

tional primary and secondary ambient air quality stan-

dards with such modifications as he deems appropriate.

(2) With respect to any air pollutant for which air

quality criteria are issued after the date of enactment of

the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, the Administrator

shall publish, simultaneously with the issuance of such

criteria and information, proposed national primary and

secondary ambient air quality standards for any such

pollutant. The procedure provided for in paragraph (1)

(B) of this subsection shall apply to the promulgation

of such standards.

(b) (1) National primary ambient air quality stand-

ards, prescribed under subsection (a) shall be ambient

air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of

which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on

such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety,

are requisite to protect the public health. Such primary

standards may be revised in the same manner as promul-

gated.

(2) Any national secondary ambient air quality stand-

ard prescribed under subsection (a) shall specify a level

of air quality the attainment and maintenance of which

in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such

criteria, is requisite to protect the public welfare from

any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with

the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air.

Such secondary standards may be revised in the same

manner as promulgated.

(ce) The Administrator shall, not later than one year

after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977, promulgate a national primary

ambient air quality standard for NO, concentrations over

a period of not more than 3 hours unless, based on the

criteria issued under section 108(c), he finds that there

is no significant evidence that such a standard for such

a period is requisite to protect public health.

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(d) (1) Not later than December 31, 1980, and at five

year intervals thereafter, the Administrator shall com-

plete a thorough review of the criteria published under

section 108 and the national ambient air quality standards

promulgated under this section and shall make such re-

visions in such criteria and standards and promulgate

such new standards as may be appropriate in accordance

with section 108 and subsection (b) of this section. The

Administrator may review and revise criteria or promul-

gate new standards earlier or more frequently than re-

quired under this paragraph.

(2)(A) The Administrator shall appoint an indepen-

dent scientific review committee composed of seven mem-

bers including at least one member of the National

Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person,

representing State air pollution control agencies,

(B) Not later than January 1, 1980, and at five-year

intervals thereafter, the committee referred to in sub-

paragraph (A) shall complete a review of the criteria

published under section 108 and the national primary and

secondary ambient air quality standards promulgated un-

der this section and shall recommend to the Administrator

any new national ambient air quality-standards and re-

visions of existing criteria and standards as may be

appropriate under section 108 and subsection (b) of this

section.

istrator of areas in which additional knowledge is re-

quired to appraise the adequacy and basis of existing,

new, or revised national ambient air quality standards,

(ii) describe the research efforts necessary to provide the

required information, (iii) advise the Administrator on

the relative contribution to air pollution concentrations

of natural as well as anthropogenic activity, and (iv)

advise the Administrator of any adverse public health,

welfare, social, economic, or energy effects which may

result from various strategies for attainment and mainte-

nance of such national ambient air quality standards.

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Sec. 110. (a)(1) Each State shall, after reasonable

notice and public hearings, adopt and submit to the Ad-

ministrator, within nine months after the promulgation

of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or

any revision thereof) under section 109 for any air pollu-

tant, a plan which provides for implementation, mainte-

nance, and enforcement of such primary standard in each

air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such

State. In addition, such State shall adopt and submit to

the Administrator (either as a part of a plan submitted

under the preceding sentence or separately) within nine

months after the promulgation of a national ambient air

quality secondary standard (or revision thereof), a plan

which provides for implementation, maintenance, and en-

forcement of such secondary standard in each air quality

control region (or portion thereof) within such State.

Unless a separate public hearing is provided, each State

shall consider its plan implementing such secondary stand-

ard at the hearing required by the first sentence of this

paragraph.

(2) The Administrator shall, within four months after

the date required for submission of a plan under para-

graph (1), approve or disapprove such plan or any por-

tion thereof. The Administrator shall approve such plan,

or any portion thereof, if he determines that it was

adopted after reasonable notice and hearing and that—

(A) except as may be provided in subparagraph (I),

(i), in the case of a plan implementing a national primary

ambient air quality standard, it provides for the attain-

ment of such primary standard as expeditiously as prac-

ticable but (subject to subsection (e)) in no case later

than three years from the date of approval of such plan

(or any revision thereof to take account of a revised

primary standard) ; and (ii) in the case of a plan imple-

menting a national secondary ambient air quality stand-

ard, it specifies a reasonable time at which such secondary

standard will be attained;

(B) it includes emission limitations, schedules, and

timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such

other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment

and maintenance of such primary or secondary standard,

including, but not limited to, transportation controls, air

quality maintenance plans, and preconstruction review of

direct sourc., of air pollution as provided in subpara-

graph (D) ;

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

tion of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and pro-

cedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze

data on ambient air quality and, (ii) upon request, make

such data available to the Administrator;

(D) it includes a program to provide for the enforce-

ment of emission limitations and regulation of the modi-

fication, construction, and operation of any stationary

source, including a permit program as required in parts

C and D and a permit or equivalent program for any

major emitting facility, within such region as necessary

to assure (i) that national ambient air quality standards

are achieved and maintained, and (ii) a procedure, meet-

ing the requirements of paragraph (4), for review (prior

to construction or modification) of the location of new

sources to which a standard of performance will apply;

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(E) it contains adequate provisions (i) prohibiting

any stationary source within the State from emitting

any air pollutant in amounts which will (I) prevent at-

tainment or maintenance by any other State of any such

national primary or secondary ambient air quality stand-

ard or (II) interfere with measures required to be in-

cluded in the applicable implementation plan for any

other State under part C to prevent significant deteriora-

tion of air quality or to protect visibility, and (ii) insur-

ing compliance with the requirements of section 126,

relating to interstate pollution abatement;

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(F) it provides (i) necessary assurances that the State

will be adequate personnel, funding, and authority to

carry out such implementation plan, (ii) requirements

for installation of equipment by owners or operators of

stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources,

(iii) for periodic reports on the nature and amounts of

such emissions; (iv) that such reports shall be corre-

lated by the State agency with any emission limitations

or standards established pursuant to this act, which

reports shall be available at reasonable times for public

inspection; (v) for authority comparable to that in section

303, and adequate contingency plans to implement such

authority; and (vi) requirements that the State comply

with the requirements respecting State boards under

Section 128;

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(G) it provides, to the extent necessary and practica-

ble, for periodic inspection and testing of motor vehicles

to enforce compliance with applicable emission standrds;

(H) it proviles for revision, after public hearings, of

such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to

take account of revisions of such national primary or

secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability

of improved or more expeditious methods of achieving

such primary or secondary standard; or (ii) except as

provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Adminis-

trator finds on the basis of information available to him

that the plan is substantially inadequate to achieve the

national ambient air quality primary or secondary stand-

ard which it implements or to otherwise comply with

any additional requirements established under the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1977; and

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(I) it provides that after June 30, 1979, no major

stationary source shall be constructed or modified in any

nonattainment area (as defined in section 171 (2) to

which such plan applies, if the emissions from such fa-

cility will cause or contribute to concentrations of any

pollutant for which a national ambient air quality stand-

ard is exceeded in such area, unless, as of the time of

application for a permit for such construction or modifi-

cation, such plan meets the requirements of part D (re-

lating to nonattainment areas) ;

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(J) it meets the requirements of section 121 (relating

to consultation), section 127 (relating to public notifica-

tion), part C (relating to prevention of significant de-

terioration of air quality and visibility protection) ; and

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(K) it requires the owner or operator or each major

stationary source to pay to the permitting authority as a

condition of any permit required under this Act a fee

sufficient to cover—

(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon

any application for such a permit, and

(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for

such source, whether before or after the date of enact-

ment of this subparagraph, the reasonable costs (incurred

after such date of enactment) of implementing and en-

forcing the terms and conditions of any such permit

(not including any court costs or other costs associated

with any enforcement action).

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(3) (A) The Administrator shall approve any revision

of an implementation plan applicable to an air quality

control region if he determines that it meets the require-

ments of paragraph (2) and has been adopted by the

State after reasonable notice and public hearings.

(B) As soon as practicable, the Administrator shall,

consistent with the purposes of this Act and the Energy

Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974,

review each State’s applicable implementation plans and

report to the State on whether such plans can be revised

in relation to fuel burning stationary sources (or persons

supply fuel to such sources) without interfering with the

attainment and maintenance of any national ambient air

quality standard within the period permitted in this

section. If the Administrator determines that any such

plan can be revised, he shall notify the State that a plan

revision may be submitted by the State. Any plan re-

vision which is submitted by the State shall, after public

notice and opportunity for public hearing, be approved

by the Administrator if the revision relates only to fuel

burning stationary sources (or persons supplying fuel to

such sources), and the plan as revised complies with

paragraph (2) of this subsection. The Administrator

shall approve or disapprove any revision no later than

three months after its submission.

[PL 93-319, June 24, 1974]

tion thereof) approved under this subsection, nor the

Administrator in the case of a plan (or portion thereof)

promulgated under subsection (c), shall be required to

revise an applicable implementation plan because one

or more exemptions under section 118 (relating to Fed-

eral facilities), enforcement orders under section 113(d),

suspensions under section 110(f) or (g) (relating to

temporary energy or economic authority) or orders un-

der section 119 (relating to primary nonferrous smelters)

have been granted, if such plan would have met the

requirements of this section if no such exemptions,

orders, extensions, or variances had been granted.

[PL 95-95, August 7, 1977]

(D) Any applicable implementation plan for which

an attainment date later than December 31, 1982, is

provided pursuant to section 172(a) (2) shall be revised

by July 1, 1979, to include the comprehensive measures

and requirements referred to in subsection (c) (5) (B).

[PL 95-190, November 16, 1977]

(4) The procedure referred to in paragraph (2) (D)

for review, prior to construction or modification, of the

location of new sources shall (A) provide for adequate

authority to prevent the construction or modification of

any new source to which a standard of performance

under section 111 will apply at any location which the

State determines will prevent the attainment or mainte-

nance within any air quality control region (or portion

thereof) within such State of a national ambient air

quality primary or secondary standard, and (B) require

that prior to commencing construction or modification

of any such source, the owner or operator thereof shall

submit to such State such information as may be neces-

sary to permit the State to make a determination under

clause (A).

GENERAL PROVISION RELATING TO

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

Sec. 307.

(b) (1) A petition for review of action of the Ad-

ministrator in promulgating any national primary or

secondary ambient air quality standard, any emission

standard or requirement under section 112, any stand-

ard of performance or requirement under 111; any

standard under section 202 (other than a standard re-

quired to be prescribed under section 202 (b) (1)), any

determination under section 202 (b) (5), any control or

prohibition under section 211, any standard under sec-

tion 231 or any rule issued under section 113, 119, or

under section 120 or any other nationally applicable

regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the

Administrator under this Act may be filed only in the

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colum-

bia. A petition for review of the Administrator’s action

in approving or promulgating any implementation plan

under section 110 or section 111 (d), any order under

section 111 (j), under section 112 (c), under section 113

(d), under section 119, or under section 120, or his action

under section 119 (c) (2) (A), (B), or (C) (as in effect

before the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1977) or under regulations thereunder, or any other

final action of the Administrator under this (including

any denial or disapproval by the Administrator under

Title I) Act which is locally or regionally applicable may

be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit. Any petition for review under this

subsection shall be filed within sixty days from the date

notice of such promulgation, approval, or action appears

in the Federal Register, except that if such petition is

based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day,

then any petition for review under this subsection shall

be filed within sixty days after such grounds arise. Not-

withstanding the preceding sentence a petition for review

of any action referred to in such sentence may be filed

only in the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-

trict of Columbia if such action is based on a determina-

tion of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such

action the Administrator finds and publishes that such

action is based on such a determination:

[PL 93-319, June 24, 1974; PL 95-95, August 7, 1977;

PL 95-190, November 16, 1977]

(2) Action of the Administrator with respect to which

review could have been obtained under paragraph (1)

shall not be subject to judicial review in civil or criminal

proceedings for enforcement.

FEDERAL REGISTER

Thursday

May 10, 1979

Part II

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring, Data

Reporting, and Surveillance Provisions

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 53 and 58

Air Programs; Ambient Air Quality Monitoring,

Data Reporting, and Surveillance Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This final rulemaking sets forth ambient

air quality monitoring and data reporting regulations

which were proposed on August 7, 1978 (48 FR 34892).

This action revokes the requirements for air quality moni-

toring in Part 51 and establishes a new Part 58 entitled

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. These regulations sat-

isfy the requirements of Section 110(a) (2) (C) of the

Clean Air Act (Act) by requiring ambient air quality

monitoring and data reporting for purposes of State

Implementation Plans (SIP). Criteria to be followed

when measuring air quality and provisions for daily air

pollution index reporting are established in Part 58 as

required by Section 319 of the Act. Part 58 also contains

requirements for reporting to EPA certain data related

to air pollution episodes so that the information can be

included in EPA’s annual report to Congress as required

by Section 313, Additional Reports to Congress, of the

Act. Requirements for public notification of information

related to air quality standards violations are included in

Part 51 in order to meet the requirements of Section 127,

Public Notification, of the Act.

DATES: These regulations take effect upon promul-

gation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William

M. Cox, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-

14), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, En-

vironmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

N.C. 27711, phone: Commercial— (919) 541-5312; FTS—

629-5312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

The preamble to the August 7, 1978, Federal Register

proposal notice explained EPA’s concern with the quality,

completeness, and timeliness of air quality data collected

at the State local level. The monitoring regulations pro-

posed at that time were designed to eliminate the prob-

lems associated with data currently being submitted.

The regulations being promulgated today are, with the

exception of changes made due to public comment, the

same as those proposed. The changes made and the sub-

stantive comments received are summarized under the

appropriate headings below.

History

In October 1975, the Standing Air Monitoring Work

Group (SAMWG) was formed at the request of the Dep-

uty Administrator of EPA. The request was made in

response to recognition of deficiencies which existed in air

quality monitoring and data reporting programs of State

agencies. The purpose of SAMWG was to identify de

ficiencies and develop a program for correcting them.

Accordingly, SAMWG was composed of representatives

from EPA headquarters offices, EPA Regional Offices,

and State and local air pollution control agencies.

In June 1977, the strategy document containing

SAMWG’s analysis and recommendations was published

as: “Air Monitoring Strategy for State Implementation

Plans,” EPA-450/2-77-010, U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, June

1977. Basically the recommendations called for optimiza-

tion of monitoring networks and better controls on data

collection and handling.

On August 7, 1977, the Clean Air Act was amended;

one of the amendments being the addition of § 319 to the

Act. This Section requires EPA to establish monitoring

criteria to be followed uniformly across the nation. It

also requires major urban areas to report a uniform

daily index and provides that there be a national moni-

toring network to supplement but not duplicate monitor-

ing for SIP purposes.

The recommendations of SAMWG and the § 319 re-

quirements to a large extent overlap, especially in their

intent, i.e., higher quality air monitoring data. The regu-

lations proposed on August 7, 1978, therefore, addressed

both SAMWG and § 319. EPA believes that the regula-

tions being promulgated only will provide air monitoring

data of acceptable quality; comparable data from all

monitoring stations; optimum, cost-effective monitoring

networks; and timely data submission for national as-

sessment purposes.

