# Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-19758 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** September 11, 2014 - **Citation:** 79 FR 54356 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619; FRL-9915-16-OAR] RIN 2060-AR59 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This action proposes revisions to ambient air monitoring requirements for criteria pollutants to provide clarifications to existing requirements to reduce the compliance burden of monitoring agencies operating ambient networks. This proposal focuses on reorganizing and clarifying quality assurance requirements, simplifying and reducing data reporting and certification requirements, clarifying the annual monitoring network plan public notice requirements, revising certain network design criteria for nonsource lead monitoring, and addressing other issues in part 58 Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2014. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619 in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 566-9744 • Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 28221T, Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. • Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lewis Weinstock, Air Quality Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code C304-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-3661; fax: (919) 541-1903; email: Weinstock.lewis@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Does this action apply to me? This action applies to state, territorial, and local air quality management programs that are responsible for ambient air monitoring under 40 CFR part 58. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include: Category NAICS a code State/territorial/local/tribal government 924110 a North American Industry Classification System. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark any of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. C. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. A redline/strikeout document comparing the proposed revisions to the appropriate sections of the current rules is located in the docket. Table of Contents The following topics are discussed in this preamble: I. Background II. Proposed Changes to the Ambient Monitoring Requirements A. General Information B. Definitions C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Network Assessment D. Network Technical Requirements E. Operating Schedules F. System Modification G. Annual Air Monitoring Data Certification H. Data Submittal and Archiving Requirements I. Network Design Criteria (Appendix D) III. Proposed Changes to Quality Assurance Requirements A. Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors Used in Evaluations for National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Appendix A 1. General Information 2. Quality System Requirements 3. Quality Control Checks for Gases 4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate Monitors 5. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment B. Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors Used in Evaluations of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Projects—Appendix B 1. General Information 2. Quality System Requirements 3. Quality Control Checks for Gases 4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate Monitors 5. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Background The EPA is proposing revisions to ambient air requirements for criteria pollutants to provide clarifications to existing requirements to reduce the compliance burden of monitoring agencies operating ambient networks. This proposal focuses on ambient monitoring requirements that are found in 40 CFR part 58 and the associated appendices (A, D, and new Appendix B), including issues such as operating schedules, the development of annual monitoring network plans, data reporting and certification requirements, and the operation of the required quality assurance (QA) program. The EPA last completed a comprehensive revision of ambient air monitoring regulations in a final rule published on October 17, 2006 (see 71 FR 61236). Minor revisions were completed in a direct final rule published on June 12, 2007 (see 72 FR 32193). Periodic pollutant-specific monitoring updates have occurred in conjunction with revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In such cases, the monitoring revisions were typically finalized as part of the NAAQS final rules. 1 1 Links to the NAAQS final rules are available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. II. Proposed Changes to the Ambient Monitoring Requirements A. General Information The following proposed changes to monitoring requirements impact these subparts of part 58—Ambient Air Quality Surveillance: Subpart A—General Provisions, and Subpart B—Monitoring Network. Specific proposed changes to these subparts are described below. B. Definitions The EPA proposes to add and revise several terms to ensure consistent interpretation within the monitoring regulations and to harmonize usage of terms with the definition of key metadata fields that are important components of the Air Quality System (AQS). 2 2 The AQS is the EPA's repository of ambient air quality data. The AQS stores data from over 10,000 monitors, 5,000 of which are currently active. State, local and tribal agencies collect the data and submit it to the AQS on a periodic basis. See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/ for additional information. The EPA proposes to add the term “Certifying Agency” to the list of definitions. The certifying agency field was added to AQS in 2013 as part of the development of a revised process for states and the EPA Regions to meet the data certification requirements described in 40 CFR 58.15. The new term specifically describes any monitoring agency that is responsible for meeting data certification requirements for a set of monitors. In practice, certifying agencies are typically a state, local, or tribal agency depending on the particular data reporting arrangements that have been approved by an EPA regional office for a given state. A list of certifying agencies by individual monitor is available on the AQS-TTN Web site. 3 3 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/memos/criteria_monitor_list_by_certifying_agency_and_PQAO.xls. The term “Chemical Speciation Network” or CSN is being proposed for addition to the definition list. The CSN network has been functionally defined as being comprised of the Speciation Trends Network sites and the supplemental speciation sites that are collectively operated by monitoring agencies to obtain PM 2.5 chemical species data. The term “Implementation Plan” is being proposed for addition to provide more specificity to current definitions that reference the word “plan” in their description. The EPA wishes to ensure that references to State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are not confused with references to Annual Monitoring Network Plans that are described in 40 CFR 58.10. The term “Local Agency” is being proposed for revision to clarify that such organizations are responsible for implementing portions of annual monitoring network plans. The current definition refers to the carrying out of a plan which is not specifically defined, leading to possible confusion with SIPs. The term “meteorological measurements” is being proposed for clarification that such measurements refer to required parameters at NCore and photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS). The terms “Monitoring Agency” and “Monitoring Organization” are being proposed for clarification to include tribal monitoring agencies and to simplify the monitoring organization definition to reference the aforementioned monitoring agency definition. The term “NCore” is being proposed for revision to remove nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and lead in PM 10 (Pb-PM 10 ) as a required measurement and to expand the definition of basic meteorology to specifically reference the required measurements: Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and relative humidity. The EPA clarifies that NO 2 was never a required NCore measurement and that the current definition was erroneous on this issue. Additionally, the requirement to measure Pb-PM 10 at NCore sites in areas over 500,000 population is being proposed for elimination in the rule. The term “Near-road NO 2 Monitor” is being proposed for revision to “Near-road Monitor.” This revision is being made to broaden the definition of near-road monitors to include all such monitors operating under the specific requirements described in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D (sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2, 4.7.1(b)(2)) and appendix E (section 6.4(a), Table E-4) for near-road measurement of PM 2.5 and carbon monoxide (CO) in addition to NO 2 . The term “Network Plan” is being proposed for addition to clarify that any such references in 40 CFR part 58 refer to the annual monitoring network plan required in 40 CFR 58.10. The term “Plan” is being proposed for deletion as its usage has been replaced with more specific references to either the annual monitoring network plan required in 40 CFR 58.10 or the SIP approved or promulgated pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The term “Population-oriented Monitoring (or sites)” is being proposed for deletion. This term along with the related usage of the concept of population-oriented monitoring was deleted from 40 CFR part 58 in the 2013 PM 2.5 NAAQS final rule (see 78 FR 3235-3236). As explained in that rule, the action was taken to ensure consistency with the longstanding definition of ambient air applied to the other NAAQS pollutants. The term “Primary Monitor” is being proposed for addition to the definition list. The usage of this term has become important in AQS to better define the processes used to calculate design values when more than one monitor is being operated by a monitoring agency for a given pollutant. This term identifies the primary monitor used as the default data source in AQS for creating a combined site record. The term “Primary Quality Assurance Organization” is being proposed for revision to include the usage of the acronym, “PQAO.” The terms “PSD Monitoring Organization” and “PSD Monitoring Network” are being added to support the proposed new appendix B that will pertain specifically to QA requirements for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) networks. The term “PSD Reviewing Authority” is being added to support the addition of appendix B to the part 58 appendices and to clarify the identification of the lead authority in determining the applicability of QA requirements for PSD monitoring projects. The term “Reporting Organization” is being proposed for revision to clarify that the term refers specifically to the reporting of data as defined in AQS. The AQS does allow the distinct designation of agency roles that include analyzing, certifying, collecting, reporting, and PQAO. The term “SLAMS” (state and local air monitoring stations) is being proposed for clarification to clearly indicate that the designation of a monitor as SLAMS refers to a monitor required under appendix D of part 58. The SLAMS monitors make up networks that include NCore, PAMS, CSN, and other state or local agency sites that have been so designated in annual monitoring network plans. The terms “State Agency” and “STN” are proposed for minor wording changes for purposes of clarity only. The term “State Speciation Site” is being proposed for deletion in lieu of the proposed addition of “Supplemental Speciation Station” to better describe the distinct elements of the CSN network which includes the Speciation Trends Network Stations that are required under section 4.7.4 of appendix D of part 58 and supplemental speciation stations which are operated for specific monitoring agency needs and are not considered to be required monitors under appendix D. C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Network Assessment The EPA finalized the current Annual Monitoring Network Plan requirement as part of the 2006 amendments to the ambient monitoring requirements (see 71 FR 61247-61249). The revised requirements were intended to consolidate separate network plan requirements that existed for SLAMS and national air monitoring stations (NAMS) networks, clarify processes for providing public input in the network plans and obtaining formal EPA Regional Office review, and revise the required plan elements to address other changes that had occurred in part 58. Since 2006, further revisions to the annual monitoring network plan requirements have occurred to address new requirements for monitoring networks including the NCore multi-pollutant network, source-oriented lead (Pb), near-road monitoring for NO 2 , CO and PM 2.5 , other required NAAQS monitoring, and data quality requirements for continuous PM 2.5 Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs). The current Annual Monitoring Network Plan requirements state that plans must be made available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to submission to the EPA. Additionally, any plans that propose SLAMS network modifications are subject to EPA Regional Administrator approval, and either the monitoring agency or the EPA Regional Office must provide an opportunity for public comment. This process to improve transparency pertaining to the planning of ambient monitoring networks has been successful and the EPA believes that state and local agencies are increasingly receiving public comments on these plans. 4 To aid in the visibility of these plans, the EPA hosts an annual monitoring network plan summary page on its Ambient Monitoring Technical Information Center (AMTIC) Web site. 5 4 The EPA notes that there is no specified process for obtaining public input into draft annual monitoring network plans although the typical process is to post the plans on state or local Web sites along with an on-line process to obtain public comments. 