[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17247-17299]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06226]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 59

March 28, 2016

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 58

 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other
Requirements; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619; FRL-9942-91-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS00

Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action promulgates revisions to ambient air monitoring
requirements for criteria pollutants. These revisions include adding
and harmonizing definitions; clarifying annual monitoring network plan
public notice requirements; revising network design requirements;
system modifications and operating schedules; clarifying data
certification, data submittal and archiving procedures; reorganizing
and clarifying quality assurance requirements; and revising certain
network design criteria for non-source oriented lead monitoring. These
revisions also address other issues in the Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance Requirements, to help reduce the compliance burden of
monitoring agencies operating ambient monitoring networks.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0619, EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
this action will be posted at the TTN's Ambient Monitoring Technology
Information Center at the following address: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/monregs.html. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    This rule is nationally applicable and, furthermore, the
Administrator finds that it is of nationwide scope and effect. Under
section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this
final rule is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 27, 2016.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this action may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.

Table of Contents

    The following topics are discussed in this preamble:

I. Background
II. Amendments 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. Amendments 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. Measurement Quality Checks for Gases
    4. Measurement Quality 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. Measurement Quality Checks for Gases
    4. Measurement Quality 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 Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    On September 11, 2014, the EPA proposed revisions to its ambient
air monitoring requirements for criteria pollutants to provide
clarifications to existing requirements and to reduce the compliance
burden of monitoring agencies operating ambient monitoring networks (79
FR 54356). The proposal focused 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. These revisions were proposed to maintain the
robust nature of the ambient monitoring networks while identifying
efficiencies and flexibilities that would help ensure the successful
operation of the national monitoring system.
    The EPA last completed a comprehensive revision of its ambient air
monitoring regulations in a final rule published on October 17, 2006
(71 FR 61236). Minor revisions were completed in a direct final rule
published on June 12, 2007 (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: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Amendments to the Ambient Monitoring Requirements

A. General Information

    This section describes revisions to the EPA's ambient air
monitoring requirements found in 40 CFR part 58--Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance: Subpart A--General Provisions, Subpart B--Monitoring
Network, and Appendix D--Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air
Quality Monitoring.
    The EPA received public comments on its September 2014 proposal
from 31 respondents including 15 state agencies, 12 local agencies, two
multijurisdictional organizations (MJO), one consulting firm, and one
environmental organization whose comments represented two
organizations. Due to the relatively large number of individual
revisions contained in the proposal, commenters typically focused their
attention on particular items of interest while occasionally providing
a more general, overarching statement of support for the remaining
provisions. In some cases, commenters remained silent on other
provisions of the proposal and the level of support for those
provisions cannot be ascertained. In the following sections, the
specific comments will be noted as they pertain to each particular
proposed revision. This preamble will summarize the affected
regulation, proposed changes, public comments that were received, the
EPA's analysis of those comments where applicable, and EPA's final
decision concerning the revisions. A detailed description of changes to
Quality Assurance Requirements is contained in section III of the
preamble.

B. Definitions

    The presence of a definitions section in the regulation ensures a
consistent interpretation of technical terminology across the various
parts of the CFR that pertain to ambient air monitoring, as well as in
supporting guidance documents, databases, and outreach materials that
support the monitoring community.
    The EPA proposed 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 https://www.epa.gov/aqs/aqs-obtaining-aqs-data for additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed to add the term ``Certifying Agency'' to the list
of definitions. The certifying agency field was added to the 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, a certifying agency is 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\ https://aqs.epa.gov/aqsweb/codes/data/CertifyingAgenciesByMonitor.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The term ``Chemical Speciation Network,'' or CSN, was proposed for
addition to the definition list. The CSN has been functionally defined
as being composed of the Speciation Trends Network (STN) sites and the
supplemental speciation sites that are collectively operated by
monitoring agencies to obtain particulate matter up to 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5) chemical species data.
    The term ``Implementation Plan'' was 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 EPA proposed to revise the term ``Local Agency'' to clarify
that such organizations are responsible for implementing portions of
Annual Monitoring Network Plans. The current definition refers to the
carrying out a plan that is not specifically defined, leading to
possible confusion with SIPs.
    The EPA proposed to revise the term ``Meteorological Measurements''
to clarify that such measurements refer to required parameters at the
National Core Monitoring Program (NCore) and photochemical assessment
monitoring stations (PAMS).
    The terms ``Monitoring Agency'' and ``Monitoring Organization''
were proposed for clarification to include tribal monitoring agencies
and to simplify the definition of monitoring organization to reference
the definition of monitoring agency.
    The term ``NCore'' was proposed for revision to remove nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) and lead in PM10 (Pb-
PM10) as a required measurement and to expand the definition
of basic meteorology to specifically reference the required
measurements: Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and relative
humidity. The EPA clarifies that NO2 was never a required
NCore measurement and that the current definition was erroneous on this
issue. Additionally, the requirement to measure Pb-PM10 at
NCore sites in areas over 500,000 population was proposed for
elimination due to the extremely low concentrations being measured at
these sites.
    The term ``Near-road NO2 Monitor'' was proposed for
revision to ``Near-road Monitor.'' This revision is being made to
broaden the definition of near-road monitors to include all monitors
operating under the specific requirements described in 40 CFR part 58,
appendix D (sections 4.2.1, 4.3.2, 4.7.1(b)(2)) and appendix E (section
6.4(a), Table E-4) for near-road measurement of PM2.5 and
carbon monoxide (CO) in addition to NO2.
    The term ``Network Plan'' was 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'' was 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 CAA section 110.
    The term ``Population-oriented Monitoring (or sites)'' was proposed
for