General Discussion

It is apparent from reviewing public comments on the

proposal that some confusion exists with respect to the

regulations. Several commenters misunderstood the con-

cept of the monitoring network and the data reporting

requirements as set forth in the regulations. It is there-

fore appropriate at this time to provide another explana-

tion of the concept. EPA is revoking § 51.17 (40 CFR

Part 51) which previously required SIPs to provide for

monitoring air uality and is promulgating Part 58 which

contains new SIP monitoring requirements. Under the

new regulations a State will establish a network of

monitoring stations to monitor pollutants for which Na-

tional Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have

been established. This new network will actually be the

existing network with appropriate modifitions to conform

to criteria contained in Part 58. The network will be

designed such that stations are located in all areas where

the State and the EPA Regional Office decide that moni-

toring is necessary. The stations in the network will be

termed State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

(SLAMS). The regulations do not specify how large

the SLAMS network must be. The number and locations

of the SLAMS will be jointly determined by the State

and Regional Office as data needs dictate. The SIP will

contain provisions for establishing and operating the

SLAMS network. The data from the network will be

condensed and reported annually to EPA in a summary

report. The data from which the report is generated will

be available to EPA upon request if more detailed data

are required for some purpose. States may, however,

wish to store the data in the EPA National Air Data

Bank (NADB) if facilities are not available otherwise.

Using the NADB for full data storage will not relieve

the State of the responsibility of seeing that a summary

report is submitted each year.

It is anticipatedthat in most instances the new SLAMS

network will be smaller than existing networks. Certain

stations that are in areas with air quality consistently

better than the NAAQS are, in general, unnecessary.

Such stations can be eliminated. The majority of sta-

tions that will be eliminated from existing networks in

order to form the SLAMS network will likely be high-

volume Hi-vol) samplers for particulate matter and

SO. bubblers. The stations remaining in operation, re-

located stations, or new stations will then all be termed

SLAMS and make up the SLAMS network for purposes

of the SIP. If the State wishes to continue to operate

any station or establish a new station which is not a

SLAMS, it may do so. The station will not be considered

a SLAMS and will not be subject to any requirements

including data reporting. These additional stations will

be termed Special Purpose Monitoring (SPM) stations.

If, however, the State wishes to use data from an SPM

station as support for a SIP revision or control strategy

demonstration, then the requirements applicable to

SLAMS, otherthan reporting, must be met in order that

the data be of acceptable quality and comparability. The

SPM stations could be used, among other things, to do

special research studies, to monitor around a point source

for a short period, to determine if a specific area may

need a permanent SLAMS, or to monitor for pollutants

for which NAAQS have not been established.

Stations used to determine the impact of a source for

purposes of Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) would not be part of the SLAMS network nor

would they be considered SPM stations. PSD stations, in

general, would be operated only for periods of up to a

year and would be operated by the source owner or oper-

ator although a SLAMS could also serve as a PSD sta-

tion. In order that the PSD data be of acceptable quality

and comparable to SLAMS data, quality assurance re-

quirements for PSD stations are included in Part 58.

The fourth type of station covered by the regulations

is the National Air Monitoring Station (NAMS). The

regulations do not require establishing a separate net-

work of NAMS. The NAMS will be stations selected

from the SLAMS network. These stations will also

continue to be SLAMS and will be subject to all SLAMS

requirements, including the annual summary report. The

only distinguishing characteristings of NAMS will be:

1. Only continuous instruments will be used to monitor

gaseous pollutants.

2. The regulations specify a minimum number of

NAMS and locations for them.

3. Data from NAMS, in addition to being included

in the annual SLAMS summary report, will be reported

quarterly to EPA.

The NAMS concept of being established in order to

provide timely data to EPA from a national network

for national data analysis. The amount of data that will

be reported quarterly to EPA will be considerably less

than that required in 40 CFR 51.7, Reports, which is

being revoked. The concept of the NAMS addresses the

requirements of § 319 of the Act to establish a national

network. It is inconceivable that monitoring would be

required in any area for national analysis but not for

SIP purposes. Any area where a NAMS is needed, there-

fore, would be an area which should be covered by a

SLAMS. In order to avoid duplication of effort, the

NAMS will simply be a subset of the SLAMS instead

of a separate network measuring air quality in areas

already being measured by SLAMS.

A most important point to understand is that, while

there are minimum numbers of NAMS that must be

established, these minimum numbers are not a minimum

for the SLAMS network. There is no minimum or max-

imum size for the SLAMS network. The size of the

SLAMS network is to be determined based on charac-

teristics of any one area or State such as meteorology,

geography, population, and emission density. The NAMS

will typically be those SLAMS which represent locations

such as those having high pollutant concentrations, high

population exposure, or a combination of both. The

NAMS are being established only for the purpose of

providing EPA with timely data from the more important

stations across the nation. EPA does not believe that the

small number of NAMS will be adequate to meet all of

the SIP monitoring objectives. It is anticipated that the

number of NAMS will only be from 10% to 40% of

the total number of SLAMS.

The final point to be made with respect to this subject

is that EPA’s use of air quality data will not be limited

to NAMS. Important judgments or decisions will be

based on all data available which will include SLAMS

data.

In summary, there will be only one monitoring net-

work; the SLAMS network. Any additional monitoring

the States wishes to do will be SPM monitoring subject

to no requirements unless used for SIP purposes. Source

owners or operators will operate PSD stations, from

which the data will be periodically reported to the permit

granting authority. A certain number of select stations

from the SLAMS network will also be termed NAMS,

the data from which will be subject to an additional

reporting requirement.

Reorganization of Part 51

In an effort to make Part 51 more readable and un-

derstandable, EPA is reorganizing and expanding the

format of the regulations. The restructured regulations

will contain numerous subparts containing material for-

merly organized as sections. More headings will be used

and the reader will be able to more readily find appro-

priate requirements. Regulations being promulgated to-

day in Subparts J, O, and Q of Part 51 are in the new

format. Subsequent to this promulgation, other sections

of Part 51 will be rewritten and reorganized utilizing

the new format.

Ambient Monitoring for Lead

The preamble to the proposal of these monitoring reg-

ulations on August 7, 1978, stated that the regulations

requiring ambient lead monitoring (43 F R46264) would

be incorporated into Part 58 in this promulgation. Those

lead monitoring regulations which were promulgated Oc-

tober 5, 1978, in §51.17(b) of Part 51 required the

plan to provide for establishing lead monitoring stations;

specified an operation schedule of one 24-hour sample

every six days; required that a description of the moni-

toring system be available; specified a two-year time

limit on station establishment; and reference a guideline,

Supplementary Guideline for Lead Implementation Plans,

which contained additional information on monitor siting.

The lead monitoring regulations were promulgated simul-

taneously with the lead NAAQS.

At the time of promulgation of the lead regulations,

quality assurance criteria had not been developed for

lead. Rather than incorporate the § 51.17(b) regulations

alone into Part 58 in today’s promulgation, EPA will

propose and promulgate in Part 58 all the lead regula-

tions in one action which will include the § 51.17(b)

monitoring regulations, the siting criteria from the lead

guideline, and quality assurance criteria for lead which

is under development.

Acvompanying the October 5, 1978, promulgations of

the lead regulations and lead NAAQS was an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning am-

bient lead monitoring around primary and secondary lead

smelters and primary copper smelters. The notice indi-

cated that EPA was considering regulations to require

such point source monitoring in order to determine if

the sources were causing violations of the lead NAAQS

and whether additional or alternative control strategies

would therefore be necessary. The notice also indicated

that a guideline would be developed covering the num-

ber of necessary monitoring stations and siting param-

eters for monitoring around point sources. The guidelines

have been prepared—one for short-term monitoring to

obtain ambient lead air quality data essential for the

development of a lead control strategy (Guideline for

Short-Term Lead Monitoring in the Vicinity of Point

Sources) ; the other for longer term monitoring in order

to determine if point sources will cause NAAQS violations

after the attainment date and to estimate the contribu-

tion of fugitive emissions to such violations (Guideline

for Lead Monitoring in the Vicinity of Point Sources).

EPA has reevaluated the need for specific regulations

for lead monitoring around point sources and concludes

that monitoring point sources to determine NAAQS viola-

tions is an objective of the SLAMS network. In design-

ing a lead SLAMS network, the States and Regional

Offices should follow the long-term guideline (Guideline

for lead Monitoring in the Vicinity of Point Sources) in

order to assure that emissions from the point sources are

adequately monitored. An alternative would be for the

State to require the point source to conduct the monitor-

ing and report the data to the State. The data could then

be used for control strategy purposes provided they were

collected in accordance with the long-term point source

guideline.

Until such time as the lead monitoring regulations,

siting criteria, and quality assurance requirements are

incorporated into Part 58, States would be expected to

follow the siting and quality assurance criteria in the

long-term point source monitoring guideline.

Public Comments

The object of Federal Register proposals is to allow

comments on new regulations prior to thier promulgation

thereby providing an opportunity for the public to par-

ticipate in rulemaking. The bulk of the regulations pro-

posed August 7, 1978, were new regulations; however,

some of the regulatory material was simply being recodi-

fied. The.content or meaning of the recodified regulations

was not changed; the requirements were simply restruc-

tured and placed in new sections or appendices. Even-

tually all of 40 CFR Part 51 will be restructured in an

effort to make Part 51 more readable and easier to use.

The recodification taking place in these regulations is one

of the first steps toward the Part 51 restructuring.

Even though the proposal preamble specified which

regulations were not being changed, other than being re-

structured, EPA received public comments on some of

those unchanged regulations. The comments on the un-

changed regulations will be noted in this preamble but

EPA will not entertain suggestions for changing these

regulations at this time since the object of the proposal

was not repropose the regulatory content. The comments

may be used in the future to determine the need for re-

proposing and updating the regulations.

EPA received forty-six written comment letters on the

proposal of August 7, 1978. The origin of the letters is

as follows:

DP ME No cbc bxwtdcenbewboaseSeovesee oe 1

sic) cL cen eh behbecaneesceeek sane 1

ates ck ARR a dv eek ops nae adware 15

State Air Pollution Control Agencies ............. 16

Local Air Pollution Control Agencies ............. 13

aes Ce ERTS Sit eek de wnweeeia ed 46

The following discussion covers the substantive public

comments from the letters and any oral comments re-

ceived. The discussion is organized by subject matter. No

public comments were received on certain portions of the

proposed regulations; therefore, no discussion of those

portions of the regulations appears in this preamble. For

example, no comments were received on the regulations

proposed in response to § 127, Public Notification, and

§ 313, Additional Reports to Congress, of the Act. This

preamble primarily discusses only the public coments.

Detailed discussion of the regulations can be found in the

preamble to the August 7, 1978, proposal.

The full text of the letters and summaries of individ-

ual comments together with the action taken by EPA

and justification for that action will be available for pub-

lic inspection during normal business hours at the Public

Information Reference Unit, 401 M Street, S.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20460.

General Comments

The comments discussed under this heading were not

specific to any regulation or appendix but were general

comments or were comments on some aspect of the moni-

toring program covered by the regulations.

One commenter requested a public hearing and an eco-

nomic impact statement on § 51.25(n) (3) which requires

quality assurance procedures be applied to PSD monitor-

ing. The reasoning given for the request was based on

the impact of the PSD program. These regulations are

not concerned with the PSD program except to apply

quality assurance requirements to PSD monitoring. The

impact of just the PSD quality assurance requirements

falls far short of a level that would require an economic

impact statement. This comment would have been appro-

priately made in response to the PSD regulations which

were proposed in the Federal Register on November 3,

1977 (42 FR 57471).

One commenter felt that EPA should store and dis-

tribute. air quality data collected at PSD stations because

the cost of making it available to the public is prohibitive

to the States. EPA suggests that the cost of reproducing

and providing data to the public could be recovered by the

States through fees for such a service. Handling PSD

data at the State level where it is used will be much

more cost effective than EPA collecting, storing, and

providing the public with data from all over the nation.

Two commenters suggested that EPA should make data

from all stations (SLAMS, PSD, SPM) available to the

public within 90 days of the end of each quarter. Ex-

perience with obtaining air quality data shows this to be

an unworkable suggestion. One of the main purposes of

the NAMS concept is to mitigate data reporting problems

by striving to get just a portion of the data from the

SLAMS network to EPA within 90 days. The resources

it would take to get all data in within 90 days could

not be justified. Also, the historical usage of data from

the NADB indicates no need for availability of all SLAMS

data within 90 days. Concerning SPM data, the definition

of SPM stations provides that the data are primarily for

the State’s use. Data storage for PSD stations was dis-

cussed above.

Two commenters stated that there should be only one

type of station and that all data should be used for na-

tional assessment. The reasons for the types of stations

were discussed under the heading “General Discussion”

above. The discussion also pointed out that all SLAMS

data will be used by EPA in the course of making im-

portant decisions or assessments.

One commenter stipulated that special purpose monitor-

ing should be used for such things as particle sizing, or

background. SPM stations may be used for such pur-

poses but EPA, because of the definition of SPM stations,

will not set forth such a requirement. The factor most

affecting the degree to which a State carries out special

purpose monitoring is the availability of resources. EPA

does not wish to interfere with the allocation of any

monitoring resources available to a State above those re-

sources needed to implement the regulations being promul-

gated today.

One commenter emphasized the need to analyze air qual-

ity data on the basis of geographical distinctions. EPA

and the States take into account geographical, meteorolog-

ical, and other characteristics of monitoring sites when

evaluating ambient air quality data.

One commenter suggested that State air quality moni-

toring networks include stations in remote locations to

determine background or general pollution levels. EPA

feels that sufficient monitoring to determine background is

already underway and will remain so through monitoring

stations operated by EPA, Sta tes, other federal agencies,

PSD sources, ete.

Eight commenters objected to the elimination of certain

stations that will occur when networks are trimmed down

to form a cost effective SLAMS network. The basis for

the objection is that these stations have provided his-

torical data upon which trends can be based. EPA does

not feel that resources necessary to continue collecting

data of questionable quality can be justified for trends

purposes. In some cases the historical data quality is

simply not acceptable enough to preserve the site. Even

for sites which have provided good quality data, resources

would be much better utilized in upgrading the entire

network as these new regulations require rather than

continuing to operate unnecessary stations. One solution,

however, would be for the States to operate SPM sta*’ons

at the sites in question.

One commenter felt that EPA should declare valid all

data collected prior to today’s promulgation if the anal-

yzers meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 53 per-

taining to reference or equivalent methods. EPA cannot

make such a blanket declaration because the status of

an analyzer at the time of installation is not the only

factor which affects data validity. Siting of the instru-

ment and continued proper operation of the analyzer can

easily affect data quality. Also, it is not necessary to

obtain EPA approval in order to use previously collected

data. The preamble to the August 7, 1978, proposal dis-

cussed using historical data. To summarize that discus-

sion, the degree to which historical data can be used

depends on the intended use of the data and the degree to

which various factors have affected the data quality.

One commenter was concerned that the regulations do

not apply to local air pollution control agencies. It is true

that the regulations are in terms of requirements on

States; this reflects the language of the Clean Air Act.

The States must see that regulatory requirements are

met, but they can be met by a local agency to which the

State has delegated certain actions. In such an instance,

the State would still have the responsibility to see that

requirements are met. The regulations are thereby in-

directly binding on local agencies.

Three commenters stated that the material in the ap-

pendices to Part 58 should be in guideline form. One of

the commenters suggested that the regulations could then

require the guidelines to be followed. Such an approach

would not meet EPA’s intent. Guidelines are for the

purpose of indicating ways in which regulatory require-

ments may be carried out. Guidelines are not necessarily

binding and can be deviated from or not followed at all.