5 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html. Since the revision of the annual monitoring network plan process in 2006, the EPA has received feedback from its regional offices as well as some states that the regulatory language pertaining to public involvement has been unclear. Areas of confusion include determining the difference between the process of obtaining public inspection versus comment, the responsibility of monitoring agencies to respond to public comment in their submitted plans, and the responsibility of the EPA regional offices to obtain public comment depending on a monitoring agency's prior action as well as whether the annual monitoring network plan was modified based on discussions with the monitoring agency following plan submission. The EPA believes that the intent of the 2006 revision to these requirements was to support wider public involvement in the planning and implementation of air monitoring networks, and, to that extent, the solicitation of public comments prior to the submission of the annual monitoring network plan to the EPA regional office is a desirable part of the process. Indeed, the EPA stated in the preamble to the 2006 amendments that “Although the public inspection requirement does not specifically require states to obtain and respond to received comments, such a process is encouraged with the subsequent transmission of comments to the appropriate EPA regional office for review” (see 71 FR 61248). Given the heightened interest and visibility of the annual monitoring network plan process since 2006, the EPA believes that it is appropriate to propose that the public inspection aspect of this requirement contained in 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) be revised to clearly indicate that obtaining public comment is a required part of the process, and that plans that are submitted to the EPA regional offices should address such comments that were received during the public notice period. The EPA understands that this proposed change in process could increase burden for those monitoring agencies that have not routinely incorporated public comments into their annual monitoring network plan process. However, we believe that these efforts will increase the transparency of the current process and potentially reduce questions and adverse comment from stakeholders who have not been included in annual monitoring network plan discussions prior to submission to the EPA. For those monitoring agencies that already have been posting plans for public comment, this proposed change should have no net effect on workload. A related part of the annual monitoring network plan process is described in 40 CFR 58.10(a)(2) with the distinction that this section pertains specifically to plans that propose SLAMS modifications and thereby also require specific approval from the EPA Regional Administrator. Similar to the public comment issue described above, the process of obtaining such comment for plans that contain network modifications was not clearly described, with the regulatory text initially placing the responsibility on the EPA regional offices to obtain public comment, but then providing monitoring agencies with the option of obtaining public comment, which consequently would relieve the EPA regional office from having to do so. Consistent with the proposed change to the comment process described above, the EPA is proposing changes to the text in 40 CFR 58.10(a)(2) to reflect the fact that public comments will have been required to be obtained by monitoring agencies prior to submission and that the role of the EPA regional office will be to review the submitted plan together with public comments and any modifications to the plan based on these comments. On an overall basis, the EPA believes that this proposed change to clearly place the responsibility for obtaining public comment on monitoring agencies makes sense since these organizations are, in effect, closer to their stakeholders and in a better position to notify the public about the availability and key issues contained in annual monitoring network plans, compared with similar efforts by the EPA regions that oversee many such agencies. On a related note, the EPA emphasizes the value of the partnership between monitoring agencies and their respective EPA regional offices, and encourages an active dialogue between these parties during the development and review of annual monitoring network plans. Although the monitoring regulations only require that the EPA Regional Administrators approve annual monitoring network plans that propose changes to SLAMS stations, the EPA encourages monitoring agencies to seek formal approval of submitted plans regardless of whether SLAMS changes are proposed or not. Such a process would ensure that not only plans with proposed modifications are formally approved, but also that plans where potential network changes are indeed appropriate but not proposed, would be subject to discussion. Although the EPA is not proposing that annual monitoring network plans that do not propose changes to SLAMS should also be subject to the EPA Regional Administrator's approval, we support close working relationships between monitoring agencies and the EPA regions and see value in having a formal review of all such plans, regardless of whether network modifications are proposed. Another aspect of the annual monitoring network plan requirements is the listing of required information for each proposed and existing site as described in 40 CFR 58.10(b). The EPA is proposing to add two elements to this list as described below. First, the EPA is proposing to require that a PAMS network description be specifically included as a part of the annual monitoring network plan for any monitoring agencies affected by PAMS requirements. The requirements for such a plan are already referenced in appendix D, sections 5.2 and 5.4 of this part. In fact, the requirement for an “approved PAMS network description provided by the state” is already specified in section 5.4. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing that a PAMS network description be a required element in annual monitoring network plans for affected monitoring agencies, and that any such plans already developed for PAMS networks in accordance with section 5 of appendix D could be used to meet this proposed requirement. The EPA believes that the burden impact of this proposed change should be minimal, as a review of archived 2012 annual monitoring network plans posted on the EPA's AMTIC Web page shows that many such plans already include references to PAMS stations. For purposes of consistency and clarity, however, the EPA believes there is merit for proposing this revision to the annual monitoring network plan requirements so that stakeholders interested in the operation of PAMS stations can find the relevant information in one place. Second, the EPA is proposing language that affects “long-term” Special Purpose Monitors (SPMs), i.e., those SPMs operating for longer than 24 months whose data could be used to calculate design values for NAAQS pollutants in cases where the EPA approved methods are being employed. As long as such monitors are classified as SPMs, their operation can be discontinued without EPA approval per 40 CFR 58.20(f). While such operational flexibility is a key component of special purpose monitoring, the issue can become more complex when longer-term SPMs measure elevated levels of criteria pollutants and potentially become design value monitors for a region. In such cases, the EPA is faced with scenarios where key monitors that can impact the attainment status of a region can potentially be discontinued without prior notification or approval. Given the important regulatory implications of such monitoring network decisions, the EPA believes that it is important that the ongoing operation and treatment of such SPMs be specifically called out and discussed in annual monitoring network plans. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that a new required element be added to the annual monitoring network plan requirements. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that such long-term SPMs be identified in the plans along with a discussion of the rationale for keeping the monitor(s) as SPMs or potentially reclassifying to SLAMS. The EPA is not proposing that such monitors must become SLAMS, only that the ongoing operation of such monitors and the rationale for retaining them as SPMs be explicitly discussed to avoid confusion and the potential for unintended complexities in the designations process if any design value SPMs would be discontinued without adequate discussion. The EPA is proposing minor edits to the annual monitoring network plan requirements to revise terminology referring to PM 2.5 speciation monitoring, to note the proposed addition of appendix B to the QA requirements (see section III.B of this preamble), and to clarify that annual monitoring network plans should include statements addressing whether the operation of each monitor meets the requirements of the associated appendices in part 58. Finally, the issue has arisen concerning the flexibility that the EPA Regional Administrators have with reference to the approvals that are required within 120 days of annual monitoring network plan approval, for example, in the situation where the majority of the submitted plan is acceptable but one or more of the required elements is problematic. In these situations, which we believe to be infrequent, the existing regulatory language provides sufficient flexibility for such situations to be handled on a case-by-case basis, for example, through the use of a partial approval process where the Regional Administrator's approval decision letter specifies what elements of the submitted plan are approved and what elements are not. Alternatively, if the plan satisfies the requirements for network adequacy under appendix D and the monitors are suitable for regulatory decisions (consistent with the requirements of appendix A), the Regional Administrator has the discretion to approve the plan, while noting technical deficiencies to be corrected. We would expect that the resolution of the specific items under discussion would be documented through follow-up communications with the submitting monitoring agency to ensure that a complete record exists for the basis of the annual monitoring network plan approval. The EPA solicits comments on all of the proposed changes to annual monitoring network plans requirements contained in 40 CFR 58.10. D. Network Technical Requirements The EPA is proposing to revise the language in 40 CFR 58.11(a)(3) to note the proposed revisions to appendix B to the QA requirements (see section III.B of this preamble) that would pertain to PSD monitoring sites. E. Operating Schedules The operating schedule requirements described in 40 CFR 58.12 pertain to the minimum required frequency of sampling for continuous analyzers (for example, hourly averages) and manual methods for particulate matter (PM) and Pb sampling (typically 24-hour averages for manual methods). The EPA is proposing to revise these requirements in three ways: By proposing added flexibility in the minimum required sampling for PM 2.5 mass sampling and for PM 2.5 speciation sampling; by modifying language pertaining to continuous mass monitoring to reflect revisions in regulatory language that were finalized in the 2013 p.m. NAAQS final rule; and by clarifying the applicability of certain criteria that can lead to an increase in the required sampling frequency, for example, to a daily schedule. With regard to the minimum required sampling frequency for manual PM 2.5 samplers, current requirements state that at least a 1-in-3 day frequency is mandated for required SLAMS monitors without a collocated continuous monitor. For the majority of such manual PM 2.5 samplers, the EPA continues to believe that a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency is appropriate to meet the data quality objectives that support the PM 2.5 NAAQS. 6 For a subset of these monitors, however, the EPA believes that some regulatory flexibility may be appropriate in situations where a particular monitor is highly unlikely to record a violation of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Such situations might occur in areas with very low PM 2.5 concentrations relative to the NAAQS and/or in urban areas with many more monitors than are required by appendix D and a subset of those monitors are reading lower than other monitors in the area. In these situations, the EPA believes it is appropriate to propose that the required sampling frequency could be reduced to 1-in-6 day sampling or another alternate schedule through a case-by-case approval by the EPA Regional Administrator. Such approvals could be based on factors that are already described in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) such as historical PM 2.5 data assessments, the attainment status of the area, the location of design value sites, and the presence of continuous PM 2.5 monitors at nearby locations. The EPA envisions that the request for such reductions in sampling frequency would occur during the annual monitoring network plan process as operating schedules are a required part of the plans as stated in 40 CFR 58.10(b)(4). 6 According to a retrieval from AQS dated 12-23-2013, approximately 65% of primary PM 2.5 samplers (those monitors with a parameter occurrence code of “1”) operated on a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency. For sites with a collocated continuous monitor, the EPA also believes that the current regulatory flexibility to reduce to 1-in-6 day sampling or a seasonal sampling schedule is appropriate based on factors described above, and in certain cases, may also be applicable to lower reading SLAMS sites without a collocated continuous monitor, for example, to reduce frequency from 1-in-6 day sampling to a seasonal schedule. Accordingly, we have proposed such flexibility through changes in the regulatory language in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(i) and (ii). The EPA also believes that some flexibility for sampling frequency is appropriate to propose for PM 2.5 Chemical Speciation Stations, specifically the Speciation Trends Network (STN) sites that are at approximately 53 locations. 