deletion. This term, along with the related concept of population-
oriented monitoring, was deleted from 40 CFR part 58 in the 2013
PM2.5 NAAQS final rule (78 FR 3235-3236). This was to ensure
consistency with the longstanding definition of ambient air applied to
the other NAAQS pollutants.
    The term ``Primary Monitor'' was proposed for addition to the
definition list. The use of this term has become important in AQS to
better define the processes used to calculate NAAQS design values when
more than one monitor is being operated by a monitoring agency for a
given pollutant at the same site. This term identifies the primary
monitor used as the default data source in AQS for creating a combined
site record for pollutants that allow site combinations per 40 CFR part
50.
    The term ``Primary Quality Assurance Organization'' was proposed
for revision to include the use of the acronym, ``PQAO,'' and to note
that a PQAO could include a group of monitoring organizations.
    The terms ``PSD Monitoring Organization'' and ``PSD Monitoring
Network'' were proposed for addition 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'' was proposed for addition 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'' was 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) was
proposed for clarification to indicate that the designation of a
monitor as SLAMS generally refers to a monitor required under appendix
D of part 58 and is needed to meet monitoring objectives. 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'' were proposed for minor
wording changes for purposes of clarity only.
    The term ``State Speciation Site'' was proposed for deletion given
the proposed addition of ``Supplemental Speciation Station'' to better
describe the distinct elements of the CSN, which includes the STN
stations that are required under section 4.7.4 of appendix D of part
58, and supplemental speciation stations that are operated for specific
monitoring agency needs and are not considered to be required monitors
under appendix D.
    We received relatively few comments on the proposed revisions to
definitions. One commenter noted that the clarification of
Meteorological Measurements should specify that those parameters are
also required at SLAMS sites, which include both the NCore and PAMS
sites. They noted the use of the undefined phrase ``combined data
record'' in the Primary Monitor definition and recommended that a
definition be provided. They also recommended that the EPA include an
explanation of the term ``Special Purpose Monitor'' (SPM) in the
definitions section of the preamble and not rely solely on the amended
regulatory text. A commenter from a state air program noted that the
proposed definition for ``Monitoring Organization'' includes the phrase
``or other monitoring organization.'' They believe the phrase is
ambiguous and could extend the applicability of requirements such as
technical systems audits to universities, contractors, and other
government organizations. This commenter was concerned that the
phrasing could expand the applicability of regulations, and that the
phrase should be either defined or removed from the final definition
verbiage.
    The EPA has made several revisions to definitions in response to
these comments. The Meteorological Measurements definition has been
amended to include a clarifying reference that SLAMS stations include
sites that comprise the NCore and PAMS networks. Additionally, the
words ``or other monitoring organization'' have been removed from the
definition for Monitoring Organization to remove any ambiguity that
monitoring regulations apply to entities other than state, local, or
tribal agencies.\4\ The EPA does not believe that the definition for
Primary Monitor needs to be amended as the term ``combined data
record'' is already defined as part of appendix N to Part 50
(Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
PM2.5). The EPA acknowledges that the preamble to the
proposal inadvertently failed to discuss a clarification to the Special
Purpose Monitor definition included in the proposal. The proposed
revision to this definition was the addition of two sentences that
merely restated existing requirements already established in 40 CFR
58.10 with regard to annual monitoring network plans and network
assessments. The EPA believes that the proposed definition is a useful
but minor revision that should be retained as proposed. No other
comments were received on the proposed revisions to definitions and
they will be finalized as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA does note that other mechanisms can be used to
extend the applicability of monitoring requirements to sites
operated by other entities, e.g., industrial monitors. For example,
states can develop Memorandum of Understanding (MOU's) with the
operators of such sites to ensure that the monitors are operated
according to part 58 requirements and that the resulting data are of
known quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Network Assessment