EPA has published guidelines on monitor siting and

quality assurance but the existence of those guidelines

did not prevent the current problems with data quality.

EPA’s intent is to establish binding criteria which will

be followed. The appendices have undergone the same

review procedures as the regulations and are to be con-

sidered as regulations. Also, by putting the material in

regulatory form, no changes can be made without pro-

posal for public comment in the Federal Register. Guide-

lines may be changed without any notice at all. Finally,

§ 319 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate air

quality monitoring criteria to be uniformly used nation-

wide.

Two commenters felt that certain portions of the regu-

lations should be reproposed. None of the regulations

have been substantively changed enough since proposal to

warrant reproposal. All significant changes that have

been made are due to public comment. Accordingly, no

portions will be reproposed.

Two commenters requested a public hearing on the

regulations; however, these requests were later with-

drawn. Since no other interest was expressed, no public

hearings was held.

One commenter asked that EPA describe in the regu-

lation a “scientific method for extrapolating the bound-

aries of a nonattainment area from a given ambient

monitoring site.” The commenter contends that there

exists an adequate body of scientific knowledge to permit

extrapolation of ozone nonattainment areas for many

hundreds of miles. EPA disagrees and does not believe

that sufficient information is now available to prescribe

a scientific method for determining nonattainment bound-

aries around a single monitoring station.

In a related matter, EPA recently responded [43 FR

6395] to comments submitted by the State of New J ersey

which challenged the Agency’s policy for designating

areas as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for

the ozone standard. New Jersey has argued that suf-

ficient technical evidence is available to require that EPA

mandate a nonattainment designation for all areas in the

eastern half of the country. In that notice, the Agency

determined that the scientific information relied upon by

New Jersey is not definitive enough to require that all

areas in the eastern portion of the country be designated

nonattainment.

The regulations being promulgated today reflect the

fact that monitoring stations are representative of only

a finite area within the vicinity of a station. Appendix D

to Part 58 describes the concept in terms of spatial scale

of representativeness which means the physical dimen-

sions of the air parcel nearest a monitoring station

throughout which actual pollutant concentrations are

reasonably similar. States are being asked to examine

their monitoring stations and apply the concepts de-

scribed in Appendix D to classify each station according

to the most appropriate spatial scale of representative-

ness. Such a determination requires the knowledge and

a case-by-case judgment of personnel who manage and

operate ambient monitoring networks. Factors to be con-

sidered by agencies in making these judgments include:

(1) the size and proximity of nearby sources, (2) geo-

graphical and topographical features around the station,

(3) pollutant formation and transformation processes,

(4) placement of the monitoring station relative to build-

ings, air flow obstructions, street canyons, etc. These

factors have a significant impact on spatial concentration

patterns and, thus, are important determinants of the

size of the area around a monitoring station having rea-

sonably homogeneous air quality.

EPA has one study underway that will attempt to

determine the horizontal representativeness of ground

level ozone measurements and the suitability of data

collected by aircraft as an indicator of ground level ozone

air quality. Ozone was chosen for this study since many

ozone monitors nationally are showing days exceeding

the ozone NAAQS and because of the controversy that

exists over the spatial representativeness of a single

ozone monitor. The results of this study will not be avail-

able for several months but will provide agencies with

additional technical information for classifying SLAMS

ozone stations and for reevaluating the boundaries of

nonattainment areas.

In some situations, special purpose monitoring studies

could be initiated by agencies to determine reasonable

boundaries for which data from a station (or class of

stations) are representative. Such a study might include

simultaneous measurements of pollutant levels at varying

distances from the station to be classified. These studies

are, however, expensive to conduct and may produce re-

sults which are applicable only to the station being evalu-

ated. EPA will continue to provide additional guidance

to States for determining the representativeness of sta-

tions as scientific data are accumulated and analyzed.

Several commenters asked that EPA specify the mini-

mum number of stations that are needed to define the

extent of nonattainment for any given pollutant. As

indicated in Appendix D, EPA does not believe that it is

practical to prescribe a set of criteria for determining

the number of stations that would be applicable for all

States. Factors that influence the size of a network and

must be considered when designing a network which in-

cludes the objective of defining the extent of nonattain-

ment are emission inventories, climatological summaries,

and local geographical characteristics. These factors can

vary widely from one area to another thus prohibiting the

specifications of a minimum number of stations for all

States. The optimum size of a particular SLAMS net-

work must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Two commenters stated that some provision should be

made for nonattainment areas that have been designated

on the basis of data from improperly sited stations. The

basic purpose for the criteria in Appendix E to Part 58

for siting monitors are twofold: (1) to promote uni-

formity in location of new monitoring stations, and (2)

to classify existing stations in terms of the most appro-

priate spatial scale of representativeness. The emphasis

is, thus, on improving the base of monitoring information

needed for making informed judgments about air quality.

Classification of existing stations according to the most

appropriate scale of representativeness will make data

more comparable among stations having similar classifi-

cations and will also provide an improved basis for de-

termining the geographical scope of nonattainment. In

most instances, stations not technically meeting the siting

criteria given in Appendix E cannot be excluded for pur-

poses of attainment/nonattainment. These stations are

simply measuring air quality over a scale smaller than

would be expected if the siting criteria were strictly

adhered to. The implication is that the scope of a non-

attainment area is linked to the actual spatial scale of

representativeness of a monitoring station—the smaller

the seale of representativeness at the station, the smaller

the geographical extent of nonattainment.

In some cases, existing stations may be producing data

not suitable for purposes of nonattainment decisions. On

September 11, 1978, a Federal Register notice (43 FR

40412) was published which amended nonattainment area

designations as required by section 107 of the Clean Air

Act. The preamble to that notice discussed provisions

that should be made as a result of TSP monitors not

sited in accordance with EPA siting criteria.

The policy stated for TSP in that notice was that only

those monitoring sites which are unduly influenced by

reentrained road dust can be excluded for establishing

the design values for SIP development work and for pur-

poses of nonattainment area designation. As explained

in that notice, an evaluation could be conducted to de-

termine if roadway influence is significant enough to

warrant disregarding the data from the monitor. A simi-

lar rationale could be applied for determining the appro-

priateness of nonattainment reclassification for other

pollutants.

Resources

Several commenters pointed out the need for additional

resources in order to meet the requirements of the regu-

lation involving instrumentation, siting, and quality as-

surance. EPA recognizes that in many instances, addi-

tional resources are needed and have been making in-

creased allocations to the States for monitoring through

the Section 105 Grants mechanism. For example, in FY-

1979, increases over FY-1978 allocations amounted to an

average of 500 thousand dollars per EPA Region. This

includes a total of 860 new analyzers to be purchased

nationally using FY-1979 Grants and State matching

funds. Similar increases in allocations are expected for

FY-1980 since the total 105 Grant monies available has

been increased.

Public Comments—Regulations

The following discussion covers the comments received

on specific regulations.

Section 51.822 Sources subject to emissions reporting.

One commenter stated that emissions from sources smaller

than the cut-off size stipulated in the regulations should

be allowed to be reported in the annual emissions report.

The regulations only establish the lower size limit for

sources which must be included in the report. The regu-

lation does not prevent States from including smaller

sources. Smaller sources are currently included in the

emissions report and may continue to be.

One commenter felt that the emissions reporting effort

was of little value and should be re-evaluated. Historical

usage of the emissions data in the NADB indicates ample

justification for emissions reporting. The emissions data

in the NADB have been and are being used in conjunc-

tion with such things as establishing new NAAQS, de-

termining the impact of New Source Performance Stand-

ards, establishing energy policies, developing national

emissions trends, and formulating volatile organic com-

pound emissions control policies in ozone nonattainment

areas.

Section 51.823 Reportable emissions data and infor-

mation. One commenter pointed out that the Hazardous

and Trace Emissions System (HATREMS) had not been

released for use. This was true at the time of proposal

but the system is now ready to accept emissions data.

Two commenters stated that new emissions data for a

source should not be required to be submitted unless the

emissions have changed by a specified amount. EPA agrees

and has revised the regulations to require reporting of

new emissions data only if the emissions have changed

by 5% or more since the last time the emissions were

reported. The regulation continues to require a yearly

update of the year of record of data which did not change.

The intent of the revisions to this section is that the data

in the NADB always be up-to-date either by having it

submitted in the last annual report or by having the year

of record of unchanged data updated.

One commenter pointed out that § 319 of the Act did

not cover emissions reporting and that the new require-

ments would create an additional burden on States and

emissions sources. It is true § 319 does not deal with

emissions reporting, but only a portion of the regulations

being promulgated today are in response to § 319. Some

of the regulations are in response to SAMWG recom-

mendations. The bulk of the requirements pertaining to

emissions reporting, however, are not new but are simply

being restructured. The emissions reporting regulations

have been in effect since August 3, 1973, and have been

in § 51.7 of 40 CFR Part 51. The minor revisions that

are being made should actually reduce the burden on

resources by changing the semi-annual report to an an-

nual report and extending the period within which it

must be submitted.

One commenter indicated that compliance with the

Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data (SAROAD)

format for emissions data would create an additional bur-

den. The requirement to report emissions is in terms of

the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) and not

SAROAD. The SAROAD format is for reporting am-

bient air quality data.

Section 58.1 Definitions. One commenter felt that the

definition of “local agency” should include Indian tribes

to which the State has delegated authority to carry out

a portion of the monitoring program. In response to

this comment, definitions of “Indian Reservation” and

“Indian Governing Body” have been added to § 58.1.

Also, in § 58.3 the applicability of the regulations has

been extended to Indian Governing Bodies which have

been delegated authority to monitor for SIP purposes.

Section 58.14 Special purpose monitoring. One com-

menter felt that no SPM activity would be conducted if

the data could not be used for SIP purposes. As discussed

above, SPM data can be used for SIPs if the criteria

applicable to SLAMS are followed. SPM activity is

strictly at the discretion of the State for any purpose

the State wishes.

Section 58.20 Air quality surveillance: Plan content.

One commenter pointed out that this section requires

submittal by January 1, 1980, of the SAROAD site Iden-

tification (ID) form for each SLAMS, but some of the

SLAMS will not be located at that time and no forms

will be available for those stations. An appropriate cor-

rection has been made to § 58.20 to require that on Jan-

uary 1, 1980, a schedule be submitted which would in-

clude a time frame for submission of site ID forms for

those stations which were not in existence on January 1,

1980.

Section 58.21 SLAMS network design. One commenter

stated that the Regional Offices of EPA should have no

control over the design of the SLAMS network. Such a

suggestion is contrary to the intent of the regulations.

The purpose of EPA participation in network design is to

insure that all monitoring necessary for purposes of the

SIP is carried out. The responsibilities of EPA with re-

spect to monitoring are comparable to those responsibili-

ties the Agency has of seeing that SIPs contain the

proper control regulations. Accordingly, a statement has

been added to § 58.21 that the final SLAMS network de-

sign is subject to the approval of the Regional Admin-

istrator.

Section 58.23 Monitoring network completion. One

commenter suggested that SLAMS in nonattainment

areas should be located and meet the monitoring criteria

earlier than the January 1, 19838, compilance date estab-

lished in this section. The completion date of January 1,

1983, applies to the entire SLAMS network. For those

stations which will also be designated as NAMS, how-

ever, the completion date is January 1, 1981. As pre-

viously stated, the NAMS will be certain select stations

from the SLAMS network and will represent such areas

as those of highest pollutant concentration or high popu-

lation exposure. EPA feels that through the NAMS

mechanism, acceptable data will be available at the earli-

est date that is economically feasible in most cases. These

completion dates for SLAMS and NAMS are only dead-

lines. If States wish to complete the network at an earlier

date, they may do so.

Section 58.24 Interim network. This section was

added to the regulations to provide that monitoring con-

tinue between today’s date (§ 51.17 is being revoked to-

day) and when the new monitoring plan is submitted

on or before January 1, 1980. Without this section there

would be no requirements for monitoring during that in-

terim period. It has been decided, however, that this re-

quirement is unnecessary since the existing SIPs contain

monitoring provisions and those SIPs will not be revoked

until the new monitoring plans are submitted. This sec-

tion is therefore deleted. If any revisions to the existing

monitoring plans are submitted, they will be approved

only if consistent with the new requirements being pro-

mulgated today. SIP revisions which have been sub-

mitted and were being acted upon prior to day’s date will

be judged in light of the former requirements under

which they were submitted if the State wishes. The State

will, however, be notified of any inconsistencies with

these new monitoring regulations.

Section 58.26 Annual SLAMS summary report. One

commenter requested that the EPA Regional Office gen-

erate the annual SLAMS report. The regulations requir-

ing the annual report place the responsibility for the an-

nual report on the State. How or where the report is

produced is at the discretion of the State. In many cases

the SLAMS data from which the annual report is gen-

erated will be submitted through the Regional Office for

storage in the NADB. For those States who have their

own storage facilities for their SLAMS data, the Regional

Office might not haev access to the data and so would

not be able to generate the annual report.

One commenter stated that certification of the annual

report by the State program director would serve no

useful purpose. The regulation has been changed to read

“the senior air pollution control officer in the State or his

designee.” The requirement is being retained because

EPA feels that it is the responsibility of the State to

certify that data are accurate. Any EPA decisions based

on such certified data can then be made with more con-

fidence than would be the case if States were not re-

quired to check the accuracy of the annual report.

Section 58.35 NAMS data submittal. One commenter

could not find data validation procedures in the AEROS

Users Manual and another commenter requested that the

validation procedures be published as an appendix and be

proposed for comment. At the time of proposal the proce-

dures had not been added to the AEROS manual but

this task has now been completed. The regulation has

been changed to require that data be edited and vali-

dated. The regulation then states that procedures for

doing so can ge found in the AEROS Users Manual. The

manual, therefore, acts as a guideline. EPA does not

feel it appropriate to make the editing and validation

procedures regulatory. Validation procedures are too

broad in scope and new procedures are evolving too rap-

idly to establish specific procedures. A regulatory ap-

proach would hamper innovative validation ideas.

One commenter felt that it should be made clear that

the SLAMS annual report does not satisfy the require-

ments for a NAMS quarterly report. Hopefully, this

has been done above under the heading “General Dis-

cussion.”

Section 58.50 Federal monitoring. One commenter

suggested that because of this section federal monitoring

may be the only monitoring done in the commenter’s

State. The language in this section is simply a state-

ment of an action that the Administrator may choose

and reflects the language of § 319 of the Act. Section

319 requires federal monitoring to supplement but not

duplicate State monitoring carried out for purposes of

the SIP. This requirement deos not assume that no SIP

monitoring will be done,

One commenter stated that any federal monitoring

should follow the criteria set forth for the States to

follow and another commenter felt that renegotiation

with the State should take place before federal stations

are established. Any federal monitoring will follow the

crit-ria as established in Part 58. If the possibility of

federal monitoring exists, the State will be notified and

given the opportunity to operate a station in the specific

location under consideration.

Section 58.51 Monitoring other pollutants. One com-

menter thought that public comment would severly slow

down action on the establishment of criteria for monitor-

ing other pollutants. The regulation, however, only states

that he Administrator may promulgate such criteria.