7 The STN stations are currently required to sample on at least a 1-in-3 day frequency with no opportunity for flexibility. While the EPA firmly believes in the long-term importance of the STN stations to support the development of SIPs, modeling exercises, health studies, and the investigation of air pollution episodes and exceptional events, we do not believe that the current inflexibility with regard to sampling frequency is in the best interests of monitoring agencies, the EPA, or stakeholders. For the past several years, the EPA has been investigating alternative monitoring technologies such as continuous PM 2.5 speciation methods that can supplement or potentially even replace manual PM 2.5 speciation methods. 8 As these methods become more refined, the EPA may wish to selectively reduce sampling frequency at manual samplers for one or more channels to conserve resources for reinvestment in other needs within the CSN network. Additionally, the EPA is currently conducting an assessment of the entire CSN network to evaluate the long-term viability of the program in the context of changes in air quality, the recently revised PM NAAQS, rising analytical costs, and flat or declining resources. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned above, the EPA is proposing that a reduction in sampling frequency from 1-in-3 day be permissible for manual PM 2.5 samplers at STN stations. The approval for such changes at STN stations, on a case by case basis, would be made by the EPA Administrator as the authority for changes to STN has been retained at the Administrator level per appendix D of this part, section 4.7.4. Factors that would be considered as part of the decision would include an area's design value, the role of the particular site in national health studies, the correlation of the site's species data with nearby sites, and presence of other leveraged measurements. In practice, we would expect a close working relationship with the EPA regional offices and monitoring agencies to consider such changes to STN, preferably as part of the annual monitoring network plan process, taking into account the findings of the CSN assessment process that is expected to be completed later in 2014, as well as a parallel effort being undertaken for the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. 9 7 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgen.html. 8 http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/spesunset.html. 9 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm. The EPA is proposing editorial revisions to 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) to harmonize the language regarding the use of continuous FEM or approved regional methods (ARM) monitors to support sampling frequency flexibility for manual PM 2.5 samplers with the current language in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii) that was revised as part of 2013 PM NAAQS final rule. Specifically, the phrase “unless it is identified in the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan as not appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS and the EPA Regional Administrator has approved that the data from that monitor may be excluded from comparison to the NAAQS” is being proposed for appending to the current regulatory language. This change reflects the new process that was finalized in the 2013 PM NAAQS final rule that allows monitoring agencies to request that continuous PM 2.5 FEM data be excluded from NAAQS comparison based on technical criteria described in 40 CFR 58.11(e) (see 78 FR 3241-3244). If such requests are made by monitoring agencies and subsequently approved by the EPA regional offices as part of the annual monitoring plan process, it follows that the data from these continuous PM 2.5 FEMs would also not be of sufficient quality to support a request for sampling reduction for a collocated manual PM 2.5 sampler. The EPA revised the relevant language in one section of 40 CFR 58.12 during the 2013 PM rulemaking but failed to revise a similar phrase in another section of 40 CFR 58.12. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing the change to ensure consistent regulatory language throughout 40 CFR 58.12. Within these editorial changes, we are also proposing the addition of the phrase “and the EPA Regional Administrator has approved that the data from that monitor may be excluded from comparison to the NAAQS” to the revisions that were made with the 2013 PM NAAQS. This revision is being proposed to clearly indicate that two distinct actions are necessary for the data from a continuous PM 2.5 FEM to be considered not comparable to the NAAQS; first, the identification of the relevant monitor(s) in an agency's annual monitoring network plan, and, second, the approval by the EPA Regional Administrator of that request to exclude data. The language used by the EPA in the relevant sections of 40 CFR 58.12 related to the initial request by monitoring agencies but did not specifically address the needed approval by the EPA. Finally, the EPA is clarifying the applicability of statements in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) that reference the relationship of sampling frequency to site design values. Specifically, we are proposing clarifications and revisions affecting the following statements: (1) “Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the design value for their area and that are within ±10 percent of the NAAQS; and all required sites where one or more 24-hour values have exceeded the NAAQS each year for a consecutive period of at least 3 years are required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day sampling frequency,” and (2) “Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the 24-hour design value for their area and whose data are within ±5 percent of the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS must have a Federal Reference Method (FRM) or FEM operate on a daily schedule if that area's design value for the annual NAAQS is less than the level of the annual PM 2.5 standard.” Since these provisions were finalized in 2006, there has been some confusion among monitoring agencies and regional offices concerning the applicability of the sampling frequency adjustments since design values are recalculated annually and, in some situations, such revised design values can either fall below the comparative criteria or rise above the criteria. For example, if according to 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii) a sampler must be on a daily sampling schedule because its design value is within ±5 percent of the 24-hour NAAQS and it meets the other listed criteria, how and when should the sampling frequency be revised if the referenced 24-hour design value falls out of the ±5 percent criteria the following year? In an extreme example, what would happen if the 24-hour design value changed each year to be alternately within the 5 percent criteria and then not within the criteria? It was not the EPA's intention in the 2006 monitoring revisions to create scenarios in which the required sampling frequencies for individual samplers would be “chasing” annual changes in design values. Such a framework would be difficult to implement for both monitoring agencies and regional offices for logistical reasons including the scheduling of operators and the availability of PM 2.5 filters, and also because of the time lag involved with reporting and certifying data and the validation of revised design values, which typically does not occur until the summer following the completion of each calendar year's sampling. To provide some clarity to this situation as well as to provide a framework where changes in sampling frequency occur on a more consistent and predictable basis, the EPA is proposing that design value-driven sampling frequency changes be maintained for a minimum 3-year period once such a change is triggered. Additionally, such changes in sampling frequency would be required to be implemented no later than January 1 of the year which followed the recalculation and certification of a triggering design value. For example, if a triggering design value that required a change to daily sampling frequency was calculated in the summer of 2014 based on 2011-2013 certified data, then the affected sampler would be required to have an increased sampling frequency no later than January 1, 2015, and would maintain that daily frequency through at least 2017, regardless of changes to the triggering design value in the intervening years. To accomplish these proposed changes, the EPA is proposing changes in the 40 CFR 58.12 regulatory text to clarify that sampling frequency changes that are triggered by design values must be maintained until the triggering design value site no longer meets the criteria for at least 3 consecutive years. Specifically, these changes include the insertion of the phrase “until the design value no longer meets these criteria for 3 consecutive years” into 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) and the sentence “The daily schedule must be maintained until the referenced design values no longer meet these criteria for 3 consecutive years” into 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii). The EPA notes that where a design value is based on 3 years of data, 3 consecutive years of design values would require 5 years of data (e.g., 2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014). New regulatory language has been proposed in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iv) to document the timing of when design value-driven changes in sampling frequency must be implemented. On balance, the EPA believes that the overall impact of proposed changes to the operating schedule requirements will be a modest reduction in the burden for monitoring agencies. We believe that the number of PM 2.5 FRM and CSN samplers impacted by these proposed changes will be relatively small, but where they occur will provide some logistical relief for sites that are less critical in terms of NAAQS implementation and other key objectives. The EPA solicits comment on all of these proposed changes to 40 CFR 58.12 requirements. F. System Modification In the 2006 monitoring amendments, the EPA finalized a requirement in 40 CFR 58.14(a) for monitoring agencies to “develop and implement a plan and schedule to modify the ambient air quality network that complies with the finding of the network assessments required every 5 years by 58.10(e).” The remainder of the associated regulatory language reads very much like the required procedure for making annual monitoring network plans available for public inspection, comment, and the EPA Regional Administrator's approval as described in 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) and (2). Since 2006, there has been confusion between the EPA and the monitoring agencies as to whether a separate plan was required to be submitted by 40 CFR 58.14(a) relative to the annual monitoring network plan, with that separate plan devoted specifically to discussing the results of the 5-year network assessment. A review of the 2006 monitoring proposal and final rule reveals no specific discussion concerning the submission of a distinct plan devoted specifically to the implementation of the 5-year network assessment. While the EPA continues to support the importance of the network assessment requirement, 10 there appears to be no specific benefit to the requirement for a distinct plan to discuss the 5-year network assessments, and the inference of the need for such a plan may be attributable to some redundancy in the aforementioned requirements when the regulatory language was revised in 2006. Monitoring agencies, for example, could include a specific section or attachment to the annual monitoring network plan that fulfilled all the requirements described in 40 CFR 58.14(a) including how each agency would implement the findings of the assessment and the schedule for doing so. By including such information in the annual monitoring network plans, the implied need to develop a separate plan with the attendant burden of public posting, obtaining public comment, and the EPA Regional Administrator's review and approval can be avoided, reducing the burden on all parties. 10 The next 5-year network assessment will be due no later than July 1, 2015, according to the schedule established by 40 CFR 58.10(d). In terms of timing, these specific sections or attachments referring to the 5-year network assessments could be required either in the year when the assessment is due (e.g., 2015) or in the year following when the assessment is due (e.g., 2016). The submission in the year following the network assessment would allow more time for monitoring agencies to fully consider the results of the 5-year assessment and would also allow the public more time to review and comment on the recommendations. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to revise the regulatory language in 40 CFR 58.14(a) to clearly indicate that a separate plan is not needed to account for the findings of the 5-year network assessment, and that the information concerning the implementation of the 5-year assessment, referred to in the proposed regulatory language as a “network modification plan,” shall be submitted as part of the annual monitoring network plan that is no later than the year after the network assessment is due. 11 According to the proposed schedule, the annual monitoring network plans that are due in 2016, 2021, etc., would contain the information referencing the network assessments. 