    The annual monitoring network plan process provides an important
communications and planning pathway between monitoring agencies, EPA
Regional Offices, and the general public. The network assessment
process, required every 5 years, provides an opportunity to conduct
more in-depth planning and analyses of current and future ambient
monitoring needs and objectives to help ensure that monitoring programs
respond to changing requirements, demographics, air quality trends, and
updated technology.
    The EPA proposed several changes to the annual monitoring network
plan process and related requirements. We received significant comment
on these changes. Therefore, each individual proposed revision is
discussed below along with relevant comments.
    Since the revision of the annual monitoring network plan process in
2006, the EPA has received feedback about confusion concerning the
difference between the process of obtaining public inspection versus
comment, the responsibility of monitoring agencies to respond to public
comment in their submitted annual monitoring network 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. Accordingly, we
proposed that the public inspection aspect of the 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. 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.
    Consistent with the proposed change to the comment process
described above, the EPA proposed changes to the text in 40 CFR
58.10(a)(1) 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 would be to review the
submitted plan together with public comments and any modifications to
the plan based on these comments.
    A number of state monitoring agencies and two MJOs commented that
the proposed requirement to solicit and address comments during the
public inspection period would impose additional burden, inflexibility,
and delays on the process by requiring that the comments be addressed
before the original plan is submitted to the EPA. Some of these
commenters estimated that it would take an additional two months
compared with the current process to handle comments in this manner,
and that they could only support the proposed change if the deadline
for submittal was revised as well. They requested that the EPA waive
this proposed requirement or make the procedure more flexible by
allowing comments to be submitted later, perhaps as an amendment before
the plan is approved, or even with the next year's plan. Four state
programs supported the proposed revision noting the importance of
soliciting public input on the content of the plan and the perspective
that states should take the lead in responding to comments versus the
EPA. One of these states noted that they attempt to schedule a public
comment period for every SLAMS modification. They also noted that
flexibility would be needed in emergency situations that demand
immediate changes to their network. Another of these states requested
that the term ``address'' be clarified and noted that the timeliest way
to handle comments and responses would be to include this information
in an appendix to the plan when submitted to the EPA. A different
perspective was offered by comments received from a joint environmental
group submission. They commented that the proposed changes did not go
far enough to ensure a meaningful public comment opportunity. They
noted that annual monitoring network plans are integral parts of SIPs
and that the CAA requires that SIP submittals and revisions be more
formally publicly noticed. They suggested that the EPA require states
to prominently advertise monitoring plans, allow at least 30 days for
public comment, then either hold a public hearing or provide such an
opportunity if requested. They also added that a separate notice and
comment opportunity must be required on the EPA's proposed action on a
submitted plan or a related amendment to an approved plan, and that all
of the suggested public comment requirements must also be applicable to
the 5-year network assessment.
    The EPA recognizes the diversity of comments on this aspect of the
proposal. Nearly all commenters recognized that fostering public
involvement in the annual monitoring network plan is important and
desirable. Those commenters supporting the proposal noted that their
existing procedures already address the proposed requirements and that
they found it desirable to be able to respond directly to stakeholders.
Adverse comment was related to the implied additional burden of
obtaining comment versus the current requirement of posting for public
inspection, concern about limiting the flexibility to subsequently
modify the plan following submission to the EPA, and the perceived
impracticality of adequately responding to public comments in a timely
manner.
    The EPA does not agree with the comments received from the joint
environmental group submission on this aspect of the proposal. First,
the final rule text requires annual monitoring network plans to be made
available for at least 30 days of public inspection and comment and
further requires monitoring agencies to address, as appropriate, any
significant issues raised in public comment. Requiring at least 30 days
of public participation and consideration of significant comments is
consistent with the CAA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and,
at the same time, affords monitoring agencies with the flexibility and
discretion to provide for additional time and public participation
procedures.
    Second, the EPA disagrees that state action on an annual monitoring
network plan triggers the same public participation requirements
applicable to SIP adoption and revision. Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the
CAA provides that each SIP shall ``provide for establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air
quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the
Administrator.'' To meet these requirements, our September 2013
Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) states that ``the
best practice for an air agency submitting an infrastructure SIP would
be to submit, for inclusion into the SIP . . . , the statutory or
regulatory provisions that provide the air agency or official with the
authority and responsibility to perform'' certain actions required
under 40 CFR part 58. (See 2013 iSIP Guidance, p. 22.) In other words,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) simply requires that monitoring agencies have
the legal authority to implement 40 CFR part 58; it does not treat
annual monitoring network plans required under 40 CFR part 58 as
``integral parts'' of a SIP subject to public participation whenever
such network plans are established or modified.
    Third, the EPA disagrees that EPA action on an annual monitoring
network plan requires a separate notice and comment opportunity. The
EPA reviews and acts on network plans through informal adjudications in
which the EPA determines whether such network plans satisfy the
requirements in 40 CFR 58.10. Such adjudications are not rulemakings
subject to the public participation requirements of the APA (see 5
U.S.C. 553), although they are final agency actions subject to judicial
review (see 5 U.S.C. 706). The EPA's decision to treat network plan
decisions as case-by-case adjudications rather than ``rules'' reflects
the fact that the EPA simply compares the information supplied in the
network plan with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and notifies the
relevant monitoring agencies that design and operate the corresponding
networks whether their particular networks satisfy Part 58 or need
further revision.
    Finally, the EPA disagrees that public notice and comment is
required ``at both the state and federal levels on the 5-year
monitoring network assessments required at 40 CFR 58.10(d).'' To the
extent that the EPA takes ``substantive action'' on such assessments,
such actions are not rulemakings subject to public participation
requirements under the CAA or the APA.
    Given the relatively broad support for the concept of soliciting
public comment as part of the annual monitoring network plan posting
process, as well as the concern for the