Such criteria could be established in guideline form.

One commenter felt that such a network would not

be limited to urban areas. The reference to urban areas

has been removed from this section.

Public Comments—Appendices A and B

Due to the similarity in Appendices A and B, public

comments on both appendices will be addressed under

the following discussion.

Two commenters suggested that the appendices should

allow audits of analyzers to be done with less than five

audit points or concentrations per audit. Also, one com-

menter requested that audit concentrations include higher

concentrations such as those encountered during air pol-

lution episodes. Both appendices have been revised to

require audits at only three concentration levels for nor-

mal monitoring and four concentrations in the case of

extended range monitoring for high pollutant concentra-

tions. Accuracy of monitoring data will now be assessed

at each audit point rather than using all audit points to

calculate a single accuracy value from a regression equa-

tion. With this modification, accuracy can be adequately

assessed with a reduced number of audit points.

Two commenters stated that the allowable intervals

for generating audit concentrations are too small. Both

appendices have been revised to allow larger concentra-

tion intervals at each audit level. These broadened in-

tervals will still allow accuracy to be assessed adequately

and will make generation of audit values easier.

Three commenters felt that the audit rate is too fre-

quent. EPA disagrees and feels that periodic auditing

of once per quarter is needed to assess accuracy of data.

Auditing less frequently than quarterly would be inade-

quate for accuracy assessment.

A number of different comments were addressed to the

portions of Appendices A and B concerning control of

the quality of data through policies and procedures. As a

result of considering the public comments, the quality con-

trol portions of the appendices have been rewritten. The

nature of this change is described below after the follow-

ing discussion of the public comments.

Seven commenters felt that five upscale points plus

zero are more than required to accurately define a cali-

bration curve. Eight commenters suggested that weekly

span checks be performed at a higher range. Four com-

menters felt that the acceptable limit for span drift is

too large. One commenter requested that a zero check

be performed. Three commenters stated that when ac-

ceptance limits for span checks are exceeded and cor-

rective action is performed, a span check should be

performed to determine if a complete recalibration is

necessary. Six commenters were concerned that the pro-

posed appendices provided no directions on whether, and

how, to adjust analyzers for zero and span drift. One

commenter stated that instrument calibration in a labora-

tory and subsequent transportation to the field is pre

cluded by the wording of the proposed appendices. Five

commenters felt that span checks should not be required

if the checks will interfere with monitoring during an

air pollution episode and one commenter was concerned

that no directions are given on validation of data as a

result of span checks. One commenter suggested allowing

zero, span, and calibration gases to be introduced directly

into the instrument and not through a manifold.

Consideration of the above comments brought about a

reanalysis of the need for the detailed quality control re-

quirements that had been proposed in Appendices A and

B. The quality assurance program now required by Ap-

pendices A and B is based on two distinct and equally

important functions. The first function is quality control

which consists of controlling the quality of data through

policies and procedures such as calibration practices, zero

and span checks and adjustments, preventive maintenance

schedules, and training and expertise of operators. The

second function is the assessment of the data quality in

terms of their precision and accuracy. For the sake of

national uniformity, the assessment function is specified

quite explicitly in the appendices. From review of public

comments, however, it became apparent that the explicit

quality control requirements which were proposed in Ap-

pendices A and B were not appropriate due to the nature

and complexity of quality control. There are many prob-

lems or situations which can better be solved at the State

level and which detailed requirements cannot account for.

Accordingly, the quality control requirements have been

revised and are now specified in general terms. The

States are required by Appendix A to develop a detailed

quality control program which is acceptable to the Re

gional Administrator. A State can now design a quality

control program which is specific to its situation and

which will be approvable as long as it provides for data

of acceptable quality.

Two commenters requested a definition of agency with

respect to precision and accuracy reports. The concept

of a “reporting organization” has been introduced in

Appendix A and a definition provided. Precision and

accuracy should be reported for groups of monitors hav-

ing the same laboratory and field support. The concept

of a reporting organization provides for such reporting.

One commenter felt that collocated monitors for man-

ual methods should not be fixed but should be permitted

to be rotated throughout a State. In order to provide for

precision and accuracy analyses for each reporting or-

ganization, collocated monitors must be maintained in

each area covered by a reporting organization. The re

quirement for two collocated sites for manual methods

in each area covered by a reporting organization will be

retained.

One commenter pointed out that many station site con-

figurations will not ailow collocated monitors to be three

meters apart. A wording change has been made to re-

quire collocated monitors to be between two and four

meters apart.

Three commenters stated that the “t” statistic should

be used in equations five and six of Appendix A and equa-

tions four and five of Appendix B rather than the “z”

statistic. EPA disagrees and is maintaining the “z”

statistic which is appropriate for probability limits.

One commenter requested that EPA emphasize the fact

that traceability of calibration and audit gases to the

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) standard reference

materials (SRM) does not mean using NBS SRM’s as

the calibration or audit standards per se. Also, one com-

menter suggested allowing traceability of calibration and

audit gases to the same set of NBS SRM’s. Language

has been added to Appendices A and B to allow for these

two suggestions.

One commenter stated that the quality assurance pro-

gram would cause delays in data submittal due to audits

and removal of suspect data. EPA disagrees that delays

will occur and maintains that audits are a necessary part

of quality assurance.

One commenter felt that a system audit should be re-.

quired for PSD monitoring. Appendix B has been revised

to allow the permit granting authority or EPA to conduct

a system audit.

One commenter asked when the requirements of Ap-

pendix B take effect. The regulations have been revised

to specify that for new stations, the requirements take

effect when the station is established, and for existing

stations, the requirements take effect at the discretion

of the permit granting authority, but no later than

January 1, 1980.

Public Comments—Appendix C

Since Appendix C was proposed on August 7, 1978,

portions of Section 2.6 and the entire Section 4 have

been rewritten. One purpose of these revisions is to allow

analyzers to be used for monitoring during those times

whenair pollution levels rise above the ranges on which

the analyzers have been designated for use as reference

or equivalent methods. If higher, undesignated ranges

are used, the use of the analyzer would no longer be

considered a reference or equivalent method and would

not be approved for use in a SLAMS. Provisions in the

regulations were needed which indicated that monitoring

should continue during periods of high concentrations

and stipulated the acceptable ranges for use during those

periods. Such provisions have been added to Appendix C

in Section 2.6. Section 4 of this appendix addresses the

problem of short-term particulate measurements for pur-

poses of tracking air pollution episodes. The reference

method for particulate mater, the Hi-vol sampler, is not

designed to give real time data. Section 4 describes in-

struments that may be used for short-term measurements

of particulate matter.

As revised, Section 2.6 of Appendix C allows an ana-

lyzer to be used on a range higher than that designated

for the analyzer if it is an analyzer approved for

use as a reference or equivalent method, or on a range

higher than the range accepted for use under Section 2.5

of this appendix. Section 2.5 allows an analyzer which

has not been designated for use as a reference or equiv-

alent method to be used if it were purchased before Feb-

ruary 18, 1975, and if it passes all the performance

specifications for reference or equivalent methods except

the range requirement found in Table B-1 of 40 CFR

Part 53. The range accepted for use must not extend

to higher than two times the range limit of Table B-1.

The higher ranges allowed by Section 2.6 are in two

categories. The first category is a range less than or

equal to two times the Table B-1 limit. The second

category is a range more than two times the Table B-1

limit. Use of the higher ranges is limited to areas where

and to periods of time when, high concentrations are

likely to occur. This restriction will require the use of the

most sensitive range capable of measuring any given

concentration. The restriction is not meant to cause a

continual switching of ranges (unless an instrument does

this automatically) when concentrations frequently vary

between two ranges. Through a case-by-case determina-

tion, certain analyzers may be continually operated at a

higher range during seasons and in areas where con-

centrations occur in that range frequently enough to

justify continual operation.

Section 4 requires, for purposes of particulate episode

monitoring, use of methods which give real time data

such as modified Hi-vol procedures, tape samplers, or

any other appropriate device. In order to use methods

other than the Hi-vol, however, a quantitative relation-

ship to the Hi-vol (operated under reference method pro-

cedures) must be established at the site where the method

will be used. It is necessary to establish a site-specific

relationship because the relationship between Hi-vols and

other methods varies with location. Procedures for es-

tablishing a quantitative relationship are contained in

“Guidance for Selecting TSP Episode Monitoring Meth-

ods,” OAQPS No. 1.2-114.

As now written, Appendix C provides that all pol-

lutants for which NAAQS have been established, except

lead, should be monitored during periods of high con-

centrations so that real-time data will be available for

tracking air pollution episodes. Such short-term monitor-

ing is not required for lead because episode levels have

not been established for that pollutant.

The following discussion covers the substantive public

comments received on Appendix C.

One commenter requested an explanation of Section 2.2

which allows SO., CO, or O, analyzers purchased prior

to February 18, 1976, to be used until February 18, 1980,

and allows NO, analyzers purchased prior to January 8,

1978, to be used until January 3, 1980. This section is

only meant ot limit the use of non-reference or non-

equivalent methods until the two deadline dates. Any

instrument designated for use as a reference or equiv-

alent method may be used indefinitely unless the designa-

tion is withdrawn.

Four commenters stated that it would be too costly

to replace after February 18, 1980, SO., CO, O, analyzers

which have not been approved for use as reference or

equivalent methods. This requirement in Sction 2.2 is

not a new requirement but was promulgated on Feb-

ruary 18, 1975, in 40 CFR 51.17a. The requirement was

established to allow States adequate time te replace

analyzers requirements or for which equivalency testing

would not or could not be done for various reasons.

One commenter suggested that EPA perform equiv-

alency tests on analyzers that the manufacturers were

untinterested in testing. Considering the time period

that has been allowed for analyzer replacement, the num-

ber of analyzers that would have to be tested, the un-

reasonably costly modifications that would have to be

made to some analyzers, and the resource constraints

on EPA, such a suggestion cannot be justified.

One commenter felt that the range requirement for

reference or equivalent methods should be increased by

two. A range up to twice that allowed in Table B-1 of

40 CFR Part 53 is currently permitted under 53.20(b).

Four commenters indicated that the current reference

method for particulate matter measures large particules

which do not cause health related effects. One of the

commenters suggested a more comprehensive monitoring

system that determines size and composition of particles.

The existing NAAQS for particulate matter are for total

suspended particulates as measured by the existing ref-

erence method (the Hi-vol). Tl regulations being pro-

mulgated today do not modify the particulate matter

NAAQS nor the reference method. The standard for

particulate matter is currently being re-evaluated as

required by the Clean Air Act. Any changes to the

standard and to the reference method will be made as

a result of that re-evaluation.

One commenter was confused as to how Coefficient of

Haze (COHs) will be replaced in 40 CFR 51.16 and

Appendix L to Part 51. The action to remove COHs

resulted from the fact that there is no single, nationally

consistent relationship between the tape sampler, which

provides particulate concentrations in terms of Coef-

ficient of Haze (COHs), and the Hi-vol which provides

data in terms of micrograms per cubic meter. Appendix

C allows the use of tape samplers for air pollution episode

monitoring, but only if a quantitative relationship to the

Ho-vol is established at the use site. The tape sampler

data can then be translated directly into micrograms per

cubic meter, eliminating the need to express the data

in terms of COHs.

Three commenters were confused as to what particulate

samplers could be used for monitoring air pollution epi-

sodes. It appears to the commenters that they would have

to develop new methods. As stated above in the discussion

of the changes to Appendix C, any method can be used

for TSP episode monitoring if it provides real time data

and a quantitative relationship to the Hi-vol can be

established at the use site. Procedures for using a Hi-vol

over short periods or staggered Hi-vols may also be used

for episode monitoring.

Three commenters felt that it would be impractical to

change the range of an analyzer when concentrations rose

above the range limit being used and to change back to

a lower range when concentrations fell. As explained

above, analyzers may be used continually at higher ranges

when the frequency of high concentrations justifies con-

tinual use.

Public Comments—Appendix D

The following discussion covers public comments re-

ceived on the proposed Appendix D to Part 58.

One commenter was concerned with calling a CO sta-

tion that measures maximum concentrations a middle

scale station. Since these stations in many cases would

represent midblock hotspot concentrations, which is the

microscale, a microscale designation has been added to

Appendix D.

One commenter suggested that an urban scale station

for particulate matter was needed. In response, Appendix

D has been modified to indicate that the SLAMS net-

work could contain an urban scale particulate matter sta-

tion, but there is no requirement for an urban scale

NAMS for particulate matter.

One commenter pointed out that while the total re-

quired number of TSP and SO, NAMS is given in Ap-

pendix D, no guidance is given as to how many stations

should be in the maximum concentration category and

how many should be in the population exposure category.

The Appendix has been clarified to indicate that there

should be at least one NAMS in each category for each

pollutant (TSP and SO,) but the remaining stations

should be categorized based on the characteristics of the

area.

One commenter pointed out that there could be difficulty

in following the Appendix D instructions to minimize the

impact of point sources on NAMS. EPA recognizes the

difficulty in locating stations with respect to point source

impact. However, EPA believes that the information con-

tained in Appendix E and in the references cited in

Appendix E is sufficient for locating stations which are

not unduly influenced by any single source.

Two commenters questioned the fact that no NAMS

were required for areas under 50,000 population even

though there may be violations. As previously stated

under the heading “General Discussion,” the requirement

establishing the number of NAMS necessary for certain

areas is not to be considered the minimum number of

stations required in the SLAMS network. The NAMS

concept is meant to provide timely data from selected

stations in the SLAMS network for purposes of national

assessment. The national assessment needs will be met

by data from areas over 50,000 population. The SLAMS

network will also cover areas below 50,000, but none of

those stations will be designated NAMS.

One commenter felt that more TSP and SO, stations

are needed than are required by Appendix D. EPA feels

the number of SO, and TSP NAMS that are required are

sufficient for national data needs. EPA also believes that

many more stations will be needed in the SLAMS network

than the number required for NAMS. Data from all

SLAMS will be considered in any important decision-

making process.

One commenter suggested deactivating NAMS in se-

lected areas for a year at a time on a rotational basis.

This suggestion is contrary to one of the purposes of

NAMS; namely, trends analysis. Also, the NAMS will

be among hte more important stations in the SLAMS

network which is further justification for maintaining

NAMS in operation.

One commenter favored the use of laser spectroscopy

methods to measure TSP over a wide area. As discussed

previously, the TSP standard is based on measurements

of particulate matter by the TSP reference method which

is the Hi-vol sampler. Use of laser spectroscopy measure-

ments considering the nature of the data produced. The

method could, however, be used as SPM or for monitoring

TSP episodes if a quantitative correlation to the Hi-vol

can be established. |

Two commenters felt that meteorological data should

be collected at each NAMS. The collection of meteorologi-

cal data at each NAMS is recommended but not required.

At the present time EPA does not believe it would be cost

effective to establish such a meteorological data network

considering the resources that would be required.

One commenter felt that interstate and inter-regional

cooperation is needed for network design. EPA agrees

and is striving to attain this goal by having Regional

Office involvement in SLAMS network design and by

having EPA headquarters involvement in choosing NAMS

sites.

Public Comments—Appendix E

The following discussion addresses the public comments

received on the proposed Appendix E to Part 58.