11 Monitoring agencies, at their discretion, could submit the network modification plan in the year that the assessment is due if sufficient feedback had been received. On balance, EPA believes that the extra year following the completion of the network assessment would be valuable to assure a productive outcome from the assessment process. The EPA is also proposing to revise an incorrect cross-reference in the current text of 40 CFR 58.14(a) in which the network assessment requirement is noted as being contained in 58.10(e) when the correct cross-reference is 58.10(d). G. Annual Air Monitoring Data Certification The data certification requirement is intended to provide ambient air quality data users with an indication that all required validation and reporting steps have been completed, and that the certified data sets are now considered final and appropriate for all uses including the calculation of design values and the determination of NAAQS attainment status. The formal certification process currently involves the transmission of a data certification letter to the EPA signed by a senior monitoring agency official that references the list of monitors being certified. The letter is accompanied by required AQS reports that summarize the data being certified and the accompanying QA data that support the validation of the referenced list of monitors. Once the letter and required reports are submitted to the EPA, the data certification requirement has been fulfilled. In practice, the EPA has provided an additional discretionary review of the data certification submissions by monitoring agencies to make sure the submissions are complete and that the EPA agrees that the referenced data are of appropriate quality. When these reviews have been completed, the EPA's review has been documented by the presence of a specific AQS flag for each monitor-year of data that has been certified and reviewed. The actual breadth of data certification requirements has not materially changed since the original requirements were finalized in 1979 as part of the requirement for monitoring agencies to submit an annual SLAMS summary report (see 44 FR 27573). Data certification requirements were last revised in 2006 when the deadline for certification was changed to May 1 from July 1 for most measurements. Current requirements include the certification of data collected at all SLAMS and SPMs using FRM, FEM, or ARM methods. In practice, this requirement includes a very wide range of measurements that are not limited to criteria pollutants but also extend to non-criteria pollutant measurements at PAMS stations, meteorological measurements at PAMS and NCore stations, and PM 2.5 chemical speciation parameters. For monitoring agencies operating these complex stations, this places an additional burden on the data review and validation process in addition to the routine procedures already in place to validate and report data as required by 40 CFR 58.16. For example, current PAMS requirements include the reporting of approximately 54 individual “target list” volatile organic compounds per station while many dozens of PM 2.5 species are reported at CSN stations. None of these specialized monitoring programs were in place when the data certification requirements were originally promulgated and the large number of measurements being obtained in typical modern-day monitoring networks has resulted in a burden overload that has threatened the viability of the data certification process. For example, monitoring agencies have struggled with the availability of specific QA checks that can be used to meet the certification requirements for PAMS and CSN data, and the EPA's discretionary review of data certification submissions have become increasingly incomplete or delayed due to the enormous number of monitors being submitted for certification under the current requirements. The EPA believes that the data certification requirements need to be revised to streamline the associated workload for monitoring agencies as well as the EPA so that the process can be focused on those measurements that have greatest impacts on state programs, namely the criteria pollutants that support the calculation of annual design values and the mandatory designations process. By focusing the data certification process on the NAAQS, the greatest value will be derived from the certification process and both the monitoring agencies and the EPA will be able to devote scarce resources to the most critical of ambient monitoring objectives. The EPA is not implying that the need for thorough data validation processes is unimportant for non-criteria pollutants. However we believe that existing QA plans and standard operating procedures, together with the regulatory language in 40 CFR 58.16(c) to edit and report validated data, is sufficient to assure the quality of non-criteria pollutant measurements being reported to AQS. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing several changes in the data certification requirements to accomplish a streamlining of this important process. First, to support the focus on certification of criteria pollutant measurements, the EPA is proposing to revise relevant sections of 40 CFR 58.15 to focus the requirement on FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors at SLAMS and at SPM stations rather than at all SLAMS which also include PAMS and CSN measurements that may not utilize federally approved methods. This proposed wording change limits the data certification requirement to criteria pollutants since the EPA approved methods do not exist for non-criteria measurements. Second, the EPA is also proposing that the required AQS reports be submitted to the Regional Administrator rather than through the Regional Administrator to the Administrator as is currently required. From a process standpoint, this proposed change effectively places each EPA regional office in charge of the entire data certification process (including the discretionary review) versus the EPA headquarters where the discretionary reviews have taken place in the past. This delegation of responsibility for the discretionary review will allow this important part of the certification process to be shared among the ten EPA regional offices, and result in a more timely review of certification results and the posting of appropriate certification status flags in AQS. The EPA notes that significant progress has already been made in revising this part of the certification process and that a new AQS report, the AMP 600, has been developed to more efficiently support the sharing of relevant information between certifying agencies and the EPA regional offices. 12 12 Note relevant training material available on the AQS TTN Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/training/2013_Q2_Webinar_Final.pdf . Additionally, minor editorial changes are being proposed in 40 CFR 58.15 to generalize the title of the official responsible for data certification (senior official versus senior air pollution control officer) and to remove an outdated reference to the former due date for the data certification letter (July 1 versus the current due date of May 1). H. Data Submittal and Archiving Requirements The requirements described in 40 CFR 58.16 address the specific measurements that must be reported to AQS as well as the relevant schedule for doing so. Required measurements include criteria pollutants in support of NAAQS monitoring objectives as well as public reporting, specific ozone (O 3 ) and PM 2.5 precursor measurements such as those obtained at PAMS, NCore, and CSN stations, selected meteorological measurements at PAMS and NCore stations, and associated QA data that support the assessment of precision and bias. In 1997, an additional set of required supplemental measurements was added to 40 CFR 58.16 in support of the newly promulgated FRM for PM 2.5 , described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L. These measurements included maximum, minimum, and average ambient temperature; maximum, minimum, and average ambient pressure; flow rate coefficient of variation (CV); total sample volume; and elapsed sample time. In the 2006 monitoring amendments, many of these supplemental measurements were removed from the requirements based on the EPA's confidence that the PM 2.5 FRM was meeting data quality objectives (see 71 FR 2748). At that time, reporting requirements were retained for average daily ambient temperature and average daily ambient pressure, as well as any applicable sampler flags, in addition to PM 2.5 mass and field blank mass. Given the additional years of data supporting the performance of the PM 2.5 FRM as well as the near ubiquitous availability of meteorological data available from sources such as the National Weather Service automated surface observing system 13 in addition to air quality networks, the EPA believes that it is no longer necessary to require agencies to report the average daily temperature and average daily pressure from manual PM 2.5 samplers, thereby providing some modest relief from the associated reporting burden. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to remove AQS reporting requirements for average daily temperature and average daily pressure as related to PM 2.5 measurements with the expectation that monitoring agencies will retain such measurements as needed to support data validation needs as well as to fulfill requirements in associated QA project plans and standard operating procedures. The EPA is also proposing to remove similar language referenced elsewhere in 40 CFR 58.16 that pertains to measurements at Pb sites as well as to other average temperature and average pressure measurements recorded by samplers or from nearby airports. For the reasons noted above, the EPA believes that meteorological data are more than adequately available from a number of sources, and that the removal of specific requirements for such data to be reported to AQS represents an opportunity for burden reduction. The EPA notes that the requirement to report specific meteorological data for NCore and PAMS stations remains unchanged. 13 See http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ost/asostech.html . The EPA is also proposing a change to the data reporting schedule described in 40 CFR 58.16(b) and (d) to provide additional flexibility for reporting PM 2.5 chemical speciation data measured at CSN stations. Specifically, we are proposing that such data be required to be reported to AQS within 6 months following the end of each quarterly reporting period, as is presently required for certain PAMS measurements such as volatile organic compounds. This change would provide an additional 90 days for PM 2.5 chemical speciation data to be reported compared with the current requirement of reporting 90 days after the end of each quarterly reporting period. This change is being proposed to provide both the EPA and monitoring agencies with potential data reporting flexibility as technological and procedural revisions are considered for the national analytical frameworks that support the CSN network. Given that the primary objectives of the CSN (and IMPROVE) programs are to support long-term needs such as SIP development, modeling, and health studies, the EPA believes that such programs would not be negatively impacted by the revised reporting requirements and that potential contractual efficiencies could be realized by allowing more time for analytical laboratories to complete their QA reviews and report their results to AQS. I. Network Design Criteria (Appendix D) The EPA is proposing two changes that affect the required suite of measurements in the NCore network. This multi-pollutant network became operational on January 1, 2011, and includes approximately 80 stations that are located in both urban and rural areas. 14 14 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore/index.html for more information. The EPA is proposing a minor change to section 3 of appendix D to part 58, the design criteria for NCore sites. Specifically, we are proposing to delete the requirement to measure speciated PM 10-2.5 from the list of measurements in section 3(b). An identical revision was finalized in the text of 40 CFR 58.16(a) in the 2013 p.m. NAAQS final rule (see 78 FR 3244). At that time, we noted the lack of consensus on appropriate sampling and analytical techniques for speciated PM 10-2.5 , and the pending analysis of data from a pilot project that examined these issues. Based on the supportive comments received from monitoring agencies and multi-state organizations, the EPA deleted the requirement for speciated PM 10-2.5 from 40 CFR 58.16(a). During this process, the EPA inadvertently failed to complete a similar change that was required in the language of section 3 of appendix D. Accordingly we are proposing this change to align the NCore monitoring requirements between the two sections noted above. The EPA is also proposing to delete the requirement to measure Pb at urban NCore sites, either as Pb in Total Suspended Particles (Pb-TSP) or as Pb-PM 10 . This requirement was finalized as part of the reconsideration of Pb monitoring requirements that occurred in 2010 (see 75 FR 81126). At that time, we noted that monitoring of Pb at such nonsource locations at NCore sites would support the characterization of typical neighborhood-scale Pb concentrations in urban areas to assist with the understanding of the risk posed by Pb to the general population. We also noted that such information could assist with the determination of nonattainment boundaries and support the development of long-term trends. Since this requirement was finalized in late 2010, nonsource lead data has been measured at 50 urban NCore sites, with the majority of sites having already collected at least 2 years of data. In all cases, valid ambient Pb readings have been low, with maximum 3-month rolling averages typically reading around 0.01 micrograms per cubic meter as compared to the NAAQS level of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter. 15 We expect the majority of sites to have the 3 years necessary to calculate a design value following the completion of monitoring in 2014. Given the uniformly low readings being measured at these NCore sites, we believe it is appropriate to consider eliminating this requirement. As noted in the associated docket memo, nonsource Pb data will continue to be measured (as Pb-PM 10 ) at the 27 National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS) and at hundreds of PM 2.5 speciation stations that comprise the CSN and IMPROVE networks. The EPA believes that these ongoing networks adequately support the nonsource monitoring objectives articulated in the 2010 Pb monitoring reconsideration. 15 See supporting information for reconsideration of existing requirements to monitor for lead at urban NCore site, Kevin Cavender, Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to delete the requirement to monitor for nonsource Pb at NCore sites from appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. 16 Given the requirement to collect a minimum of 3 years of Pb data in order to support the calculation of design values, the EPA proposes that monitoring agencies would be able to request permission to discontinue nonsource monitoring following the collection of at least 3 years of data at each urban NCore site. 17 Affected monitoring agencies should work closely with their respective EPA regional offices to ensure coordination of these changes to the network. 