implied logistical challenge of both obtaining comment and developing
(and getting management approval for) adequate responses, while still
meeting the required submission deadline of July 1, the EPA believes
that some modification of the proposed language is appropriate. As
noted by several commenters, the implied burden to ``reference and
address any such received comments'' as described in the proposed
regulatory language may be too difficult to achieve. As suggested by
one commenter, it may be more practical for monitoring agencies to
review and consider the comments, and only to modify the plan when
``appropriate and feasible.'' By modifying the proposed language to
provide more flexibility and discretion in addressing comments based on
each agency's technical evaluation of received comments and the
associated management review chain, the EPA can finalize the generally
supported goal of increasing public involvement in the process while
lessening the burden on agencies that have not previously included the
solicitation of public comment in their process. Accordingly, the EPA
is revising the regulatory language in the last sentence of 40 CFR
58.10(a)(1) from ``The annual monitoring network plan must be made
available for public inspection and comment for at least 30 days prior
to submission to the EPA and the submitted plan shall reference and
address any received comments'' to ``The annual monitoring network plan
must be made available for public inspection and comment for at least
30 days prior to submission to the EPA and the submitted plan shall
include and address, as appropriate, any received comments.'' The EPA
believes that this revised language, including the clarification that
the plan ``address, as appropriate, any received comments,'' provides
sufficient flexibility to monitoring agencies and ensures adequate
public participation practices. Under this approach, all agencies will
review public comments and make changes to the plan as appropriate in
light of public comments, taking into account the requirement for
timely submission of network plans. The EPA encourages states to
provide responses to significant comments but understands that
developing formal responses may potentially delay submission of the
plan beyond the July 1 deadline, in light of internal timelines and
management review procedures. To avoid such delays, it would also be
acceptable for states to submit the proposed plan with comments and any
resulting changes, and where the EPA finds it necessary to discuss how
the state considered and addressed specific comments, the EPA will
follow up as part of our process for reviewing the plan for approval.
    Another aspect of the annual monitoring network plan requirements
is the listing of required elements and site information in 40 CFR
58.10. The EPA proposed to add two requirements to this list as
described below. First, the EPA proposed to require that a PAMS network
description be specifically included in the 40 CFR 58.10(a)
requirements 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. Second, the EPA proposed that
``long-term'' 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,
should be identified in the 40 CFR 58.10(b) requirements along with a
discussion of the rationale for keeping the monitor(s) as SPMs or
potentially reclassifying to SLAMS. The EPA did not propose 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, particularly because the monitoring data
could be used to calculate design values regardless of whether the
monitors are designated SPMs or SLAMs. Thus, there is potential for
unintended complexities in the designations process if any design value
SPMs would be discontinued without adequate discussion.
    Nine commenters addressed the above issues. Only one commenter
specifically addressed the addition of the PAMS network description and
that comment was ``Support this action.'' The remainder of comments
addressed the issue of requiring an annual monitoring network plan
discussion and rationale for whether longer-term SPMs should be
retained as SPMs or reclassified to SLAMS. Three of these commenters
were supportive of the proposed revision with several noting that they
expected that monitoring agencies would still be granted discretion on
the issues by the EPA Regional Offices. Two commenters suggested
revised language to limit the proposed SPM discussion to only criteria
pollutant monitors and also only those monitors utilizing federal
reference methods (FRM) or federal equivalent methods (FEM). One
commenter only supported the revision if the EPA could provide grant
funding. Three commenters did not support the proposed revision, either
because they interpreted the provision as meaning that the EPA was
proposing that such longer-term SPMs be automatically converted to
SLAMS in the absence of a justification, due to the belief that such a
rationale would create a burden for monitoring agencies and that such a
discussion is misplaced in the annual monitoring network plan, or
because of the belief that ongoing discussions between the states and
EPA Regional Offices are already sufficient to handle such issues, and
that the additional requirement is an unnecessary limit on monitoring
network flexibility.
    After consideration of these comments, the addition of the PAMS
network description to the list of requirements in 40 CFR 58.10(a) will
be finalized as proposed due to general support and lack of comment on
this revision.
    The EPA will not finalize the proposed changes to 40 CFR 58.10(b).
The EPA believes that some misunderstanding still exists as to the
intent of the proposed addition of a required discussion and rationale
concerning longer-term SPM monitors. Although preamble language
explicitly stated that the EPA was not intending to propose an
automatic conversion process for such SPMs, several commenters
interpreted the proposal in that way. One commenter noted, ``Also the
mechanism is unclear for how SPMs not granted approval will convert to
a SLAMS monitor.'' It was not the EPA's intention to imply any
limitations on monitoring agency discretion to employ SPMs as part of
their network design strategy, only to raise the awareness among all
stakeholders of such situations when they occur, particularly with
longer-term SPMs that may have design values approaching or exceeding
the NAAQS. Comments regarding the need to limit the proposed
requirement to FRMs or FEMs also indicate a misunderstanding of the
proposed language as this limitation was already included in the
regulatory language in the proposal. Given these apparent areas of
confusion and the concern about additional burden that the inclusion of
such a rationale would place on plan submitters, the EPA will not
finalize this proposed change to 58.10(b). Nevertheless, we continue to
believe that an open and robust discussion about such longer-term SPMs
is an important part of interactions between monitoring agencies and
EPA Regional Offices, particularly in the context of monitors utilizing
EPA-approved methods that are measuring concentrations near the level
of