One commenter felt that more spatial scales of repre-

sentativeness were needed in order to classify all the

stations in the SLAMS network. EPA agrees and has

added more scales. These additional scales will allow

more leeway in meeting the monitoring objectives of the

SLAMS network.

One commenter requested clarification of the usage of

the words “must” and “should” when applied to siting

criteria. A statement has been added which stipulates

that all “musts” indicate a requirement and all “shoulds”

indicate criteria that do not have to be followed but which

would be desirable to follow for the sake of consistency.

Eight commenters stated that the siting criteria are

too restrictive and one commenter felt that waivers should

be granted for some of the required siting criteria. Some

of the siting criteria for CO, O;, and NO, have been

relaxed. Most of the siting criteria are tied to a specific

monitoring scale and if the criteria are not met, the sta-

tion location might represent a different scale. For those

instances where it is impossible to meet a certain siting

parameter, a waiver provision has been added. It is

anticipated that waivers will primarily be used for exist-

ing sites and that stations in new locations will be able to

meet the criteria.

Two commenters requested specifications for probe

material and residence time of the air sample within

the probe. A new section has been added containing probe

material and residence time specifications. EPA agrees

that these factors are as important as other criteria in

terms of the effect on data quality and comparability.

One commenter suggested using the word “probe” in-

stead of “monitor” when specifying siting criteria. This

—_ =

change has been made for clarification in the portions of

Appendix E applicable to gases. For TSP it is appro-

priate to speak in terms of monitor siting.

One commenter felt that the curve specifying setback

distances from roads for TSP stations is too restrictive.

The wording has been changed to indicate that the “ac-

ceptable zone” defined by the siting criteria is for stations

designated as neighborhood, urban, regional, and for most

middle scale stations. If a station is located closer to

a roadway than specified in the criteria, it would repre-

sent a smaller geographical area and thus would most

likely be classified as a middle scale station.

One commenter stated that the criterion specifying

setback distances from roadways for TSP is ambiguous

where it refers to “several thousand vehicles per day.”

The wording has been changed to read “approximately

8,000 vehicles per day.”

One commenter noted a conflict in the criterion estab-

lishing distances from roadways for TSP and for CO.

CO stations should be Iccated near roadways because the

roadway will most likely be the only source of CO. Neigh-

borhood sites for TSP, however, are meant to represent

a multisource situation and should be separated from

roadways so that the air quality measurements are not

totally dominated by the roadway.

One commenter felt that there should be no fixed mini-

mum or maximum setbacks distances from roadways for

CO. A table for neighborhood scale CO station setback

distances from roadways based on average daily traffic

has been added to Appendix E. This table, consisting of

a range of minimum setback distances, will give more

leeway for station siting and should result in data which

are more comparable from location to location.

Three commenters stated that the minimum roadway

setback distances for ozone are too restrictive and two

commenters expressed the same opinion about the NO,

criteria. The roadway setback distances for O, and NO,

have been revised according to new data available since

proposal. The criteria are now less restrictive.

One commenter pointed out that for TSP and NO,, sta-

tions cannot be located in areas of hi-rise buildings be-

cause of the criterion specifying distance to obstacle

heights. Another commenter pointed out the same for

SO, stations. The eriterion alluded to is for neighborhood

scale stations. If the criterion cannot be met because a

station has to be located such that the distance to an

obstacle is less than twice the height of that obstacle

above the probe, the station would be classified as a

middle scale station.

One commenter indicated that if a monitor probe is

located on the side of a building that it will be im-

possible to meet the criterion of unrestricted air flow in

three of four cardinal wind directions. Two other com-

menters noted that the criterion requiring SO, monitor

probes to be located less than 80% of the mean height

of the building on which the probe is located is in con-

flict with the 3-wind direction criteria. The language con-

cerning air flow has been changed to read an are of

270° instead of three to four wind directions. In addi-

tion, a statement has been added which stipulates that

a monitor probe located on the side of a building must

only have unobstructed air flow for 180°. Also, the

criteria concerning 80% of mean building height has

been deleted since it is redundant. The situation is

covered by other SO, citing criteria in Appendix E

which limits probe height to between 3 and 15 meters.

One commenter indicated that if TSP stations are not

allowed to be located in unpaved areas unless there is a

vegetative ground cover, large areas around some sta-

tions will have to be paved. The criterion concerning

unpaved areas is in terms of “should” and not “must”.

The criterion, therefore, does not have to be strictly

followed.

One commenter felt that the criterion establishing min-

imum distances of O, stations from trees cannot be

met. The criterion concerning separation of O, stations

and trees has been put in terms of “should” instead of

“must”.

Two commenters indicated that the criteria limiting

CO monitor probes to 8 meters + 14 meter above ground

is not practical and would require vandal-proof enclos-

ures. EPA understands the concerns of these two com-

menters; however, the height restrictions are the best

compromise that can be made between seeking to be

vandal-proof and still representing the breathing zone.

It has been determined that there is a significant vertical

gradient for CO concentrations in the intercity, street

canyon environment. For the neighborhood scale station

which is more removed from traffic, the height restric-

tion is not as critical since vertical concentration grad-

ients are not as commenter suggested, the criteria has

been changed to allow monitor probes to be located 3

to 15 meters above ground for neighborhood scale sta-

tions.

Public Comments—Appendix F

The following discussion pertains to public momments

received on the proposed Appendix F of Part 58.

One commenter pointed out that gaseous pollutants as

measured on continuous analyzers are in units of parts

per million (ppm) and should be reported that way in

the annual SLAMS report. EPA agrees and has made

appropriate changes to the data reporting requirements.

One commenter requested that EPA address the incon-

sistency between the use of discrete versus running aver-

ages in comparing standards for CO and SO,. The an-

nual reporting requirements have been modified by re-

quiring that for both CO and SO, the highest and second

highest nonoverlapping eight-hour and 24-hour averages,

respectively, be reported. These requirements are con-

sistent with the EPA guidance in interpretating air

quality data with respect to the standards (OAQPS

Guideline No. 1.2-008). Both the SO, and CO standards

will be reviewed in 1979 and 1980, when a decision on

the need to revise the standards will be made. This

could change the reporting requirements for these pollu-

tants.

One commenter questioned who would sign the annual

SLAMS summary report if some of the data were pro-

vided by local agencies of the State. The regulation,

§ 58.26, has been revised to indicate that the senior air

pollution control officer in the State or his designee will

certify the accuracy of the report. The certification state-

ment should indicate that the data were collected under

regulations that were applicable during the monitoring

period. Even though a local agency collects data, the

State is still responsible for assuring that the data are

collected according to the criteria established in Part

58. If the State is assured of correct data collection, there

should be no problem with the report being certified

at the State level.

One commenter requested that precision and accuracy

information be included in the annual SLAMS summary

report. EPA agrees and such a requirement has been

added to the regulations.

One commenter felt that the monitoring operation

schedule should be included in the annual report. EPA

feels that such a requirement would be too burdensome

to justify. Inclusion of the monitoring operating sched-

ule in the annual report, however, is encouraged if States

have the time and resources and wish to do so.

Public Comments—Appendix G

The following discussion concerns the public comments

received on the proposed Appendix G to Part 58.

Nine commenters requested that the descriptor words

used to identify air quality conditions for the various

ranges of daily air pollution index values be changed.

Because the index is for the purpose of achieving na-

tional uniformity of daily air quality reports as required

by § 819 of the Act, the use of descriptor words other

than those proposed is not permitted unless approved by

the EPA Administrator. None of the suggested descrip-

tor words appears superior to those proposed.

Two commenters indicated that the breakpoints sep-

arating the air quality index ranges should correspond to

levels of State air quality standards and air pollution

episodes instead of national standards, national signifi-

cant harm levels, and EPA suggested episode levels. In

order to achieve national uniformity, federal standards,

suggested episode levels, and significant harm levels must

be used. Index values of 200, 300 and 400 for the most

part correspond to the federal alert, warning, and emer-

gency episode levels given in Appendix L to Part 51.

However, because many factors, including meteorological

conditions, are taken into account before triggering epi-

sode control actions, reported index values and the call-

ing of an episode do not always correspond. Variable

breakpoints from State to State would not satisfy the

§ 319 requirements for a uniform index.

The index has been modified to reflect the new ozone

NAAQS of 0.12 p.p.m. (235 »g/m*) which was promul-

gated in the Federal Register on February 8, 1979 (44

FR 8202). The index value of 100 for ozone corresponds

to this new level of the standard. The new standard

replaces the previous photochemical exidant standard

level of 0.08 p.p.m. (160 »g/m').

Two. commenters disagreed with the proposed proce-

dure of reporting only the index of the pollutant of

highest concentration (subindex). They felt that an in-

dex based on the reporting of the maximum subindex

value would be insufficient and would mask the signifi-

cance of other pollutants and their impact on health and

environmental quality. The Appendix G requirements do

not prevent a State from reporting subindices for other

pollutants. Appendix G suggests that a State should

report the other subindices, but it is left to the State’s

discretion whether it will be done.

Three commenters suggested basing the TSP subin-

dex on COHs. As stated previously under the discus-

sion of Appendix C, a tape sampler may be used for

episode or daily index purposes if a site specific quan-

titative relationship to the Hi-vol is established.

‘_~

Two commenters requested that the breakpoint be-

tween the good range and the moderate range for TSP

and O, be raised to account for higher levels which are

due to naturally occuring backgorund levels of the two

pollutants. EPA disagrees that the breakpoints should

be changed. Air quality is good or bad because of am-

bient concentrations regardless of the source or cause of

the concentrations. Language has been added to Appendix

G, however, which recommends reporting information and

causes for unusually high concentrations.

One commenter was concerned that index values

would be used to compare air quality in different areas.

EPA does not encourage the use of index values for air

quality comparisons from area to area. The index is

for the purpose of giving citizens in a specific area an

idea of the quality of air they will encounter on a

daily basis.

Two commenters stated that EPA should public health

effects criteria before promulgating Appendix G. Spe

cifically, concentrations of SO, defined as “significant

harm” should be supported by published health effects

research data. The EPA Office of Public Affairs has

prepared for the public a brochure which discusses the

Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) and presents pollutant

specific health effects. The brochure (Measuring Air

Quality—The New Pollutant Standards Index, July, 1978,

OPA, 11/8) is available from the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, Library (MD-35), Research Triangle

Park, N.C. 27711. Health effects associated with the sig-

nificant harm level for SO, can be found in “Air Quality

Criteria for Sulfur Oxides,” U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C., AP-50, April

1970. The information in the criteria document will be

re-examined by EPA when the SO, NAAQS are reviewed

during 1979 and 1980. After review of the latest data

on health effects and the criteria document, a decision

will be made as to the need to revise the SO, standards.

One commenter did not think that real-time data will

be available for determining a daily index. EPA dis-

agrees and feels that data can be made available at

times when it is needed for index calculation.

One commenter felt that public acceptance of the index

is doubtful. Since the PSI, which is the basis for the

Appendix G index, was published, it has been generally

well accepted throughout the country and has been adopt-

ed by 15 State agencies and is reported by State or local

agencies in 24 States.

One commenter stated that the index is not ap-

plicable to a large metropolitan area, such as the Los

Angeles Basin. Appendix G recommends that the index

be reported for multiple sub-regions within a metro-

politan area and should at a minimum include the re-

gion with the highest subindex.

One commenter indicated that implementation of this

index would create serious administrative problems, es-

pecially the proposed recording of index values. The re-

porting requirements in Appendix G are minimal, re-

quiring that the reporting agency keep annual records

of the frequency with which reported index values occur

in each of the index descriptor categories.

Two commenters requested that the index be reported

on weekends and holidays as well as weekdays. The re-

quirement to report the index only at least five days

per week, presummable the normal workweek, does not

restrict an agency from reporting every day. If an agency

has the resources to do so. EPA encourages index re-

porting every day.

Two commenters felt that the index breakpoint of 100

for the NO, subindex and the subindex for the product

of TSP and SO, should be based on State short-term

standards or their equivalent because there are no short-

term standards for NO, and the product of SO, and TSP.

EPS is presently considering a short-term NO, standard.

(For the other pollutants the breakpoint of 100 is based

on short-term NAAQS.) The exemption provision in Ap-

pendix G allows a State or local agency to petition the

Administrator and request such a modification to the

index.

Review of Public Comments

Copies of the public comments received on the pro-

posal of these regulations on August 7, 1978, are avail-

able for public inspection during normal business hours

at the Public Information Reference Unit, 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Effective date: These regulations promulgated herein

take effect on June 11, 1979.

Dated: April 27, 1979.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

PART 51—REGULATIONS FOR AMBIENT AIR

QUALITY MONITORING AND DATA REPORTING

Part 51 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as followz:

1. The table of contents to this part is amended by

adding, Subpart J and Subpart O in the appropriate

places, the following:

* * * * +

Subpart J—Ambient Air Quality Surveillance

§ 51.190 Ambient air quality monitoring requirements.

* * - * *

Subpart O—Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements

§ 51.285 Public notification.

* + * 7 *

Subpart Q—Reports

Air Quality Data Reporting

§ 51.820 Annual air quality data report.

Source Emissions and State Action Reporting

§ 51.821 Annual source emissions and State action

report.

§ 51.822 Sources subject to emissions reporting.

§ 51.323 Reportable emissions data and information.

§ 51.324 Progress in plan enforcement.

§ 51.825 Contingency plan actions.

§ 51.326 Reportable revisions.

§ 51.327 Enforcement orders and other State actions.

§ 51.328 Plan prescribed actions.

* * * »

2. Section 51.3 is amended by revising the second sen-

tence in paragraph (c) to remove the reference to § 51.17.

As amended, § 51.8(c) reads as follows:

§ 51.3 Classification of regions.

* * * * *

Regions shall be the same as those for other Priority I

regions, except that the requirements applicable to Pri-

ority II regions under § 51.16 shall apply. * * *

8. Section 51.6 is amended by revising paragraph (e)

to remove the reference to the § 51.7 semiannual report

and adding a reference to the annual report required by

§ 51.821. As amended, § 51.6(e) reads as follows:

§ 51.6 Revisions.

* * aa * ”

(e) Revisions other than those covered by paragraphs

(a) and (d) of this section must be identified and de-

scribed in the next annual report required by § 51.321.

§ 51.7 and 51.17 [Reserved]

4. Sections 51.7 and 51.17 are revoked and reserved.

5. Section 51.13 is amended by revising the second sen-

tence of paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 51.13 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate

matter.

ca a a * *

(g) * * * Actual meansurements must be used where

available if based on use of the measurement methods

specified in Appendix C to Part 58 of this chapter. * * *

§ 51.15 [Amended]

6. Section 51.15 is amended by revoking paragraph

(a) (2).

7. Section 51.16 is amended by removing the two ref-

erences to “COHs” in paragraph (a). As amended,

§ 51.16(a) reads as follows:

§ 51.16 Prevention of air pollution emergency episodes.

(a) sn *

Particulate matter—1,000 micrograms/cubic meter; 24-

hour average.

Sulfur dioxide and particulate matter combined—prod-

uct of sulfur dioxide in micrograms/cubic meter, 24-hour

average, and particulate matter in micrograms/cubic

meter, 24-hour average, equal to 490X10*.

§51.17a [Revoked]

8. Section 51.17a is revoked.

9. Section 51.24 is amended by adding paragraph (n)

(3) to read as follows:

$51.24 Prevention of significant deterioration of air

quality.