16 Specific revisions are proposed in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 3(b) and sections 4.5(b) and 4.5(c). 17 The EPA will review requests for shutdown under the provisions of 40 CFR 58.14. Although EPA anticipates that these nonsource monitors will have design values well below the NAAQS and will be eligible to be discontinued after three years of data have been collected, in the event that a monitor records levels approaching the NAAQS it may not qualify to be discontinued. The EPA solicits comments on these proposed changes to Pb monitoring requirements. III. Proposed Changes to Quality Assurance Requirements A. Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors Used in Evaluations for National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Appendix A 1. General Information The following proposed changes to monitoring requirements impact these subparts of part 58—Ambient Air Quality Surveillance; appendix A—Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs and PSD Air Monitoring. Changes that affect the overall appendix follow while those specific to the various sections of the appendix will be addressed under a specific section heading. The EPA notes that the entire regulatory text section for appendix A is being reprinted with this proposal since this section is being reorganized for clarity as well as being selectively revised as described in detail below. Likewise, although the EPA is proposing a new appendix B to apply to PSD monitors, much of the content of appendix B is taken directly from the existing requirements for these monitors set forth in appendix A. The EPA is soliciting comment on the specific provisions of appendices A and B that are being proposed for revision. However, there are a number of provisions that are being reprinted in the regulatory text solely for clarity to assist the public in understanding the changes being proposed; the EPA is not soliciting comment on those provisions and considers changes to those provisions to be beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The QA requirements in appendix A have been developed for measuring the criteria pollutants of O 3 , NO 2 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), CO, Pb and PM (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) and are minimum requirements for monitoring these ambient air pollutants for use in NAAQS attainment demonstrations. To emphasize the objective of this appendix, the EPA proposes to change the title of appendix A to “Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors used in Evaluations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” and remove the terms SLAMS and SPMs from the title. We do, however, in the applicability paragraph, indicate that any monitor identified as SLAMS must meet the appendix A criteria in order to avoid any confusion about SLAMS monitors measuring criteria pollutants. Special purpose monitors may in fact be monitoring for a criteria pollutant for other objectives than NAAQS determinations. Therefore, appendix A attempts to clarify in the title and the applicability section that the QA requirements specified in this appendix are for criteria pollutant monitors that are designated, through the part 58 ambient air regulations and monitoring organization annual monitoring network plans, as eligible to be used for NAAQS evaluation purposes. The applicability section also provides a reporting mechanism in AQS to identify any criteria pollutant monitors that are not used for NAAQS evaluations. The criteria pollutants identified for NAAQS exclusion will require review and approval by the EPA regional offices and will increase transparency and efficiencies in the NAAQS designation, data quality evaluation and data certification processes. The current appendix A regulation has separate sections for automated (continuous) and manual method types. Since there are continuous and manual methods for measuring PM which have different quality control (QC) requirements, monitoring organizations have found it difficult to navigate the current appendix A requirements. The EPA proposes to reformat the document by pollutant rather than by method type. The four gaseous pollutants (CO, NO 2 , SO 2 and O 3 ) will be contained in one section since the QC requirements are very similar, and separate sections will be provided for PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and Pb. In the 2006 monitoring rule revisions, the PSD QA requirements, which were previously in appendix B, were added to appendix A and appendix B was reserved. The PSD requirements, in most cases, mimicked appendix A in structure but because PSD monitoring is often only for a period of one year, some of the frequencies of implementation of the PSD requirements are higher than the appendix A requirements. In addition, the agencies governing the implementation, assessment and approval of the QA requirements are different for PSD and ambient air monitoring for NAAQS decisions (i.e., the EPA regions for appendix A versus reviewing authorities for PSD). The combined regulations have caused confusion among monitoring organizations and those implementing PSD requirements, and the EPA proposes that the PSD requirements be moved back to a separate appendix B. This change would also provide more flexibility for revision if changes in either appendix are needed. Details of this proposed change will follow in Section III.B. Finally, the EPA proposes that the appendix A regulation emphasize the use of PQAO and moved the definition and explanation to the beginning of the regulation in order to ensure that the application and use of PQAO in appendix A is clearly understood. The definition for PQAO is not being proposed for change. Since the PQAO can be a consolidation of a number of local monitoring organizations, the EPA proposes to add a sentence clarifying that the agency identified as the PQAO (usually the state agency) will be responsible for overseeing that the appendix A requirements are being met by all consolidated local agencies within the PQAO. Current appendix A regulation requires PQAOs to be approved by the EPA regions during network reviews or audits. The EPA believes this approval can occur at any time and proposes to eliminate the wording that suggests that PQAO approvals can only occur during events like network reviews or audits. 2. Quality System Requirements The EPA proposes to remove the QA requirements for PM 10-2.5 (see current sections 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 3.3.6, 3.3.8, 4.3). Appendix A has traditionally been used to describe the QA requirements of the criteria pollutants used in making NAAQS attainment decisions. While the 40 CFR part 58 Ambient Air Monitoring regulation requires monitoring for the CSN, PAMS, and total oxides of Nitrogen (NO y ) for NCore, the QA requirements for these networks are found in technical assistance documents and not in appendix A. In 2006, the EPA proposed a PM 10-2.5 NAAQS along with requisite QA requirements in appendix A. While the PM 10-2.5 NAAQS was not promulgated, PM 10-2.5 monitoring was required to be performed at NCore sites and the EPA proposed requisite QA requirements in appendix A. Some of the PM QC requirements, like collocation for precision and the performance evaluation programs for bias, are accomplished on a percentage of monitoring sites within a PQAO. For example, collocated sampling for PM 2.5 and PM 10 is required at approximately 15 percent of the monitoring sites within a PQAO. Since virtually every NCore site is the responsibility of a different PQAO, the appendix A requirements for PM 10-2.5 , if implemented at the PQAO level, would have been required to be implemented at almost every NCore site, which would have been expensive and an unintended burden. Therefore, the EPA required the implementation of the PM 10-2.5 QC requirements at a national level and worked with the EPA regions and monitoring organizations to identify the sites that would implement the requirements. The implementation of the PM 10-2.5 QC requirements at NCore sites fundamentally changed how QC is implemented in appendix A and has been a cause of confusion with these parties. Since PM 10-2.5 is not a NAAQS pollutant and the QC requirements cannot be cost-effectively implemented at a PQAO level, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the PM 10-2.5 requirements including flow rate verifications, semi-annual flow rate audits, collocated sampling procedures, and the PM 10-2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP). Similar to the technical assistance documents associated for the CSN 18 and PAMS 19 networks, the EPA will develop QA guidance for the PM 10-2.5 network which will afford more flexibility for implementation and revision of QC activities for PM 10-2.5 . 18 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html for CSN quality assurance project plan. 19 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsguidance.html for PAMS technical assistance document. The EPA proposes that the QA Pb requirements of collocated sampling (see current section 3.3.4.3) and Pb performance evaluation procedures (see current section 3.3.4.4) for non-source NCore sites be eliminated. The 2010 Pb rule in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.5(b), added a requirement to conduct non-source oriented Pb monitoring at each NCore site in a core based statistical area (CBSA) with a population of 500,000 or more. This requirement had some monitoring organizations implementing Pb monitoring at only one site, the NCore site. Since the appendix A requirements are focused on PQAOs, the QC requirements would increase at PQAOs who were required to implement Pb monitoring at NCore. Similar to the PM 10-2.5 QA requirements , the requirement for Pb at NCore sites forced the EPA away from a focus on PQAOs to working with the EPA regions and monitoring organizations for implementation of the Pb Performance Evaluation Program (Pb-PEP) at national levels. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the collocation requirement and the Pb-PEP requirements while retaining the requirements for flow rate verifications and flow rate audits which do not require additional monitors or independent sampling and analysis. Similar to the CSN and PAMS programs, the EPA will develop QA guidance for the Pb NCore network which will afford more flexibility for change/revision to accommodate Pb monitoring at non-source NCore sites. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to delete the requirement to measure Pb at these specific NCore sites, either as Pb-TSP or as Pb-PM 10 (see section II.I of this rule). If that proposed change is finalized, it will eliminate the need for any associated QA requirements including collocation, Pb-PEP or any QC requirements for these monitors. If the proposed change to NCore Pb requirements is not finalized, then the EPA will consider the proposed revision to QA requirements as described above on its own merits. The EPA proposes that quality management plan (QMP) (current section 2.1.1) and quality assurance project plan (QAPP) (current section 2.1.2) submission and approval dates be reported by monitoring organizations and the EPA. This will allow for timely and accurate reporting of this information. Since 2007, the EPA has been tracking the submission and approval of QMPs and QAPPs by polling the EPA regions each year and updating a spreadsheet to the AMTIC Web site. The development of the annual spreadsheet is time consuming on the part of monitoring organizations and the EPA. It is expected that simplified reporting at the monitoring organization and the EPA regional office level to AQS will reduce entry errors and the burden of incorporating this information into annual spreadsheets, and increase transparency of this important quality system documentation. In order to reduce the initial burden of this data entry activity, the EPA has populated AQS with the last set of updated QMP and QAPP data from the annual spreadsheet review cycle. If this portion of the proposal is finalized, monitoring organizations will only need to update AQS as necessary. In addition, some monitoring organizations have received delegation of authority to approve their QAPP through the monitoring organization's own QA organization. The EPA proposes that if a PQAO or monitoring organization has been delegated authority to review and approve their QAPP, an electronic copy must be submitted to the EPA regional office at the time it is submitted to the PQAO/monitoring organization's QAPP approving authority. Submission of an electronic version to the EPA at the time of completion is not considered an added burden on the monitoring organization because such submission is already a standard practice as part of the review process for technical systems audits. The EPA proposes to add some clarifying language to the section describing the National Performance Evaluation Program (NPEP) (current section 2.4) explaining self-implementation of the performance evaluation by the monitoring organization. The clarification also adds the definition of independent assessment which is included in the PEP (PM 2.5 -PEP, Pb-PEP and National Performance Audit Program (NPAP)) QAPPs and guidance and is included in the self-implementation memo sent to the monitoring organizations on an annual basis and posted on the AMTIC Web site 20 . The clarification is not a new requirement but provides a better reference for this information in addition to the annual memo sent to the monitoring organizations. 