applicable NAAQS. While continuing to support the use of SPMs to
provide flexible options for investigating air quality problems, we
encourage reference to these situations in annual monitoring network
plans and thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons of converting
such monitors to SLAMS particularly to avoid potential disruption of
implementation actions due to discontinuance of important SPMs.
    The EPA proposed a minor edit to the annual monitoring network plan
requirements to revise terminology referring to PM2.5
speciation monitoring. No comments were received on this issue and the
change will be finalized as proposed.
    The EPA received comments on a general rewording of regulatory
language that was included as part of the revisions to 40 CFR 58.10(a).
Specifically, we revised the sentence ``The plan shall include a
statement of purposes for each monitor and evidence that siting and
operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A, C, D,
and E of this part, where applicable'' to ``The plan shall include a
purpose statement for each monitor along with a statement of whether
the operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A,
B, C, D, and E of this part, where applicable.'' Additionally, the
proposed language added the following sentence: ``The Regional
Administrator may require the submission of additional information as
needed to evaluate compliance with applicable requirements of Part 58
and its appendices.''
    One state monitoring agency noted that there was overlap between
the monitoring objective and the purpose of a monitor as referenced in
the regulatory language. They suggested that the terms be defined in
the definitions section of the rule. They also suggested removing the
purpose statement entirely as it appears duplicative with other annual
monitoring plan requirements that are already present. Two MJOs
referenced the statement concerning the Regional Administrator's
discretion to require the submission of additional information to
evaluate the compliance of the submitted plan with part 58 and
appendices. They commented that the proposed language was ``vague and
open-ended'' and that the presence of this requirement would lead to
significant differences among the EPA Regions concerning the level of
detail needed to evaluate plan submittals. It was suggested that the
EPA consider amending the language to more clearly define the
circumstances when additional information would be needed.
    The EPA believes that some revision of the referenced language is
appropriate to achieve the goal of providing monitoring agencies with a
more explicit description of the documentation that is required in the
plans as well as providing the EPA Regional Offices with a clear basis
for review and approval. We agree with the comment that the requirement
for a ``purpose statement'' is vaguely worded and duplicative of
existing requirements (in 40 CFR 58.10(b)) that pertain to factors such
as monitoring objective and spatial scale. We also note the comments
concerning the open-ended nature of the statement that the Regional
Administrator has discretion to require the submission of additional
information to evaluate the compliance of the submitted plan with Part
58 and appendices. The EPA observes that this type of statement is not
unusual in the context of various monitoring requirements, particularly
in the Network Design Criteria described in appendix D. We do not
anticipate frequent requests for additional information in the context
of the Annual Monitoring Network Plan requirements, but we would
anticipate that additional information would be needed by Regional
Offices when the reasons supporting compliance with the applicable
requirements of part 58 and its appendices have changed from the
previous year's plan, or when a monitor has been added since the
previous year's plan was approved.
    Accordingly, the EPA is revising the proposed language by deleting
the words ``a purpose statement for each monitor along with'' from the
second sentence of 40 CFR 58.10(a)(1) and also revising the sentence
``The Regional Administrator may require the submission of additional
information as needed to evaluate compliance with applicable
requirements of Part 58 and its appendices'' to ``The Regional
Administrator may require additional information in support of this
statement,'' which is a somewhat narrower framing of the need for
Regional Administrator discretion in the context of assuring whether
the operation of each monitor meets the requirements of appendices A,
B, C, D, and E of this part, as described in the submitted Annual
Monitoring Network Plan.
    Finally, two public comments were received on preamble language in
the proposal pertaining to the EPA's discussion about the ability of
Regional Offices to handle partial approvals of annual monitoring
network plans in cases where one or more of the required elements is
problematic. A joint environmental organization comment noted that the
EPA's discussion did not indicate a timeframe for the correction of
deficiencies and, hence, the described partial approval process was
unlawful and arbitrary. They further suggested that an appropriate time
limit for the correction of deficiencies would be 90 days. A MJO
comment noted that a partial approval process is not an appropriate
strategy for the longer term, although the process as it exists now has
been found to be useful in some cases. This commenter supported
language in the preamble discussion relating to an approval process
while noting technical deficiencies, as long as such deficiencies were
related to required elements of the plan.
    The EPA notes that the preamble discussion (79 FR 54360) was not
tied to any proposed revisions to requirements or regulatory language,
but was intended as an articulation of what we believe to be currently
available flexibility in the handling of annual monitoring network plan
submissions. The EPA agrees that deficiencies should be corrected and
intends to work with monitoring agencies to address deficiencies in a
timely manner. However, the EPA does not believe that the lack of a
regulatory schedule for correcting deficiencies is unlawful or that it
would be appropriate to establish one without having solicited comment
on the topic in the proposal. Accordingly, no additional action was
taken within the context of this rulemaking.

D. Network Technical Requirements

    The Network Technical Requirements section provides a place for
cross-referencing and clarifying the applicability of the various
requirements that are described in the appendices to part 58.
    The EPA proposed to revise the language in 40 CFR 58.11(a)(3) to
note the proposed revisions to appendix B to the QA requirements that
would pertain to PSD monitoring sites. One supportive comment was
received on this issue and the revision will be finalized as proposed.