& * a * *

(n) ** #

(8) The owner or operator shall meet the requirements

of Appendix B to Part 58 of this chapter during the

operation of monitoring stations required by paragraph

(n) (1) of this section as follows:

(i) No later than January 1, 1980, for existing sta-

tions, or

(ii) For new stations, at the time the station is put

into operation.

§ 51.59 [Reserved]

10. Section 51.59 is revoked and reserved.

11. Subpart J consisting of § 51.190 is added to read

as follows:

Subpart J—Ambient Air Quality Surveillance

§ 51.190 Ambient air quality monitoring requirements.

The requirements for monitoring ambient air quality

for purposes of the plan are located in Subpart C of

Part 58 of this chapter.

12. Subpart O consisting of § 51.285 is added to read

as follows:

Subpart O—Miscellaneous Plan Content Requirements

§ 51.285 Public notification.

By March 1, 1980, the State shall submit a plan re-

vision that contains provisions for:

(a) Notifying the public on a regular basis of in-

stances or areas in which any primary standard was ex-

ceeded during any portion of the proceeding calendar

year.

(b) Advising the public of the health hazards asso-

ciated with such an exceedance of a primary standard,

and

(1) measures which can be taken to prevent a pri-

mary standard from being exceeded, and

(2) ways in which the public can participate in regu-

latory and other efforts to improve air quality.

13. Subpart Q is added to read as follows:

Subpart Q—Reports

Air Quality Data Reporting

§ 51.820 Annual air quality data report.

The requirements for reporting air quality data col-

lected for purposes of the plan are located in Subpart

C of Part 58 of this chapter.

Source Emissions and State Action Reporting

§ 51.321 Annual source emissions and State action report.

On an annual (calendar year) basis beginning with

calendar year 1979, the State agency shall report to the

Administrator (through the appropriate Regional Of-

fice) information as specified in Sections 51.823 through

51.326. Reports must be submitted by July 1 of each

year for data collected and actions which took place dur-

ing the period January 1 to December 31 of the previous

year.

§ 51.322 Sources subject to emissions reporting.

(a) Point sources subject to the annual emissions re-

porting requirements of § 51.321 are defined as follows:

(1) For particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrocar-

bons, and nitrogen dioxide, any facility that actually

emits a total of 90.7 metric tons (100 tons) per year

or more of any one pollutant.

(2) For carbon monoxide, any facility that actually

emits a total of 907 metric tons (1000 tons) per year

or more.

(3) For lead or lead compounds measured as elemental

lead, any facility that actually emits a total of 4.5 metric

tons (5 tons) per year or more.

(b) Annual emissions reporting requirements apply

only to emissions of each pollutant from any individual

emission point within the facility that emits:

(1) For particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrocar-

bons, and nitrogen dioxide, 22.7 metric tons (25 tons)

per year or more.

(2) For carbon monoxide, 227 metric tons (250 tons)

per year or more.

(3) For lead or lead compounds measured as ele-

mental lead, 4.5 metric tons (5 tons) per year or more.

§ 51.823 Reportable emissions data and information.

(a) The State shall submit in the annual report the

following emissions data and information:

(1) Emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and hydrocarbons as

specified by AEROS Users Manual, Vol. II (EPA 450/2-

76-029, OAQPS No. 1.2-039) to be coded into the Na-

tional Emission Data System (NEDS) points source cod-

ing forms, and

(2) Emissions of lead or lead compounds measured as

elemental lead as specified by AEROS Users Manual, Vol.

II (EPA 450/2-76-029, OAQPS No. 1.2-089) to be

coded into the Hazardous and Trace Emissions System

(HATREMS) points source coding forms.

(b) Such emissions data and information specified in

paragraph (a) of this section must be submitted on

either paper forms, punched cards, or magnetic tape in

the format of the NEDS point source coding forms or

the HATREMS point source coding forms as appropriate.

paragraph (a) of this section must be submitted in the

annual report for any point source for which one or

more of the following conditions occurs:

(1) A source achieves compliance at any time within

the reporting period with any regulation of an applicable

plan,

(2) A new or modified source receives approval to

construct during the reporting period or begins operating

during the reporting period,

(3) A source ceases operations during the reporting

period, or

(4) A source’s emissions have changed more than 5%

from the most recently submitted emissions data.

(d) If, as determined by the State and the Regional

Administrator, the emissions from any point source have

not changed more than 5% from the most recently sub-

mitted emissions data, the State shall update the year

of record of the previously reported data and informa-

tion specified by paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 51.824 Progress in plan enforcement.

(a) For each point source, the State shall report any

achievement made during the reporting period of any

increment of progress of compliance schedules required

by:

(1) The applicable plan, or

(2) Any enforcement order or other State action re-

quired to be submitted pursuant to Section 51.327.

(b) For each point source, the State shall report any

enforcement action taken during the reporting period

and not submitted under Section 51.327 which results

in civil or criminal penalties.

§ 51.825 Contingency plan actions.

The State shall report any measures taken during the

reporting period, and an evaluation of their effectiveness,

such as those actions specified in the contingency plan

required by § 51.16, to stop emissions of air pollutants

causing or contributing to any incident of air pollution

which corresponds to a stage of episode criteria as es-

tablished in the contingency plan. The State shall also

report an account of any episode stage, as established in

the contingency plan, during which no action was taken

by the State or local air pollution control agency and an

explanation for the failure to take such action.

§ 51.826 Reportable revisions.

The State shall identify and describe all substantive

plan revisions during the reporting period of the ap-

plicable plan other than revisions to rules and regula-

tions or compliance schedules submitted in accordance

with § 51.6(d). Substantive revisions shall include but

are not limited to changes in stack-test procedures for

determining compliance with applicable regulations, modi-

fications in the projected total manpower needs to carry

out the approved plan, and all changes in responsibilities

given to local agencies to carry out various portions of

the plan.

§ 51.827 Enforcement orders and other State actions.

(a) Any State enforcement order, including any State

court order, must be submitted to the Administrator

within 60 days of its issuance or adoption by the State.

(b) A State enforcement order or other State action

must be submitted as a revision to the applicable im-

plementation plan pursuant to § 51.6 and approved by

the Administrator in order to be considered a revision

to such plan.

§ 51.828 Plan prescribed actions.

(a) The State shall report on the status and progress

of the following actions if the plan prescribed such

action:

(1) Obtaining additional resources.

(2) Adopting new laws or regulations.

(3) Conducting studies to provide a basis for further

actions directed toward the attainment and maintenance

of national standards.

(4) initiating new programs or expanding existing

programs for the attainment and maintenance of na-

tional standards.

(b) The State shall make the report required under

paragraph (a) of this section with the annual report as

described in § 51.821, commencing with the first annual

reporting period following submission of the plan pro-

vision that prescribes such action and ending with the

completion of the action on which the State must report.

which the State must report.

Subparts F - I, K - N and P [Reserved]

14. Subparts F through I, K through’ N, and P are

reserved.

15. Appendix L is amended by removing references to

“COHs” in paragraphs 1.1(b), 1.1(c), and 1.1(d). As

amended, Appendix L reads as follows:

Appendix L—Example Regulations for Prevention of Air

Pollution Emergency Episodes

* * * & i

1.1 Episode criteria. * * *

(b) “Alert’’: * t #

Particulate—375 y»g/m*, 24-hour average.

SO, and particulate combined—product of SO.ng/m’,

24-hour average and particulate »g/m*, 24-hour average

equal to 65 X 10°.

* * e * *

Particulate—625 p»g/m*, 24-hour average.

SO, and particulate combined—product of SO.ng/m',

24-hour average and particulate AG2u.g/m?, 24-hour aver-

age equal to 261 X 10°.

a * * * *

(d) “Emergency”: * * *

Particulate—875 y»g/m*, 24-hour average.

SO, and particulate combined—product of SO.ng/m3,

24-hour average and particulate »g/m*, 24-hour average

equal to 393 X 10°.

* * * * *

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Part 52 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

1. Section 52.21 is amended by adding paragraph (n)

(3) to read as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air

quality.

* * & * *

(n) *# 2

(3) The owner or operator shall meet the require-

ments of Appendix B to Part 58 of this chapter during

the operation of monitoring stations required by pava-

graph (n) (1) of this section as follows:

(i) No later than January 1, 1980, for existing sta-

tions, or

(ii) For new stations, at the time the station is put

into operation.

2. The following sections are amended by removing

the reference “§ 51.7” and replacing it with the reference

“§ 58.35.”

§ 52.93 (b), second sentence.

§ 52.93 (c), second sentence.

§ 52.140 (b), second sentence.

§ 52.140 (c), second sentence.

§ 52.266 (d), first sentence.

§ 52.479 (c) (2), second sentence.

§ 52.479 (c) (8), second sentence.

§ 52.784 (b), second sentence.

§ 52.784 (c), third sentence.

§ 52.1077 (c) (2), second sentence.

§ 52.1077 (c) (3), second sentence.

§ 52.1155 (f), first sentence.

§ 52.1593 (d), first sentence.

§ 52.2053 (b), second sentence.

§ 52.2053 (c), third sentence.

§ 52.2298 (c), first sentence.

§ 52.2343 (b) , second sentence.

§ 52.2343 (c), second sentence.

§ 52.2427 (d) (2), second sentence.

§ 52.2427 (d) (3), second sentence.

§ 52.2477 (c) (2), second sentence.

§ 52.2477 (c) (3), second sentence.

§§ 52.779, 52.2029, 52.2482 [Reserved]

8. Sections 52.779, 52.2029, and 52.2482 are revoked

and reserved.

4. Section 52.1160 is amended by revising the last

sentence in paragraph (1). As amended, 52.1160 reads

as follows:

§ 52.1160 Monitoring reports.

+ ~ * * *

(1) * * * In addition, all air quality data collected

at SLAMS will be summarized as an annual summary

report to the Administrator as required by § 58.26 of this

chapter.

5. Section 52.1175 is amended by revising paragraph

(a) to read as follows:

§ 52.1175 Compliance schedules.

(a) The requirements of § 51.15(a) (2) of this chapter

as of May 31, 1972, (86 FR 22398) are not met since

Rule 336.49 of the Michigan Air Pollution Control Com-

mission provides for individual compliance schedules to

be submitted to the State Agency by January 1, 1974.

This would not be in time for submittal to the Environ-

mental Protection Agency with the first semiannual

report.

e%,

PART 53—AMIBENT AIR MONITORING

REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT

METHODS

Part 53 Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

§ 53.16 [Amended]

Section 53.16 amended by removing the citation

“§ 51.17a(a) (4)” from the third sentence of paragraph

(e) (1) and from subdivision (iv) of the first sentence

in paragraph (e) (2) and replacing the citations with

“section 2.3 of Appendix C to Part 58 of this chapter.”

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended by

adding a new Part 58 to read as follows:

PART 58—AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

SURVEILLANCE

Subpart A—General Provisions

Sec.

58.1 Definitions.

58.2 Purpose.

58.3 Applicability.

Subpart B—Monitoring Criteria

58.1C Quality assurance.

58.11 Monitoring methods.

58.12 Siting of instruments or instrument probes.

58.138 Operating schedule.

58.14 Special purpose monitors.

Subpart C—State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

(SLAMS)

58.20 Air quality surveillance: Plan content.

58.21 SLAMS network design.

58.22 SLAMS methodology.

58.23 Monitoring network completion.

58.24 [Reserved].

58.25 System modification.

58.26 Annual SLAMS summary report.

58.27 Compliance date for air quality data reporting.

58.28 Regional Office SLAMS data acquisition.

Subpart D—National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS)

58.30 NAMS network establishment.

58.31 NAMS network description.

58.32 NAMS approval.

58.33 NAMS methodology.

58.34 NAMS network completion.

58.35 NAMS data submittal.

Subpart E—Air Quality Index Reporting

58.40 Index reporting.

Subpart F—Federal Monitoring

58.50 Federal monitoring.

58.51 Monitoring other pollutants.

Appendix A—Quality Assurance

Requirements for State and Local Air Monitoring Sta-

tions (SLAMS).

Appendix B—Quality Assurance

Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deteriora-

tion (PSD) Air Monitoring.

Appendix C—Ambient Air Quality

~Monitoring Methodology.

Appendix D—Network Design for State and Local Air

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and National Air Moni-

toring Stations (NAMS).

Appendix E—Probe Sitting Criteria for Ambient Air

Quality Monitoring.

Appendix F—Annual SLAMS Air Quality Information.

Appendix G—Uniform Air Quality Index and Daily

Reporting.

Authority: The provisions of this Part 58 are issued

under sections 110, 301(a), 318, and 319 of the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7601(a), 7618, 7619).

Subpart A—General Provisions

$58.1 Definitions.

As used in this part, all terms not defined herein have

the meaning given them in the Act:

(a) “Act” means the Clean Air Act as amended (42

U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).

(b) “SLAMS” means State or Local Air Monitoring

Station(s). The SLAMS make up the ambient air

quality monitoring network which is required by § 58.20

to be provided for in the State’s implementation plan.

This definition places no restrictions on the use of the

physical structure or facility housing the SLAMS. Any

combination of SLAMS and any other monitors (Special

Purpose, NAMS, PSD) may occupy the same facility or

structure without affecting the respective definitions of

those monitoring station.

tion(s). Collectively the NAMS are a subset of the

SLAMS ambient air quality monitoring network.

(d) “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 pre-

vention of significant deterioration as required by § 51.24

(n) of Part 51 of this chapter.

(e) “SO.” means sulfur dioxide.

(f) “NO,” means nitrogen dioxide.

(g) “CO” means carbon monoxide.

(h) “O,” means ozone.

(i) “Plan” means an implementation plan, approved

or promulgated pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air

Act.

(j) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or his or her

authorized representative.

(k) “Regional Administrator” means the Administra-

tor of one of the ten EPA Regional Offices or his or her

authorized representative.

(1) “State agency” means the air pollution control

agency primarily responsible for development and im-

plementation of a plan under the Act.

(m) “Local agency” means any local government

agency , other than the State agency, which is charged

with the responsibility for carrying out a portion of

the plan.

(n) “Indian Reservation” means any Federally recog-

nized reservation established by treaty, agreement, execu-

tive order, or act of Congress.

(o) “Indian Governing Body” means the governing

body of any tribe, band, or group of Indians subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States and recognized

by the United States as possessing power of self-govern-

ment.

(p) “Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data

(SAROAD) system “is a computerized system which

stores and reports information relating to ambient air

quality.

(q) “SOROAD site identification form” is one of the

several forms in the SAROAD system. It is the form

which provides a complete description of the site (and

its surroundings) of an ambient air quality monitoring

station.

§ 58.2 Purpose.

(a) This part contains criteria and requirements for

ambient air quality monitoring and requirements for re-

porting ambient air quality data and information. The

monitoring criteria pertain to the following areas:

(1) Quality assurance procedures for monitor operation

and data handling.

(2) Methodology used in monitoring stations.

(3) Operating schedule.

(4) Siting parameters for instruments or instrument

probes .

(b) The requirements pertaining to provisions for an

air quality surveillance system in the State Implemen-

tation Plan are contained in this part.

bient air quality monitoring network for the purpose

of providing timely air quality data upon which to base

national assessments and policy decisions. This network

will be operated by the States and will consist of certain

selected stations from the States’ SLAMS networks.