20 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html. The EPA proposes to add some clarifying language to the technical systems audits (TSA) section (current section 2.4). The current TSA requirements are performed at the monitoring organization level. Since the EPA is revising the language in appendix A to focus on PQAOs instead of monitoring organizations, this may have an effect on those EPA Regions that want to perform TSA on monitoring organizations within a PQAO (a PQAO can be a single monitoring organization or a consolidation of a number of local monitoring organizations). The EPA proposes a TSA frequency of 3 years for each PQAO, but includes language that if a PQAO is made up of a number of monitoring organizations, all monitoring organizations within the PQAO be audited within 6 years. This proposed language maintains the every 3 years TSA requirement as it applies to PQAOs but provides additional flexibility for the EPA regions to audit every monitoring organization within the PQAO every 6 years. This change does not materially affect the burden on monitoring organizations. The EPA proposes to require monitoring organizations to complete an annual survey for the Ambient Air Protocol Gas Verification Program (AA-PGVP) (current section 2.6.1). Since 2009, the EPA has had a separate information collection request (ICR) requiring monitoring organizations to complete an annual survey of the producers that supply their gas standards (for calibrations and QC) in order to be able to select standards from these producers for verification. The survey generally takes less than 10 minutes to complete. The EPA proposes to add the requirement to appendix A. In addition, the EPA proposes to add language that monitoring organizations participate, at the request of the EPA, in the AA-PGVP by sending a gas standard to one of the verification laboratories every 5 years. Since many monitoring organizations already volunteer to send in cylinders, this proposed new requirement may not materially affect most agencies and will not affect those agencies not using gas standards. 3. Quality Control Checks for Gases The EPA proposes to lower the audit concentrations (current section 3.2.1) of the one-point QC checks to 0.005 and 0.08 parts per million (ppm) for SO 2 , NO 2 , and O 3 (currently 0.01 to 0.1 ppm), and to between 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors (currently 1 and 10 ppm). With the development of more sensitive monitoring instruments with lower detection limits, technical improvements in calibrators, and lower ambient air concentrations in general, the EPA feels this revision will better reflect the precision and bias of the data. Since the audit concentrations are selected using the mean or median concentration of typical ambient air concentrations (guidance on this is provided in the QA Handbook 21 ), the EPA is proposing to add some clarification to the current language by requiring monitoring organizations to select either the highest or lowest concentration in the ranges identified if their mean or median concentrations are above or below the prescribed range. There is no additional burden to this requirement since the frequency is the same and the audit concentrations are not so low as to make them unachievable to generate or measure. 21 QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Vol. II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html . The EPA proposes to remove reference to zero and span adjustments (current section 3.2.1.1) and revise the one-point QC language to simply require that the QC check be conducted before any calibration or adjustment to the monitor. Recent revisions of the QA Handbook discourage the implementation of frequent span adjustments so the proposed language helps to clarify that no adjustment be made prior to implementation of the one-point QC check. The EPA proposes to remove the requirement (current section 3.2.2) to implement an annual performance evaluation for one monitor in each calendar quarter when monitoring organizations have less than four monitoring instruments. The minimum requirement for the annual performance evaluation for the primary monitor at a site is one per year. The current regulation requires evaluation of the monitors at 25 percent per quarter so that the performance evaluations are performed in all four quarters. There are cases where some monitoring organizations have less than four primary monitors for a gaseous pollutant, and the current language suggests that a monitor already receiving a performance evaluation be re-audited to provide for performance evaluations in all four quarters. This is a burden reduction for monitoring agencies operating smaller networks and does not change the requirement of an annual performance evaluation for each primary monitor. The current annual performance evaluation language (current section 3.2.2.1) requires that the audits be conducted by selecting three consecutive audit levels (currently five audit levels are provided in appendix A). Due to the implementation of the NCore network, the inception of trace gas monitors, and lower ambient air concentrations being measured under typical circumstances, there is a need for audit levels at lower concentrations to more accurately represent the uncertainties present in much of the ambient data. The EPA proposes to expand the audit levels from five to ten and remove the requirement to audit three consecutive levels. The current regulation also requires that the three audit levels should bracket 80 percent of the ambient air concentrations measured by the analyzer. This current language has caused some confusion and monitoring organizations have requested the use of an audit point to establish monitor accuracy around the NAAQS levels. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise the language so that two of the audits levels selected represent 10-80 percent of routinely-collected ambient concentrations either measured by the monitor or in the PQAOs network of monitors. The proposed revision allows the third point to be selected at the NAAQS level (e.g., 75 ppb for SO 2 ) or above the highest 3-year routine hourly concentration, whichever is greater. The EPA proposes to revise the language (current section 3.2.2.2(a)) addressing the limits on excess nitric oxide (NO) that must be followed during gas phase titration (GPT) procedures involving NO 2 audits. The current NO limit (maintaining at least 0.08 ppm) is very restrictive and requires auditors to make numerous mid-audit adjustments during a GPT that result in making the NO 2 audit a very time consuming procedure. Monitoring agency staff have advised us that the observance of such excess NO limits has no apparent effect on NO 2 calibrations being conducted with modern-day GPT capable calibration equipment and, therefore, that the requirement in the context of performing audits is unnecessary. 22 We also note the increasing availability of the EPA approved direct NO 2 methods that do not utilize converters, rendering the use of GPT techniques that require the output of NO and NO X to be a potentially diminishingly used procedure in the future. Accordingly, we have proposed a more general statement regarding GPT that acknowledges the ongoing usage of monitoring agency procedures and guidance documents that have successfully supported NO 2 calibration activities. The EPA believes that if such procedures have been successfully used during calibrations when instrument adjustments are potentially being made, then such procedures are appropriate for audit use when instruments are not subject to adjustment. The EPA solicits comment on this proposed generalization of the GPT requirements, including whether a more specific set of requirements similar to the current excess NO levels can be developed based on operational experience and/or peer reviewed literature. 22 See supporting information in Excess NO Issue paper, Mike Papp and Lewis Weinstock, Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619. The EPA proposes to remove language (current section 3.2.2.2(b)) in the annual performance evaluation section that requires regional approval for audit gases for any monitors operating at ranges higher that 1.0 ppm for O 3 , SO 2 and NO 2 and greater than 50 ppm for CO. The EPA does not need to approve a monitoring organization's use of audit gases to audit above proposed concentration levels. There should be very few cases where a performance evaluation needs to be performed above level 10, but there may be some legitimate instances (e.g., SO 2 audits in areas impacted by volcanic emissions). Since data reported to AQS above the highest level may be flagged or rejected, the EPA proposes that PQAOs notify the EPA regions of sites auditing at concentrations above level 10 so that reporting accommodations can be made. The EPA proposes to provide additional explanatory language in appendix A to describe the NPAP (current section 2.4). The NPAP has been a long standing program for the ambient air monitoring community. The NPAP is a performance evaluation which is a type of audit where quantitative data are collected independently in order to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, monitoring instrument or laboratory. It has been briefly mentioned in section 2.4 of the current appendix A requirements. Since 2007, the EPA has distributed a memo to all monitoring organizations in order to determine whether the monitoring organization plans to self-implement the NPAP program or utilize the federally implemented program. In order to make this decision, the NPAP adequacy and independence requirements are described in the memo. The EPA proposes to include these same requirements in appendix A in a separate section for NPAP. In addition, the memo currently states that 20 percent of the sites would be audited each year and, therefore, all sites would be audited in a 5-year period. Since there is a possibility that monitoring organizations may want some higher priority sites audited more frequently, the EPA is proposing to revise the language to require all sites to be audited within a 6-year period to provide more flexibility and discretion for monitoring agencies. This revision does not change the number of sites audited in any given year, but allows for increased frequency of sites deemed as high priority. 4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate Monitors The EPA proposes to require that flow rate verifications (current section 3.2.3) be reported to AQS. Particulate matter concentrations (e.g., PM 2.5 , PM 10 , Pb) are reported in mass per unit of volume (e.g., μg/m 3 ). Flow rate verifications are implemented at required frequencies in order to ensure that the PM sampler is providing an accurate and repeatable measure of volume which is critical for the determination of concentration. If a given flow rate verification does not meet acceptance criteria, the EPA guidance suggests that data may be invalidated back to the most recent acceptable verification which is why these checks are performed at higher frequencies. Implementation of the flow rate verification is currently a requirement, but the reporting to AQS has only been a requirement for PM 10 continuous instruments. This is the only QC requirement in appendix A that was not fully required for reporting for all pollutants and has been a cause of confusion. When performing TSAs, the EPA regions review the flow rate verification information. There are cases where it is difficult to find the flow rate verification information to ascertain completeness, data quality and whether corrective actions have been implemented in the case of flow rate verification failures. In addition, the EPA regions have mentioned that some of the monitoring organizations have been reporting this data to AQS in an effort to increase transparency and reliability in data quality. In a recent review of 2012 data, out of the 1,110 SLAMS PM 2.5 samplers providing flow rate audit data (which are required to be reported), flow rate verification data was also reported for 543 samplers or about 49 percent for the samplers with flow rate audit data. With the development of a new QA transaction in AQS, we believe that the reporting of flow rate verification data would improve the evaluation of data quality for data certification and at national levels, provide consistent interpretation in the regulation for all PM pollutants without being overly burdensome (approximately 12 per sampler per year). In addition, the flow rate verification requirements for all the particulate monitors suggest randomization of the implementation of flow rate verifications with respect to time of day, day of the week and routine service and adjustments. Since this is a suggestion, the EPA proposes to remove this language from the regulation and instead include it in QA guidance. The EPA proposes to add clarifying language to the PM 2.5 collocation requirements (current section 3.2.5) that a site can only count for the collocation of the method designation of the primary monitor at that site. Precision is estimated at the PQAO level and at 15 percent of the sites for each method designation that is designated as a primary monitor. When developing the collocation requirements, the EPA intended to have the collocated monitors distributed to as many sites as possible in order to capture as much of the temporal and spatial variability in the PQAO. Therefore, since there can be only one primary monitor at a site for any given time period, it was originally intended that the primary monitor and the QA collocated monitor (for the primary) at a monitoring site count as one collocation. There have been some cases where multiple monitoring methods have been placed at a single site to fulfill multiple collocation requirements, which is not the intent of the current requirement. For example, a site (Site A) may have a primary monitor that is designated as a FRM (FRM A). This site may also have a FEM (FEM B) at the site that is not the primary monitor. If this site was selected for collocation, then the QA collocated monitor must be the same method designation as the primary, so the site would be collocated with another FRM A monitor. For primary monitors that are FEMs, the current requirement calls for the first QA collocated monitor of a FEM primary monitor be a FRM monitor. Some monitoring organizations have been using the collocated FRM monitors at Site A to satisfy the collocation requirements for other sites (e.g., Sites B, C, D) that have a FEM (FEM B or other FEM) as the primary monitor rather than placing a QA collocated FRM monitor at Site B (C or D). This was not the intent of the original regulation and the EPA provided additional guidance to monitoring organizations in 2010 23 on the correct (intended) interpretation. This revision does not change the current regulation and does not increase or decrease burden, but is intended to provide clarity on how the PQAO identifies the number and types of monitors needed to achieve the collocation requirements. 