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 proposed to revise these requirements by (1) adding
flexibility in the minimum required sampling for PM2.5 mass
sampling and for PM2.5 speciation sampling; (2) modifying
language pertaining to continuous mass monitoring to reflect revisions
in regulatory language that were finalized in the 2013 PM NAAQS final
rule; and (3) clarifying the applicability of certain criteria that can
lead to an increase in the required sampling frequency, for example, to
a daily schedule. Ten commenters responded to these proposed changes.
Most of the comments were generally supportive of these changes as they
provide additional flexibility and potential burden reductions for
monitoring agencies. Some comments noted concern with specific changes
to the period of time that a PM2.5 sampler would have to
utilize an increased sampling frequency if triggered by design values.
Additional details on these generally supportive comments are discussed
below in the relevant sections. A joint environmental organization
comment opposed all the sampling frequency changes; they noted concern
for the increased risk of not detecting daily variations in
PM2.5 by allowing samplers to follow reduced sampling
schedules and also noted the lack of a cost analysis documenting the
burden of monitoring as well as the fact that the EPA was not requiring
additional monitoring to compensate for the reduced sampling frequency.
    With regard to the minimum required sampling frequency for manual
PM2.5 samplers, current requirements state that at least a
1-in-3 day frequency is mandated for required SLAMS monitors without a
collocated continuous monitor. The EPA believes that some regulatory
flexibility is appropriate in situations where a particular monitor is
highly unlikely to record a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS,
such as in areas with very low PM2.5 concentrations relative
to the NAAQS and/or in urban areas with many more monitors than are
required by appendix D (when a subset of those monitors is reading
lower than other monitors in the area). The EPA specifically proposed
that the required sampling frequency could be reduced to 1-in-6 day
sampling or another alternate schedule through a case-by-case approval
by the EPA Regional Administrator. Such approvals could be based on
factors that are already described in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) such as
historical PM2.5 data assessments, the attainment status of
the area, the location of design value sites, and the presence of
continuous PM2.5 monitors at nearby locations. The EPA noted
that the request for such reductions in sampling frequency would occur
as part of the annual monitoring network plan process as operating
schedules are a required part of the plans as stated in 40 CFR
58.10(b)(4). For sites with a collocated continuous monitor, the EPA
also proposed 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. Such flexibility was proposed through changes in the
regulatory language in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(i) and (ii).
    With the one exception noted earlier, supportive comments were
received on this specific proposed revision. One MJO commented that
flexibility is needed in specifying operating schedules, and that it is
preferable to retain lower reading sites with a reduced sampling
frequency rather than close them completely. Similar comments included
``Support this action'' and the observation that the proposed changes
should reduce monitoring burden. Concerning the joint environmental
organization comment noting the potential increased risk of not
characterizing the risk from PM2.5 levels that might be
missed when sampling frequency is reduced, the EPA notes that these
case-by-case situations would be reviewed by EPA Regional Offices for
approval, and that the pertinent approval criteria would include an
assessment of prevailing PM2.5 concentrations and the
availability of other manual or continuous monitors that would provide
characterization in the general area. As stated in the proposal, we
expect these sampling reduction requests to be made for lower reading
sites so the impact on area design values would be negligible. We also
note that the requests would be made through the annual monitoring
network plan process and, therefore, would be open for public
inspection and comment prior to potential approval by the EPA. On an
overall basis, the EPA believes that it is important to have
operational flexibilities with regard to sampling frequency to permit
monitoring agencies to shift resources (e.g., higher sampling frequency
samplers) to high priority areas; this flexibility supports the ability
of the monitoring network to react to changing air quality trends and
problems in a manner most protective of public health. Concerning the
observation that the EPA has not provided an analysis of relevant
costs, we note the public availability of such financial information in
information collection request documents that are regularly updated and
submitted for public comment according to Office of Management and
Budget regulation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0091-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the comments above, the EPA is finalizing the
revisions to add flexibility to sampling frequency requirements for
PM2.5 mass samplers as proposed.
    The EPA also proposed added flexibility in sampling frequency for
PM2.5 CSN sites, specifically the STN sites that are
currently operated at approximately 53 locations.\6\ The STN stations
are currently required to sample on at least a 1-in-3 day frequency
with no opportunity for flexibility. Justifications for the proposed
additional flexibility include the conservation of resources for
reinvestment in other needs within the CSN, rising analytical costs,
and the availability of new technologies that provide continuous
measurement of PM2.5 species. Accordingly, the EPA proposed
that a reduction in sampling frequency from 1-in-3 day be permissible
for manual PM2.5 samplers at STN stations, for example, to a
1-in-6 day frequency. 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.\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specgen.html.
    \7\ The approval process has been delegated, in practice, to the
Director of the Air Quality Assessment Division within the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Few commenters specifically addressed this proposed change as the
aforementioned comments pertaining to changes in sampling frequency for
PM2.5 mass samplers were likely deemed pertinent to the CSN.
Where this proposed change was mentioned specifically, monitoring
agency comments noted support as a means of increasing flexibility and
potentially protecting sites by reducing sampling frequency versus
eliminating sites completely. The joint environmental organization
comment stated that a