These selected stations will remain as SLAMS and will

continue to meet any applicable requirements on SLAMS.

The stations, however, will also be designated as Na-

tional Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) and will be

subject to additional data reporting and monitoring

methodology requirements as contained in Subpart D of

this part.

(d) Requirements for the daily reporting of an index

of ambient air quality, to insure that the population of

major urban areas are informed daily of local air qual-

ity conditions, are also included in this part.

§ 58.3 Applicability.

This part applies to:

(a) State air pollution control agencies.

(b) And local air pollution control agency or Indian

governing body to which the State has delegated au-

thority to operate a portion of the State’s SLAMS net-

work.

Subpart B—Monitoring Criteria

§ 58.10 Quality assurance.

(a) Appendix A to this part contains quality assur-

ance criteria to be followed when operating the SLAMS

network.

(b) Appendix B to this part contains the quality as-

surance criteria to be followed by the owner or operator

of a proposed source when operating a PSD station.

§ 58.11 Monitoring methods.

Appendix C to this part contains the criteria to be

followed in determining acceptable monitoring methods

or instruments for use in SLAMS.

§ 58.12 Siting of instruments or instrument probes.

Appendix E to this part contains criteria for siting

instruments or instrument probes for SLAMS.

§ 58.13 Operating schedule.

Ambient air quality data collected at any SLAMS must

be collected as follows:

(a) For continuous analyzers—consecutive hourly av-

erages except during:

(1) Periods of routine maintenance,

(2) Periods of instrument calibration, or

(3) periods or seasons exempted by the Regional Ad-

ministrator.

(b) For manual methods—at least one 24-hour sample

every six days except during periods or seasons exempted

by the Regional Administrator

§ 58.14 Special purpose monitors.

Any ambient air quality monitoring station other than

a SLAMS or PSD station from which the State intends

to use the data as part of a control strategy demonstra-

tion or as support for a plan revision must meet the

requirements for SLAMS described in § 58.22 and, after

January 1, 1983, meet the requirements for SLAMS de-

scribed in § 58.138 and Appendices A and E to this part.

Subpart C—State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

(SLAMS)

§ 58.20 Air quality surveillance: Plan content.

By January 1, 1980, the State shall adopt and submit

to the Administrator a revision of the plan which will:

(a) Provide for the establishment of an air quality

surveillance system that consists of a network of moni-

toring stations designated as State and Local Air Moni-

toring Stations (SLAMS) which measure ambient con-

centrations of those pollutants for which standards have

been established in Part 50 of this chapter.

(b) Provide for meeting the requirements of Appen-

dices A, C, D, and E to this part.

per pollutant during any stage of an air pollution epi-

sode as defined in the contingency plan.

(d) Provide for the review of the air quality surveil-

lance system on an annual basis to determine if the sys-

tem meets the monitoring objectives defined in Appendix

D to this part. Such review must identify needed modi-

fications to the network such as termination or relocation

of unnecessary stations or establishment of new stations

which are necessary.

(e) Provide for having a SLAMS network description

available for public inspection and submission to the

Administrator upon request. The network description

must be available at the time of plan revision submittal

and must contain the following information for each

SLAMS:

(1) The SOROAD site identification form for existing

stations.

(2) The proposed location for scheduled stations.

(3) The sampling and analysis method.

(4) The operating schedule.

(5) The monitoring objective and spatial scale of re-

resentativeness as defined in Appendix D to this part.

(6) A schedule for;

(i) locating, placing into operation, and making avail-

able the SAROAD site identification form for each

SLAMS which is not located and operating at the time

of plan revision submittal,

(ii) implementing quality assurance procedures of Ap-

pendix A to this part for each SLAMS for which such

procedures are not implemented at the time of plan re-

vision submittal, and

(iii) resiting each SLAMS which does not meet the re-

quirements of Appendix E to this part at the time of

plan revision submittal.

§ 58.21 SLAMS network design.

The design criteria for SLAMS contained in Appendix

D to this part must be used in designing the SLAMS

network. The State shall consult with the Regional Ad-

ministrator during the network design process. The final

network design will be subject to the approval of. the

Regional Administrator.

§ 58.22 SLAMS methodology.

Each SLAMS must meet the monitoring methodology

requirements of Appendix C to this part at the time the

station is put into operation as a SLAMS.

§ 58.23. Monitoring network completion.

By January 1, 1983:

(a) Each station in the SLAMS network must be in

operation, be sited in accordance with the criteria in

Appendix E to this part, and be located as described on

the station’s SAROAD site identification form, and

(b) The quality assaurance requirements of Appendix

A to this part must be fully implemented.

§ 58.24 [Reserved].

§ 58.25 System modification.

The State shall annually develop and implement a

schedule to modify the ambient air quality monitoring

network to eliminate any unnecessary stations or to cor-

rect any inadequacies indicated by the result of the an-

nual review required by § 58.20(d). The State shall con-

sult with the Regional Administrator during the develop-

ment of the schedule to modify the monitoring program.

The final schedule and modifications will be subject to the

approval of the Regional Administrator. Nothing in this

section will preclude the State, with the approval of the

Regional Administrator, from making modifications to

the SLAMS network for reasons other than those re-

sulting from the annual review.

§ 58.26 Annual SLAMS summary report.

(a) The State shall submit to the Administrator

(through the appropriate Regional Office) an annual

summary report of all the ambient air quality monitor-

ing data from all monitoring stations designated State

and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). The an-

nual report must be submitted by July 1 of each year

for data collected from January 1 to December 31 of

the previous year.

(b) The annual summary report must contain:

(1) The information specified in Appendix F,

(2) The annual precision and accuracy information de-

scribed in Section 5.2 of Appendix A, and

(3) The location, date, pollution source, and duration

of each incident of air pollution during which ambient

levels of pollutants reached or exceeded the level speci-

fied by §$51.16(a) of this chapter as a level which

could cause significant harm to the health of persons.

(ce) The senior air pollution control officer of the State

or his designee shall certify that the annual summary

report is accurate to the best of his knowledge.

§ 58.27 Compliance data for air quality data reporting.

The annual air quality data reporting requirements of

§ 58.26 apply to data collected after December 31, 1980.

Data collected before January 1, 1981, must be reported

under the reporting procedures in effect before the ef-

fective date of Subpart C of this part.

§ 58.28 Regional Office SLAMS data acquisition.

The State shall submit all or a portion of the SLAMS

data to the Regional Administrator upon his request.

Subpart D—National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS)

§ 58.30 NAMS network establishment.

(a) By January 1, 1980, the State shall:

(1) Establish, through the operation of stations or

through a schedule for locating and placing stations into

operation, that portion of a National Ambient Air Qual-

ity Monitoring Network which is in that State, and

(2) Submit to the Administrator (through the appo-

priate Regional Office) a description of that State’s por-

tion of the network.

(b) Hereinafter, the portion of the national network

in any State will be referred to as the NAMS network.

(ce) The stations in the NAMS network must be stations

from the SLAMS network required by § 58.20.

(d) The requirements of Appendix D to this part must

be met when designing the NAMS network. The process

of designing the NAMS network must be part of the

process of designing the SLAMS network as explained

in Appendix D to this part.

§ 58.31 NAMS network description.

The NAMS network description required by § 58.30

must contain the following from all stations, existing or

scheduled :

(a) The SAROAD site identification form for existing

stations.

(b) The proposal location for scheduled stations.

(d) The sampling and analysis method.

(e) The operating schedule.

(f) The monitoring objective and spatial scale of rep-

resentativeness as defined in Appendix D to this part.

(g) A schedule for:

(1) Locating, placing into operation, and submitting

the SAROAD site identification form for each NAMS

which is not located and operating at the time of net-

work description submittal,

(2) Implementing quality assurance procedures of Ap-

pendix A to this part for each NAMS for which such

procedures are not implemented at the time of network

description submittal, and

(3) Resiting each NAMS which does not meet the re-

quirements of Appendix E to this part at the time of

network description submittal.

§ 58.32 NAMS approval.

The NAMS network required by § 58.30 is subject to

the approval of the Administrator. Such approval will be

contingent upon completion of the network description

as outlined in § 58.31 and upon conformance to the

NAMS design criteria contained in Appendix D to this

part.

§ 53.38 NAMS methodology.

Each NAMS must meet the monitoring methodology re-

quirements of Appendix C to this part applicable to

NAMS at the time the station is put into operation as

a NAMS.

§ 58.34 NAMS network completion.

By January 1, 1981:

(a) Each NAMS must be in operation, be sited in ac-

cordance with the criteria in Appendix E to this part,

and be located as described in the station’s SAROAD

site identification form; and

(b) The quality assurance requirements of Appendix

A to this part must be fully implemented for all NAMS.

§ 58.35 NAMS data submittal.

(a) The requirements of this section apply only to

those stations designated as NAMS by the network de-

scription required by § 58.30.

(b) The State shall report quarterly to the Adminis-

trator (through the appropriate Regional Office) all am-

bient air quality data and information specified by

AEROS Users Manual (EPA-450/2-76-029, OAQPS No.

1.24039) to be coded into the SAROAD Air Quality Data

forms. Such air quality data and information must be

submitted on either paper forms, punched cards, or mag-

netic tape in the format of the SAROAD Air Quality

Data forms.

March 81, April 1-June 80, July 1-September 30, and

October 1-December 31. The quarterly report must:

(1) Be submitted within 90 days of the end of each

reporting period, and

(2) Contain all data and information gathered during

the reporting period.

(d) The first quarterly report will be due on or before

June 30, 1981, for data collected during the first quarter

of 1981.

(e) Air quality data submitted in the quarterly report

must have been edited and validated so that such data

are ready to be entered into the SAROAD data files.

Procedures for editing and validating data are described

in AEROS Users Manual (EPA-450/2-76-029, OAQPS

No. 1.2-039).

(f) This section does not permit a State to exempt

those SLAMS which are also designed as NAMS from

all or any of the reporting requirements applicable to

SLAMS in § 58.26.

Subpart E—Air Quality Index Reporting

§ 58.40 Index reporting.

(a) The State shall report to the general public on

a daily basis through prominent notice an air quality

index in accordance with the requirements of Appendix

G to this part.

(b) Reporting must commence by January 1, 1981,

for all urban areas with a population exceeding 500,000,

and by January 1. 1983, for all urban areas with a pop-

ulation exceeding 200,000.

index reporting are as defined in “1970 Census of Pop-

ulation; Supplementary Report: Population of Urbanized

Areas Established Since the 1970 Census, for the United

States; 1970,” U.S. Bureau of Census, PC(S)-106, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., October,

1976.

Subpart F—Federal Monitoring

§ 58.50 Federal monitoring.

The Administrator may locate and operate an ambient

air monitoring station if the State fails to locate, or

schedule to be located, during the initial network de-

sign process or as a result of the annual review required

by § 58.20(d):

(a) A SLAMS at a site which is necessary in the

judgment of the Regional Administrator to meet the ob-

jectives defined in Appendix D to this part, or

(b) A NAMS at a site which is necessary in the judg-

ment of the Administrator for meeting EPA national

data needs.

§ 58.51 Monitoring other pollutants.

The Administrator may promulgate criteria similar to

that referenced in Subpart B of this part for moni-

toring a pollutant for which a National Ambient Air

Quality Standard does not exist. Such an action would

be taken whenever the Administrator determines that

a nationwide monitoring program is necessary to monitor

such a pollutant.

Appendix A. Quality Assurance Requirements For

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)

[Text Omitted]

Appendix B. Quality Assurance Requirements for

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

Air Monitoring

[Text Omitted]

Appendix C—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

Methodology

[Text Omitted]

APPENDIX D—NETWORK DESIGN FOR STATE

AND LOCAL AIR MONITORING STATIONS

SLAMS) AND NATIONAL AIR MONITORING

STATIONS (NAMS)

1. SLAMS MONITORING OBJECTIVES AND SPA-

TIAL SCALES

2. SLAMS NETWORK DESIGN PROCEDURES

2.1 Background Information for Establishing SLAMS

2.2 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Design Cri-

teria for SLAMS

2.38 Sulfur Dioxide (SO,) Design Criteria for SLAMS

2.4 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design Criteria for

SLAMS

2.5 Ozone (0;) Design Criteria for SLAMS

2.6 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) Design Criteria for

SLAMS

38. NETWORK DESIGN FOR NATIONAL AIR

MONITORING STATIONS (NAMS)

3.1 Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) Design Cri-

teria for NAMS

8.2 Sulful Dioxide (SO,) Derign Criteria for NAMS

8.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design Criteria for

NAMS

3.4 Ozone (O,;) Design Criteria for NAMS

3.5 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) Design Criteria for

NAMS

4. SUMMARY

5. REFERENCES

[Text Omitted]

Appendix E—Probe Siting Criteria for Ambient

Air Quality Monitoring

1. Introduction

2. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

2.1 Vertical Placement

2.2 Spacing from Obstructions

2.38 Spacing from Roadways

2.4 Other Considerations

8. Sulfur Dioxide (SO,)

8.1 Horizontal and Vertical Probe Placement

3.2 Spacing from Obstructions

4, Carbon Monoxide (CO)

4.1 Horizontal and Vertical Probe Placement

4.2 Spacing from Obstructions

4.3 Spacing from Roads

5. Ozone (0,)

5.1 Vertical and Horizontal Probe Placement

5.2 Spacing from Obstructions

5.38 Spacing from Roads

6. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,)

6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Prabe Placement

6.2 Spacing from Obstructions

6.3 Spacing from Roads

7. Probe Material and Pollutant Sample Residence

Time

8. Waiver Provisions

9. Discussion and Summary

10. References

(Text Omitted]

Appendix F—Annual Slams Air Quality Information

1. General

2. Required information

2.1 Sulfur Dioxide (SO,)

2.1.1. Site and Monitoring Information

2.1.2. Annual Summary Statistics

2.2 Particulates (TSP)

2.2.1 Site and Monitoring Information

2.2.2 Annual Summary Statistics

2.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO)

2.3.1 Site and Monitoring Information

2.3.2 Annual Summary Statistics

2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,)

2.4.1 Site and Monitoring Information

2.4.2 Annual Summary Statistics

2.5 Ozone (O,)

2.5.1 Site and Monitoring Information

2.5.2 Annual Summary Statistics

1. General

This apepndix describes information to be compiled

and submitted annually to EPA for each ambient moni-

toring station in the SLAMS Network in accordance with

§ 58.26. The annual summary statistics that are de-

scribed in section 2 below shall be construed as only the

minimum necessary statistics needed by EPA to over-

view national air quality status. They will be used by

EPA to convey information to a variety of interested

parties including environmental groups, Federal agencies,

the Congress, and private citizens upon request. As the

need arises, EPA may issue modifications to these mini-

mum requirements to reflect changes in EPA policy con-

cerning the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS).

As indicated in § 58.26(c), the contents of the SLAMS

annual report shall be certified by the senior air pollu-

tion control officer in the State to be accurate to the best

of his knowledge. In addition, the manner in which the

data were collected must be certified to have conformed

to the applicable quality assurance, air monitoring meth-

odology, and probe siting criteria given in Appendices

A, C, and E to this part. A certified statement to this

effect must be included with the annual report. As re-

quired by § 58.26(a), the report must be submitted by

July 1 of each year for data collected during the period

January 1 to December 31 of the previous year.