23 QA EYE Issue 9 Page 3 at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qanews.html. The EPA proposes to provide more flexibility to monitoring organizations when selecting sites for collocation. Appendix A currently (current section 3.2.5.3) requires 80 percent of the collocated monitors be deployed at sites within ±20 percent of the NAAQS and if the monitoring organization does not have sites within that range, then 60 percent of the sites are to be deployed among the highest 25 percent of all sites within the network. Monitoring organizations have found this difficult to achieve. Some monitoring organizations do not have many sites and, at times, due to permission, access and limited space issues, the requirement was not always achievable. Realizing that the collocated monitors provide precision estimates for the PQAO (since only 15 percent of the sites are collocated), while also acknowledging that sites that measure concentrations close to the NAAQS are important, the EPA proposes to require that 50 percent (reduction from 80 percent) of the collocated monitors be deployed at sites within ±20 percent of the NAAQS, and if the monitoring organization does not have sites within that range, then 50 percent of the sites are to be deployed among the highest sites within the network. Although this requirement does not change the number of sites requiring collocation, it does provide the monitoring organizations additional flexibility in its choice of collocated sites. 5. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment In order to provide reasonable estimates of data quality, the EPA uses data above an established threshold concentration usually related to the detection limits of the measurement. Measurement pairs are selected for use in the precision and bias calculations only when both measurements are above a threshold concentration. For many years, the threshold concentration for Pb precision and bias data was 0.02 ug/m 3 . The EPA promulgated a new Pb FRM (see 78 FR 40000) utilizing the Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis technique in 2013 as a revision to appendix G of 40 CFR part 50 24 . This new FRM demonstrated method detection limits (MDLs) 25 below 0.0002 μg/m 3 , which is well below the EPA requirement of five percent of the current Pb NAAQS level of 0.15 μg/m 3 or 0.0075 μg/m 3 . As a result of the increased sensitivity inherent in this new FRM, the EPA proposes to lower the acceptable Pb concentration (current section 4) from the current value of 0.02 ug/m 3 to 0.002 μg/m 3 for measurements obtained using the new Pb FRM and other more recently approved equivalent methods that have the requisite increased sensitivity. 26 The current 0.02 ug/m 3 value will be retained for the previous Pb FRM that has subsequently been re-designated as Federal Equivalent Method EQLA-0813-803, as well as older equivalent methods that were approved prior to the more recent work on developing more sensitive methods. Since ambient Pb concentrations are lower and methods more sensitive, lowering the threshold concentration will allow much more collocated information to be evaluated which will provide more representative estimates of precision and bias. 24 See 78 FR 40000, July 3, 2013. 25 MDL is described as the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99-percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. 26 FEMS approved on or after March 4, 2010, have the required sensitivity to utilize the 0.002 μg/m 3 reporting limit with the exception of manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803, the previous FRM based on flame atomic absorption spectroscopy. The EPA also proposes to remove the total suspended particulate (TSP) threshold concentration for precision and bias since TSP is no longer a NAAQS required pollutant and the EPA no longer has QC requirements for it. The EPA proposes to remove the statistical check currently described in section 4.1.5 of appendix A. The check was developed to perform a comparison of the one-point QC checks and the annual performance evaluation data performed by the same PQAO. The section suggests that 95 percent of all the bias estimates from the annual performance evaluation (reported as a percent difference) should fall within the 95 percent probability interval developed using the one-point QC checks. The problem with this check is that PQAOs with very good repeatability on the one-point QC check data had a hard time meeting this requirement since the probability interval became very tight, making it more difficult for better performing PQAOs to meet the requirement. Separate statistics to evaluate the one-point QC checks and the performance evaluations are already promulgated, so the removal of this check does not affect data quality assessments. Similar to the statistical comparison of performance evaluations data, the EPA proposes to remove the statistical check (current section 4.2.4) to compare the flow rate audit data and flow rate verification data. The existing language suggests that 95 percent of all the flow rate audit data results (reported as percent difference) should fall within the 95 percent probability interval developed from the flow rate verification data for the PQAO. The problem, as with the one-point QC check, was that monitoring organizations with very good repeatability on the flow rate verifications had a hard time meeting this requirement since the probability interval became very tight, making it difficult for better performing PQAOs to meet the requirement. Separate statistics to evaluate the flow rate verifications and flow rate audits are already promulgated, so the removal of this check does not affect data quality assessments. B. Quality Assurance Requirements for Monitors Used in Evaluations of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Projects-Appendix B 1. General Information The following proposed changes to monitoring requirements impact these subparts of part 58—Ambient Air Quality Surveillance; appendix B—Quality Assurance Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Monitoring. Changes that affect the overall appendix follow while those specific to the various sections of the appendix will be addressed under specific section headings. Since the PSD QA have been included in appendix A since 2006, section headings refer to the current appendix A sections. The quality assurance requirements in appendix B have been developed for measuring the criteria pollutants of O 3 , NO 2 , SO 2 , CO, PM 2.5 , PM 10 and Pb and are minimum QA requirements for the control and assessment of the quality of the PSD ambient air monitoring data submitted to the PSD reviewing authority 27 or the EPA by an organization operating a network of PSD stations. 27 Permitting authority and reviewing authority are often used synonymously in PSD permitting. Since reviewing authority has been defined in 40 CFR 51.166(b), it is used throughout appendix B. In the 2006 monitoring rule revisions, the PSD QA requirements, which were previously in appendix B, were consolidated with appendix A and appendix B was held in reserve. The PSD requirements, in most cases, parallel appendix A in structure and content but because PSD monitoring is only required for a period of one year or less, some of the frequencies of implementation of the QC requirements for PSD are higher than the corresponding appendix A requirements. In addition, the agencies governing the implementation, assessment and approval of the QA requirements are different; the reviewing authorities for PSD monitoring and the EPA regions for ambient air monitoring for NAAQS decisions. The combined regulations have caused confusion or misinterpretations of the regulations among the public and monitoring organizations implementing NAAQS or PSD requirements, and have resulted in failure, in some cases, to perform the necessary QC requirements. Accordingly, the EPA proposes that the PSD QA requirements be removed from appendix A and returned to appendix B which is currently reserved. Separating the two sets of QA requirements would clearly distinguish the PSD QA requirements and allow more flexibility for future revisions to either monitoring program. With this proposed rule, the EPA would not change most of the QC requirements for PSD. Therefore, the discussion that follows will cover those sections of the PSD requirements that the EPA proposes to change from the current appendix A requirements. The applicability section of appendix B clarifies that the PSD QA requirements are not assumed to be minimum requirements for data used in NAAQS decisions. One reason for this distinction is in the flexibility allowed in PSD monitoring for the NPEP (current appendix A section 2.4). The proposed PSD requirements allow the PSD reviewing authority to decide whether implementation of the NPEP will be performed. The NPEP, which is described in appendix A, includes the NPAP, PM 2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PM 2.5 -PEP), and the Pb-PEP. Accordingly, under the proposed rule, if a PSD reviewing authority were to have the intent of using PSD data for any official comparison to the NAAQS beyond the permitting application, such as for attainment/nonattainment designations or clean data determinations, then all requirements in appendix B including implementation of the NPEP would apply. In this case, monitoring would more closely conform to the appendix A requirements. The EPA proposes this flexibility for PSD because the NPEP requires either federal implementation or implementation by a qualified individual, group or organization that is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable for the work being assessed. The NPEP may require specialized equipment, certified auditors and a number of activities which are enumerated in the sections associated with these programs. Arranging this type of support service may be more difficult for the operator of a single or small number of PSD monitoring stations operating for only a year or less. The EPA cannot accept funding from private contractors or industry, and federal implementation of the NPEP for PSD would face several funding and logistical hurdles. This creates an inequity in the NPEP implementation options available to the PSD monitoring organizations compared to the state/local/tribal monitoring organization monitoring for NAAQS compliance. The EPA has had success in training and certifying private contractors in various categories of performance evaluations conducted under NPEP, but many have not made the necessary investments in capital equipment to implement all categories of the performance evaluations. Since the monitoring objectives for the collection of data for PSD are not necessarily the same as those for NAAQS evaluations, the EPA proposes to allow the PSD reviewing authority to determine whether a PSD monitoring project must implement the NPEP. The EPA proposes to clarify the definition of PSD PQAO. The PQAO was first defined in appendix A in 2006 (current appendix A section 3.1.1) when the PSD requirements were combined with appendix A. The definition is not substantially changed for PSD, but the EPA proposes to clarify that a PSD PQAO can only be associated with one PSD reviewing authority. Distinguishing among the PSD PQAOs that coordinate with a PSD reviewing authority would be consistent with discrete jurisdictions for PSD permitting, and it would simplify oversight of the QA requirements for each PSD network. Given that companies may apply for PSD permits throughout the United States, it is expected that some PSD monitoring organizations will work with multiple reviewing authorities. The PSD PQAO code which may appear in the AQS data base and other records defines the PSD monitoring organization or a coordinated aggregation of such organizations that is responsible for a set of stations within one PSD reviewing authority that monitors the same pollutant and for which data quality assessments will be pooled. The PSD monitoring organizations that work with multiple PSD reviewing authorities would have individual PSD PQAO codes for each PSD reviewing authority. This approach will allow for the flexibility to develop appropriate quality systems for each PSD reviewing authority. The EPA proposes to add definitions of “PSD monitoring organization” and “PSD monitoring network” to 40 CFR 58.1. The definitions have been developed to improve understanding of the appendix B regulations. Since the EPA uses the term “monitoring organization” quite frequently in the NAAQS associated ambient air regulations, the EPA wants to provide a better definition of the term in the PSD QA requirements. Therefore, the EPA proposes the term “PSD monitoring organization” to identify “a source owner/operator, a government agency, or its contractor that operates an ambient air pollution monitoring network for PSD purposes.” The EPA also proposes to define “PSD monitoring network” in order to distinguish “a set of monitors that provide concentration information for a specific PSD permit.” The EPA will place both definitions in 40 CFR 58.1. 