reasoned justification for the change was not provided, and noted that
speciation data are critical in development of SIP control strategies,
health studies, modeling exercises, and investigation of air pollution
episodes.
    The EPA notes the supportive comments from monitoring agencies and
agrees that increasing flexibility with respect to sampling frequency
as an alternative to site elimination was a motivation for the
revision. With respect to the environmental organization comment noting
concern about the additional flexibility and the potential for reduced
sampling frequency, the EPA agrees with the observation that
PM2.5 speciation data are critical to supporting many
different monitoring objectives. Because we believe that
PM2.5 speciation data are critical for the objectives noted
above, we recently completed an in-depth assessment of the CSN with the
goal of protecting, to the greatest extent possible, the long-term
operation of the network.\8\ In the face of rising analytical costs and
unchanging budgets, the EPA considered factors such as site reductions,
changes in sampling frequency, and alterations in operational
procedures to support long-term viability of the CSN. The results of
the assessment were implemented in late 2014 and early 2015, and the
EPA believes the revised CSN continues to provide strong support for
key monitoring objectives noted by the commenter and would do so even
if sampling frequency were selectively reduced at a small number of STN
sites based on substantive and suitable criteria. The EPA notes that a
proposal to reduce sampling frequency would need to be accompanied by a
technical rationale justifying the request and evaluating the impact on
data users and the ability of the site to meet the aforementioned key
objectives, for example, by employing new technology such as continuous
monitoring of PM2.5 species, in lieu of the reduced number
of filter samples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.sdas.battelle.org/CSNAssessment/html/Default.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the comments and detailed network assessment
described above, the EPA is finalizing the revisions to add flexibility
to sampling frequency requirements for the PM2.5 STN sites
as proposed.
    The EPA proposed editorial revisions to 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(ii) to
harmonize the language regarding the use of continuous FEM or approved
regional methods (ARM) monitors to support sampling frequency
flexibility for manual PM2.5 samplers with the current
language in 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii) that was revised as part of 2013 PM
NAAQS final rule. Specifically, the phrase ``unless it is identified in
the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan as not
appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS and the EPA Regional
Administrator has approved that the data from that monitor may be
excluded from comparison to the NAAQS'' was proposed for appending to
the current regulatory language to reflect the new process that was
finalized in the 2013 PM NAAQS final rule that allows monitoring
agencies to request that continuous PM2.5 FEM data be
excluded from NAAQS comparison based on technical criteria described in
40 CFR 58.11(e). We also proposed 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 was proposed to clearly
indicate that two distinct actions are necessary for the data from a
continuous PM2.5 FEM to be considered not comparable to the
NAAQS; first, the identification of the relevant monitor(s) in an
agency's annual monitoring network plan, and, second, the approval by
the EPA Regional Administrator of that request to exclude data. The
language used by the EPA in the relevant sections of 40 CFR 58.12
related to the initial request by monitoring agencies but did not
specifically address the needed approval by the EPA.
    No comments specifically addressed these editorial changes in
regulatory language and they will be finalized as proposed.
    Finally, the EPA proposed to clarify 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 proposed clarifications and revisions affecting the following
statements: (1) ``Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine
the design value for their area and that are within 10
percent of the NAAQS; and all required sites where one or more 24-hour
values have exceeded the NAAQS each year for a consecutive period of at
least 3 years are required to maintain at least a 1-in-3 day sampling
frequency,'' and (2) ``Required SLAMS stations whose measurements
determine the 24-hour design value for their area and whose data are
within 5 percent of the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS must have a FRM or FEM operate on a daily
schedule.'' These revisions were proposed to avoid 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. 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 proposed 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 that follows the recalculation and certification
of a triggering design value.
    A number of supportive comments were received on this specific
issue from monitoring agencies. These comments ranged from unqualified
support to more conditional support based on concerns related to
funding levels and the overall burden of analyzing more
PM2.5 filters when sampling frequency is increased. One
agency commented that the proposed change ``makes sense where the
concentrations have reached a plateau or fluctuate back and forth from
year to year.'' However, concern was noted about waiting for 3 years to
decrease sampling frequency when design values are clearly trending
downward. Another state agency generally agreed with the proposed
approach but requested clarifying language that the same criteria that
would require an increase in sampling frequency for a 3-year period due
to an increase in design values would also allow a decrease in sampling
frequency for a 3-year period if the corresponding site design value
decreased below a threshold. Other commenters expressed concern about
the associated resource burdens noting that their gravimetric
laboratories are already operating at full capacity and that an
increase from 1-in-3 day sampling to daily sampling would triple the
number of filters to be weighed. Accordingly, these commenters
requested that the EPA allow the affected design value sampler to drop
back to a reduced sampling frequency as soon as a design value fell out
of the specific range and not be required to wait for the proposed 3-
year period. One commenter expressed concern that the provision could
trigger daily sampling even if the higher values were caused by a rare
or exceptional event, and requested that the proposed revision be
omitted. Finally, one state monitoring