EPA recognizes that most air pollution control agencies

routinely publish air quality statistical summaries and

interpretive reports. EPA encourages State and local

agencies to continue publication of such reports and

recommends that they be expanded, where appropriate, to

include analysis of air quality trends, population expos-

ure, and pollutant distributions. At their discretion,

State and local agencies may wish to integrate the

SLAMS report into routine agency publications.

2. Required Information

This paragraph describes air quality monitoring in-

formation and summary statistics which must be in-

cluded in the SLAMS annual report. The required in-

formation is itemized below by pollutant. Throughout

this appendix, the time of occurrence refers to the ending

hour. For example, the ending hour of an 8-hour CO

average from 12:01 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. would be 8:00 a.m.

2.1 Sulfur Diowide (SO.,)

2.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information. City name

(when applicable), county name and street address of

site location. SAROAD site code. SAROAD monitoring

method code. Number of hourly observations. (1) Num-

ber of daily observations. (2).

2.1.2 Annual Summary Statistics. Annual arithmetic

mean (ppm). Highest and second highest 24-hour aver-

ages (3) (ppm) and dates of occurrence. Highest and

second highest 3-hour average (1, 3) (ppm) and dates

and times (1) (ending hour) of occurrence. Number

of exceedances of the 24-hour primary NAAQS. (3)

Number of exceedances of the 3-hour secondary NAAQS.

(3) Number of 24-hour average concentrations (4) in

ranges:

Number of

Range: values

0.00 to 4.04 (ppm) .u....eeccccccecscesscereeeecseeeenenesnnnnens ceeeneeanesenenneans

DO Be DUD ci ececiecicsccscivesesccescescescocesctensmmimencecssesscsens sonssnuseneeneneuses

TT Oi I casi vecnsencceceseravsccsesenenocsimmnsvntnonwessodevereanens. sbegeuesciebeidenen

OO tie OG as sssncarcocencsiceceesaponssnasetasnesestnationmescsboceee - ebgankasoonisesopens

Bia TI 53. sciasesssconsnatsevsnsncsnbsoennonsoninvecvarbonnsoensn, tusksncsebeinioesent

I tit I ances cisssserssescconsccscsonnesennsccsnecsupenetntnesncecte. vpsonhsennentnennane

i TR oo cciccithesvansadannticsissbiucmpendibientaondiebtiintel: St dciaseinbioee

Greater than BS ....-..ccsccrcccoscercccssccscesceccosesscccsesessescses svesesesssnsssoneess

2.2 Particulates (TSP)

2.2.1 Site and Monitoring Information. City name

(when applicable), county name and street address of

site location. SAROAD site code. Number of daily

observations.

2.2.2 Annual Summary Statistics. Annual geometric

mean (yg/m*). Highest and second highest daily values

and dates of occurrence. Number of exceedances of the

24-hour primary NAAQS. Number of exceedances of the

24-hour secondary NAAQS. Number of 24-hour average

concentrations in ranges:

Number of

Range: values

0 to 65 (y¢/m*) a ee pcaeiemedibicamennsiedianien” aasheeaaanine

a s siceellsbilbeesieplmiesetabesigerinenectie . sipnsapueianlMalgheeni

I MC tS cigsiipnbemianindebdincsicasitbioasaheny ecusgbitetenicaisins

OE ie RS 7 so sceepnbaeesinsmncenebenadinindindinnsaia’ siemmmnlesinbubeiens

I i a aces ablcaaneianionsobiady sobenneeeandeeieinle

Nc csceeeianaiediniiabehenis asebigoetesiieiiin

a i asinine SONniRisiNiice deheiaeliianibekeinns

ee i BD on nclcn ch ctnsaceccrecensttintsttesecicsiniereeornstdnns snemiteamnmnnniann

2.8 Carbon Monowide (CO)

2.3.1 Site and Monitoring Information. City name

(when applicable), county name and street address of

site location. SAROAD site code. SAROAD monitoring

method code. Number of hourly observations.

2.3.2 Annual Summary Statistics. Highest and sec-

ond highest 1-hour values (ppm) and date and time of

occurrence. Highest and second highest 8-hour averages

(3) (ppm) and date and time of occurrence (ending

hour). Number of exceedances of the 1-hour primary

NAAQS. Number of exceedances of the 8-hour average

primary NAAQS. (3) Number of 8-hour average con-

centrations (4) in ranges:

Number of

Range: values

AE) IE SE TEINS SRS Oe ORO SET eS

SYNGE SE SIS OR A PA RE es a ee Sa a

5 2p Saye eeivnel are eaeleahdaipeabiastpailebsadlid dodeinink: “co teeideletsttstedbias

RaNPEIIPCIIND’ ieiseidblashtnnstnsnsnpepcsbbadackevebisteblinsansiuambbenesaicbiscuses .ospiahcasrmanasss

2.4 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO.)

2.4.1 Site and Monitoring Information. City name

(when applicable), county name, and street address of

site location. SAROAD site code. SAROAD monitoring

method code. Number of hourly observations. (1) Num-

ber of daily observations. (2).

2.4.2 Annual Summary Statistics. Annual arithmetic

mean (ppm). Highest and second highest hourly aver-

ages (3) (ppm) and their dates and time of occurrence.

Highest and second highest 24-hour averages (2) and

their date of occurrence (ppm). Number of hourly aver-

age concentrations in ranges. (1).

Number of

Range: values

FOB tO 0B .n......ecccssccsccccsccssccccccrscsscecccsessnsssnscssssssssens sesseseseesseeesneeeens

DB CB cececcnereersscscccsccccecccccncccccccsccscccccssscnscessccessncssenss sensscossesossooosse

2.5 Ozone (0;)

2.5.1 Site and Monitoring Information. City name

(when applicable), county name and street address of

site location. SAROAD site code. SAROAD monitoring

method code. Number of hourly observations.

2.5.2 Annual Summary Statistics. Four highest daily

maximum hour values (ppm) and their dates and time

of occurrence. Number of exceedances of the daily maxi-

mum 1-hour primary NAAQS. Number of daily maxi-

mum hour concentrations in ranges:

Number of

Range: values

LOB 20 08 .....nccccccccccccsesccescsccccscceesvccceccensecseccssnssssonsse sonsenseneesceesnreeses

BO OED cecetneeeneessctensccsctvesevecccecsceceussccsonscssccsebonssvenenne sopedesesessaamnceen

Footnotes

1. Continuous methods only.

2. Manual or intermittent methods only.

3. Based on nonoverlapping values computed accord-

ing to procedures described in reference (1) or on in-

dividual intermittent measurements.

4. Based on overlapping running averages for con-

tinuous measurements as described in reference (1) or

on individual measurement for intermittent methods.

REFERENCE

1. “Guidelines for the Interpretation of Air Quality

Standards” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-

fice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. OAQPS No. 1-2-008, Feb-

ruary, 1977.

Appendix G—Uniform Air Quality Index and Daily

Reporting

General.

Definitions.

Monitoring data.

Geographic applicability.

Daily index report.

Prominent public notice.

Uniform air quality index.

7.1 Uniform index computation.

7.2 Example computation.

8. Exceptions.

9. Reporting agency recordkeeping.

10. Basis for PSI.

11. Additional information.

12. References.

NAA epPr

[Text Omitted]

FEDERAL REGISTER

VOLUME 36 e NUMBER 84

Friday, April 80,1971 @ Washington, D.C.

PART II

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Primary and Secondary

Ambient Air Quality Standards

[SEAL]

Title 42—PUBLIC HEALTH

Chapter [V—Environmental Protection Agency

PART 410—NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECOND-

ARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Notices of proposed rule-making published in the FrEp-

ERAL REGISTER on January 80, 1971 (86 F.R. 1502) and

March 26, 1971 (86 F.R. 5867) set forth regulations

prescribing national primary and secondary ambient air

quality standards proposed for adoption as Part 410 of

42 CFR. Interested persons were afforded an oppor-

tunity to participate in the rule-making by submitting

comments. Following review of the proposed standards

and consideration of the comments, the standards have

been revised as described below and are being promul-

gated today.

National primary ambient air quality standards are

those which, in the judgment of the Administrator, based

on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate mar-

gin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.

National secondary ambient air quality standards are

those which, in the judgment of the Administrator, based

on the air quality criteia, are requisite to protect the

public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse

effects associated with the presence of air pollutants in

the ambient air.

The comments submitted to the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency reflect divergences of opinion among in-

terested and informed persons as to the proper interpre-

tation of available data on the public health and welfare

effects of the six pollutants for which national ambient

air qulaity standards are being established. A number of

comments question the feasibility of implementing the

proposed standards. Because the Clean Air Act, as

amended, does not permit any factors other than health

to be taken into account in setting the primary stand-

ards, no revisions were made on this basis. In reviewing

the proposed standards, the Environmental Protection

Agency limited its consideration to comments concerning

the validity of the scientific basis of the standards.

Current scientific knowledge of the health and welfare

hazards of these air pollutants is imperfect, To increase

and improve this knowledge, the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency will continue to conduct and support rele-

vant research. At the same time, the need for increased

knowledge of the health and welfare effects of air pollu-

tion cannot justify failure to take action based on knowl-

edge presently available. The Clean Air Act, as amended,

requires promulgation at this time of national standards

for six air pollutants on the basis of available data set

forth in air quality criteria documents. Thus, the Ad-

ministrator is required to make judgments as to the

proper interpretation of presently available data and to

establish national primary standards which include an

adequate margin of safety to protect human health.

Where the validity of available research data has been

questioned, but not wholly refuted, the Administrator has

in each case promulgaied a national primary standard

which includes a margin of safety adequate to protect

the public health from adverse effects suggested by the

available data.

The national primary standard for carbon monoxide,

proposed on January 30, 1971, was based on evidence

that low levels of carboxyhemoglobin in human blood

may be associated with impairment of ability to dis-

criminate time intervals. This evidence is reflected in

“Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide” (35 F.R.

4768). In the comments, serious questions were raised

about the soundness of this evidence. Extensive consider-

ation was given to this matter. The conclusions reached

were that the evidence regarding impaired time-interval

discrimination had not been refuted and that a less re-

strictive national standard for carbon monoxide would

therefore not provide the margin of safety which may

be needed to protect the health of persons especially sensi-

tive to the effects of elevated carboxyhemoglobin levels.

‘ The only change made in the national standards for car-

bon monoxide was a modification of the 1-hour value.

The revised standard affords protection from the same

low levels of blood carboxyhemoglobin as a result of short-

term exposure. The national standards for carbon mon-

oxide, as set forth below, are intended to protect against

the occurrence of carboxyhemoglobin levels above 2 per-

cent. It is the Administrator’s judgment that attainment

of the national standards for carbon monoxide will pro-

vide an adequate safety margin for protection of public

health and will protect against known and anticipated

adverse effects on public welfare.

National standards for photochemical oxidants have

also been revised. The revised national primary standard

of 160 »g./m.* (0.08 p.p.m.) is based on evidence of in-

creased frequency of asthma attacks in some asthmatic

subjects on days when estimated hourly average concen-

trations of photochemical oxidant reached 200 y»g./m.*

(0.10 p.p.m.). A number of comments raised serious

questions about the validity of data used to suggest im-

pairment of athletic performance at lower oxidant con-

centrations. The revised primary standard includes a

margin of safety which is substantially below the most

likely threshold level suggested by this data. It is the

Administrator’s judgment that a primary standard of

160 p»g./m.* (0.08 p.p.m.) as a 1-hour average will pro-

vide an adequate safety margin for protection of public

health and will protect against known and anticipated

adverse effects on public welfare.

National standards for hydrocarbons have been revised

to make these standards consistent with the above modi-

fications of the national standard for photochemical oxi-

dants. Hydrocarbons are a precursor of photochemical

oxidants. The sole purpose of prescribing a hydrocarbon

standard is to control photochemical oxidants. Accord-

ingly, the above-described revisions of the national stand-

ards for photochemical oxidants necessitated a corres-

ponding revision of the hydrocarbon standards.

National standards for nitrogen dioxide have been re-

vised to eliminate the proposed 24-hour average value.

No adverse effects on public health or welfare have been

associated with short-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide

at levels which have been observed to occur in the ambient

air. Attainment of the annual average will, in the Ad-

ministrator’s judgment, provide an adequate safety mar-

gin for protection of public health and will protect

against known and anticipated adverse effects on public

welfare.

Apppendices A through F, which describe measure-

ment methods, have been revised to clarify many techni-

cal points. As revised, each appendix describes a com-

plete reference method for evaluating the ambient con-

centration of a pollutant for which national ambient air

quality standards are being established.

Nine months after the date of publication of this no-

tice, the States are required to submit to the Adminis-

trator, in accordance with section 110 of the Act, im-

plementation plans for the attainment and maintenance

of the national primary and secondary standards specified

in this part. Requirements for the preparation, adoption,

and submittal of implementation plans were published

by the Administrator, as proposed rulemaking, in the

FEDERAL REGISTER on April 7, 1971 (36 F.R. 6680).

In consideration of the foregoing and in accordance

with the statements in the notice of proposed rulemaking,

the national primary and secondary ambient air quality

standards, Part 410, are hereby promulgated effective

upon publication.

Dated: April 28, 1971.

WILLIAM D. RUCKELHAUS,

Administrator.

A new Part 410 is added to Chapter IV, Title 42,

Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Sec.

410.1 Definitions.

410.2 Scope.

410.3 Reference conditions.

410.4 National primary ambient air quality standards

for sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).

410.5 National secondary amblient air quality stand-

ards for sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide).

—

410.6 National primary ambient air quality standards

for particulate matter.

410.7 National secondary ambient air quality stand-

ards for particulate matter.

410.8 National primary and secondary ambient air

quality standards for carbon monoxide.

410.9 National primary and secondary ambient air

quality standard for photochemical oxidants.

410.10 National primary secondary ambient air quality

standard for hydrocarbons.

410.11 National primary and secondary ambient air

quality standard for nitrogen dioxide.

Appendix A—Reference Method for the Determination of

Sulfur Dioxide in the Atmosphere (Pararosani-

line Method).

Appendix B—Reference Method for the Determination of

Suspended Particulates in the Atosmphere

(High Volume Method).

Appendix C—Reference Method for the Continuous

Measurement of Carbon monoxide in the At-

mosphere (Non-dispersive Infrared Spectrom-

etry).

Appendix D—Reference Method for the Measurement of

Photochemical Oxidants Corrected for Inter-

ferences Due to Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur

Dioxide.

Appendix E—Reference Method for the Determination of

Hydrocarbons Corrected for Methane.

Appendix F—Reference Method for the Determination of

Nitrogen Dioxide (24-Hour Sampling Method).

AUTHORITY: The provisions of this Part 410 issued

under sec. 4, Public Law 01-604, Stat. 1679.

$410.1 Definitions.

(a) As used in this part, all terms not defined herein

shall have the meaning given them by the Act.

(b) “Act” means the Clean Air Act, as amended

(Public Law 91-604; 84 Stat. 1676).

Agency.

(d) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency.

(e) “Ambient air” means that portion of the atmos-

phere, external to buildings, to which the general public

has access.

(f) “Reference method” means a method of sampling

and analyzing for an air pollutant, as des

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.