2. Quality System Requirements The EPA proposes to remove the PM 10-2.5 requirements for flow rate verifications, semi-annual flow rate audits, collocated sampling procedures and PM 10-2.5 Performance Evaluation Program from appendix B (current appendix A sections 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 3.3.6, 3.3.8, 4.3). In 2006, the EPA proposed a PM 10-2.5 NAAQS along with requisite QA requirements in appendix A. While the PM 10-2.5 NAAQS was not promulgated, PM 10-2.5 monitoring was required to be performed at NCore sites and the EPA proposed requisite QA requirements in appendix A. Since PSD monitoring is distinct from monitoring at NCore sites and PM 10-2.5 is not a criteria pollutant, it will be removed from the PSD QA requirements. The EPA proposes that the Pb QA requirements of collocated sampling (current appendix A section 3.3.4.3) and Pb performance evaluation procedures (current appendix A section 3.3.4.4) for non-source oriented NCore sites be eliminated for PSD. The 2010 Pb rule in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.5(b), added a requirement to conduct non-source oriented Pb monitoring at each NCore site in a CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more. Since PSD does not implement NCore sites, the EPA proposes to eliminate the Pb QA language specific to non-source NCore sites from PSD while retaining the PSD QA requirements for routine Pb monitoring. The EPA proposes that elements of QMPs and QAPPs which are separate documents and are described in appendix A, sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2, can be combined into a single document for PSD monitoring networks. The QMP provides a “blueprint” of a PSD monitoring organization's quality system. It includes quality policies and describes how the organization as a whole manages and implements its quality system regardless of what monitoring is being performed. The QAPP includes details for implementing a specific PSD monitoring activity. For PSD monitoring, the EPA believes the project-specific QAPP takes priority but there are important aspects of the QMP that could be incorporated into the QAPP. The current appendix A requirements allow smaller organizations or organizations that do infrequent work with EPA to combine the QMP with the QAPP based on negotiations with the funding agency and provided guidance 28 on a graded approach to developing these documents. In the case of PSD QMPs and QAPPs, the EPA proposes that the PSD reviewing authority, which has the approval authority for these documents, also have the flexibility for allowing the PSD PQAO to combine pertinent elements of the QMP into the QAPP rather than requiring the submission of both QMP and QAPP documents separately. 28 Graded approach to Tribal QAPP and QMPs http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html. The EPA proposes to add language to the appendix B version of the data quality objectives (DQO) section (current appendix A section 2.3.1) which allows flexibility for the PSD reviewing authority and the PSD monitoring organization to determine if adherence to the DQOs specified in appendix A, which are the DQO goals for NAAQS decisions, are appropriate or whether project-specific goals are necessary. Allowing the PSD reviewing authority and the PSD monitoring organization flexibility to change the DQOs does not change the implementation requirements for the types and frequency of the QC checks in appendix B, but does give some flexibility in the acceptance of data for use in specific projects for which the PSD data are collected. As an example, the goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty for the collection of O 3 data for NAAQS determinations is defined for precision as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for CV of seven percent and for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of seven percent. The precision and bias estimates are made with 3 years of one-point QC check data. A single or a few one-point QC checks over seven percent would not have a significant effect on meeting the DQO goal. The PSD monitoring DQO, depending on the objectives of the PSD monitoring network, may require a stricter DQO goal or one less restrictive. Since PSD monitoring covers a period of 1 year or less, one-point QC checks over seven percent will increase the likelihood of failing to meet the DQO goal since there would be fewer QC checks available in the monitoring period to estimate precision and bias. With fewer checks, any individual check will statistically have more influence over the precision or bias estimate. Realizing that PSD monitoring may have different monitoring objectives, the EPA proposes to add language that would allow decisions on data quality objectives to be determined through consultation between the appropriate PSD reviewing authority and PSD monitoring organization. The EPA proposes to add some clarifying language to the section describing the NPEP (current appendix A section 2.4) to explain self-implementation of the performance evaluation by the PSD monitoring organization. Self-implementation of NPEP has always been an option for monitoring organizations but the requirements for self-implementation were described in the technical implementation documents (i.e., implementation plans and QAPPs) for the program and in an annual self-implementation decision memo that is distributed to monitoring organizations. 29 These major requirements for self-implementation are proposed to be included in the appendix B sections pertaining to the NPEP program (NPAP, PM 2.5 -PEP and Pb-PEP). 29 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html. The NPEP clarification also adds a definition of “independent assessment.” The proposed definition is derived from the NPEP (NPAP, PM 2.5 -PEP, and Pb-PEP) QAPPs and guidance; it also appears in the annual self-implementation memo described above. The clarification is not a new requirement but consolidates this information. The EPA proposes to require PSD PQAOs to provide information to the PSD reviewing authority on the vendors of gas standards that they use (or will use) for the duration of the PSD monitoring project. A QAPP or monitoring plan may incorporate this information; however, that document must then be updated if there is a change in the vendor used. The current regulation (current appendix A section 2.6.1) requires any gas vendor advertising and distributing “EPA Protocol Gas” to participate in the AA-PGVP. The EPA posts a list of these vendors on the AMTIC Web site. 30 This is not expected to be a burden since information of this type is normally included in a QAPP or standard operating procedure for a monitoring activity. 30 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/aapgvp.html. 3. Quality Control Checks for Gases The EPA proposes to lower the audit concentrations (current appendix A section 3.2.1) of the one-point QC checks to 0.005 and 0.08 ppm for SO 2 , NO 2 , and O 3 (currently 0.01 to 0.1 ppm), and to between 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors (currently 1 and 10 ppm). With the development of more sensitive monitoring instruments with lower detection limits, technical improvements in calibrators, and lower ambient air concentrations in general, the EPA believes this revision will better reflect the precision and bias of the routinely-collected ambient air data. Since the audit concentrations are selected using the mean or median concentration of typical ambient air data (guidance on this is provided in the QA Handbook 31 ), the EPA is proposing to add some clarification to the current language by requiring PSD monitoring organizations to select either the highest or lowest concentration in the ranges identified if the mean or median values of the routinely-collected concentrations are above or below the prescribed range. There is no additional burden added by this requirement since the frequency is the same and the audit concentrations are not so low as to make them unachievable to generate or measure. 31 QA Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Vol. II Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html. The EPA proposes to remove the existing reference to zero and span adjustments (current appendix A, section 3.2.1.1) and to revise the one-point QC language to simply require that the QC check be conducted before making any calibration or adjustment to the monitor. Recent revisions of the QA Handbook discourage the practice of making frequent span adjustments so the proposed language helps to clarify that no adjustment be made prior to implementation of the one-point QC check. The current annual performance evaluation language (current appendix A, section 3.2.2.1) requires that the audits be conducted by selecting three consecutive audit levels (currently appendix A recognizes five audit levels). Due to the implementation of the NCore network, the inception of trace gas monitors, and lower ambient air concentrations being measured under typical circumstances, there is a need for audit levels at lower concentrations to more accurately represent the uncertainties present in the ambient air data. The EPA proposes to expand the audit levels from five to ten and remove the requirement to audit three consecutive levels. The current regulation also requires that the three audit levels should bracket 80 percent of the ambient air concentrations measured by the analyzer. This current “bracketing language” has caused some confusion and monitoring organizations have requested the use of an audit point to establish monitor accuracy around the NAAQS levels. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to revise the language so that two of the audit levels selected represent 10 to 80 percent of routinely-collected ambient concentrations either measured by the monitor or in the PSD PQAOs network of monitors. The proposed revision allows the third point to be selected at a concentration that is consistent with PSD-specific DQOs (e.g., the 75 ppb NAAQS level for SO 2 ). The EPA proposes to revise the language (current appendix A, section 3.2.2.2(a)) addressing the limits on excess NO that must be followed during GPT procedures involving NO 2 audits. The current NO limit (maintaining at least 0.08 ppm) is very restrictive and requires auditors to make numerous mid-audit adjustments during a GPT that result in making the NO 2 audit a very time consuming procedure. Monitoring agency staff have advised us that the observance of such excess NO limits has no apparent effect on NO 2 calibrations being conducted with modern-day GPT-capable calibration equipment and, therefore, that the requirements in the context of performing audits is unnecessary. 32 We also note the increasing availability of the EPA-approved direct NO 2 methods that do not utilize converters, rendering the use of GPT techniques that require the output of NO and NO X to be a potentially diminishingly used procedure in the future. Accordingly, we have proposed a more general statement regarding GPT that acknowledges the ongoing usage of monitoring agency procedures and guidance documents that have successfully supported NO 2 calibration activities. The EPA believes that if such procedures have been successfully used during calibrations when instrument adjustments are potentially being made, than such procedures are appropriate for audit use when instruments are not subject to adjustment. The EPA solicits comment on this proposed generalization of the GPT requirements, including whether a more specific set of requirements similar to the current excess NO levels can be developed based on operational experience and/or peer reviewed literature. 32 See supporting information in Excess NO Issue paper, Mike Papp and Lewis Weinstock, Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619. The EPA proposes to remove language (current appendix A section 3.2.2.2(b)) in the annual performance evaluation section that requires regional approval for audit gases for any monitors operating at ranges higher that 1.0 ppm for O 3 , SO 2 and NO 2 and greater than 50 ppm for CO. The EPA does not need to approve a monitoring organization's use of audit gases to audit above proposed concentration levels since the EPA has identified the requirements for all audit gases used in the program in current appendix A, section 2.6.1. There should be very few cases where a performance evaluation needs to be performed above level 10 but there may be some legitimate instances (e.g., an SO 2 audit in areas impacted by volcanic emissions). Since data reported to AQS above the highest level may be rejected (if PSD PE data are reported to AQS), the EPA proposes that PQAOs notify the PSD reviewing authority of sites auditing at concentrations above level 10 so that reporting accommodations can be made. The EPA proposes to describe the NPAP (current appendix A, section 2.4) in more detail. The NPAP is a long-standing program for the ambient air monitoring community. The NPAP is a performance evaluation which is a type of audit where quantitative data are collected independently in order to evaluate the proficiency of an analyst, monitoring instrument or laboratory. This program has been briefly mentioned in section 2.4 of the current appendix A requirements. In appendix A, the EPA is proposing to add language consistent with an annual decision memorandum 33 distributed to all state and local monitoring organizations in order to determine whether the monitoring organization plans to self-implement the NPAP program or utilize the federally implemented program. In order to make this decision, the NPAP adequacy and independence requirements are described in the decision memorandum. The EPA proposes to include these same requirements in appendix B in a separate section for NPAP. As described in the applicability section, the implementation of NPAP is at the discretion of the PSD reviewing authority but must be implemented if data are used in any NAAQS determinations. Since PSD monitoring is implemented at shorter intervals (usually a year) and with fewer monitors, if NPAP is performed, it is required to be performed annually on each monitor operated in the PSD network. 33 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/qa/npappep2014.pdf. 4. Quality Control Checks for Particulate Monitors The EPA proposes to have one flow rate verification frequency requirement for all PM PSD monitors. The current regulations (current appendix A, table A-2) provides for monthly flow rate verifications for most samplers used to monitor PM 2.5 , PM 10 and Pb and quarterly flow rate verifications for high-volume PM 10 or TSP samplers (for Pb). With longer duration NAAQS monitoring, the quarterly verification frequencies are adequate for these high-volume PM 10 or TSP samplers. However, with the short duration of PSD monitoring, the EPA believes that monthly flow rate verifications are more appropriate to ensure that any sampler flow rate problems are identified more quickly and to reduce the potential for a significant amount of data invalidation that could extend monitoring activities. The EPA proposes to grant more flexibility to PSD monitoring organizations when selecting PM 2.5 method designations for sites that require collocation. Appendix A currently (current appendix A, section 3.2.5.2(b)) requires that if a primary monitor is a FEM, then the first QC collocated monitor must be a FRM monitor. Most of the FEM monitors are continuous monitors while the FRM monitors are filter-based. Continuous monitors (which are all FEMs) may be advantageous for use at the [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2014-19758. Public record. Not legal advice.