agency expressed concern about the apparent deletion of PM10
monitoring requirements from 40 CFR 58.12, and also offered suggested
revisions to the current requirements in 40 CFR 58.12(e).
    The EPA notes the range of responses on this issue and acknowledges
that in cases where the sampling frequency for a PM2.5
sampler is increased, for example from 1-in-3 day to daily sampling,
the associated burden, which includes field support and gravimetric lab
support, would increase for a minimum period of 3 years based on the
proposed change. After that 3-year period of increased sampling, the
sampling frequency would be eligible to be reduced if the triggering
design value was no longer in the specified range (e.g., 5
percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS). The EPA agrees that the
treatment of sampling frequency in situations where a sampler is no
longer in the specific triggering range after a 3-year period of
increased sampling, should be analogous to the treatment of sampling
frequency in situations where a sampler first enters into the specific
triggering range, for purposes of providing predictability to
monitoring agencies in terms of anticipating operational burden. In
other words, where the sampling frequency is reduced at a sampler after
a 3-year period of increased sampling frequency (for example, where the
design value falls out of the 5 percent range), that
sampler should not be subject to an increased sampling frequency
requirement for at least 3 years. With regard to the concern that an
exceptional event could trigger the increased burden of operating a
higher sampling frequency sampler, we believe that this is a plausible
situation that deserves additional consideration. Rather than trying to
account for this situation in this rule, however, we believe it is best
dealt with in the context of the ongoing process of developing guidance
and proposed revisions to the Exceptional Events rule.\9\ Once those
actions are finalized, the EPA will work with Regional Offices to
clarify how to address this situation. On the related concern of a
``rare'' event triggering increased sampling frequency, the EPA notes
that the form of the PM2.5 NAAQS is intended to address such
year-to-year variations such that design values should not be overly
affected by ``rare'' occurrences of PM2.5 concentrations in
any given year. With regard to the comment indicating an apparent
deletion of the PM10 sampling frequency requirements in 40
CFR 58.12(e), we note that such changes were not included as part of
the proposal and those requirements remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www2.epa.gov/air-quality-analysis/treatment-data-influenced-exceptional-events#Proposed%20EE%20Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that this proposed revision to sampling frequency
procedures is a necessary clarification to the regulatory change that
was finalized in 2006, and will provide a more predictable and
statistically robust process for making design value driven changes in
sampling frequency. Based on the unqualified and qualified supportive
comments, we are finalizing the regulatory language as proposed. While
we are mindful of the potential for added burden in cases where
PM2.5 samplers must move to a more frequent sampling
frequency for a longer period of time based on this revision, we also
note that the likelihood of such occurrences affecting monitoring
agencies is relatively small. Based on an AQS retrieval conducted in
August 2014, fewer than ten PM2.5 monitors out of a pool of
980 FRM monitors were required to operate on a daily sampling frequency
based on the rule provisions of 40 CFR 58.12(d)(1)(iii).\10\ While this
analysis is not predictive in nature, we believe the overall risk of
increasing burden on monitoring programs is quite small and an
acceptable consequence of providing a more specific way of implementing
an important aspect of the sampling frequency requirements.
Alternatively, as noted in the regulatory text, monitoring agencies
have the option of installing a continuous PM2.5 FEM monitor
to satisfy this requirement and, thereby, avoid the consequence of
handling an increased number of filters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Hanley, T. (2015). Assessment of PM2.5 data to
determine the number of sites that would be potentially required to
increase their sample frequency to daily. Memorandum to the Docket,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. System Modification

    The System Modification section pertains to the specific
requirements that must be followed when monitoring agencies request
changes to the SLAMS portion of their networks.
    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).'' Since 2006, there has been confusion between the
EPA and 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. As explained
in the monitoring proposal, the EPA did not intend for the submission
of a distinct plan devoted specifically to the implementation of the 5-
year network assessment. Accordingly, the EPA proposed 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 due 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, the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of comments were received on this issue. Most of the
commenters provided the perspective that the clarification in the
regulatory text was useful but that additional clarification was needed
to address how the phrase ``implement the findings'' was used in the
language. Five of these commenters noted that states should only have
to address those changes in the network assessments that are
specifically required by regulation, and that the EPA should clarify
that monitoring agencies have the flexibility to discuss what findings
they intend to implement and which findings they do not intend to
implement. Two commenters noted that monitoring agencies should not
have to summarize the findings of their network assessment in a network
modification plan that is due one year after the assessment, but rather
should have the flexibility to address and implement those findings
that are appropriate based on available resources and changing
priorities over some period of time. Two commenters supported the
proposed language without additional elaboration.
    The EPA agrees with the comments requesting additional
clarification. The intention of the proposed revision was to clarify
the process for how and when monitoring agencies should deal with

the results from these important network assessments, not to imply that
all the results should be implemented or were necessarily required. The
network assessment requirements detailed in 40 CFR 58.10(d) reference a
mix of required elements (e.g., meeting the monitoring objectives of
appendix D) as well as useful but non-required elements such as
evaluation of new technologies and the evaluation of the impact on data
users of site discontinuance. To the extent that the EPA used the
phrase ``implements the findings of the network assessment'' in the
proposed regulatory language of 40 CFR 58.14(a), the concern from
monitoring agencies about specifying which results from the network
assessment are required and not required is understandable. The EPA
always intended that the results of the network assessments should be
used as a flexible planning tool for informing the next 5 years of
monitoring network operations, and the specificity being implied by the
monitoring agency comments reflects a misreading of those
intentions.\12\ The EPA disagrees with the comments suggesting that a
network modification plan is unnecessary. Such a requirement has been a
part of the monitoring regulations since the inception of the network
assessment, and having the network modification plan submitted as part
of the annual monitoring network plan insures public involvement in a
key process that occurs on a relatively infrequent basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/2014conference/monnaweinstock.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the concerns noted above, the proposed regulatory
language is being revised to replace ``implements'' with ``addresses,''
as follows: ``The state, or where appropriate local, agency shall
develop a network modification plan and schedule to modify the ambient
air quality monitoring network that addresses the findings of the
network assessment required every 5 years by Sec.  58.10(d).'' With
this revision, the EPA is indicating that the network modification plan
should reference or ``address'' the findings of the network assessment
without the unintended implication that some of the findings are
required network changes that must be implemented. The correct vehicle
for the discussion of required elements that must be implemented is the
annual monitoring network plan that is required to be submitted each
year, as discussed earlier in section II.C of this preamble.
    The EPA also proposed 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 40 CFR 58.10(e) when the
correct cross-reference is 40 CFR 58.10(d). One supportive comment
addressed this issue, and the revision will be finalized as proposed.

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. Current requirements include the certification of
data collected at all monitors at SLAMS and monitors at SPMs using FRM,
FEM, or ARM methods. In practice, this requirement includes a very wide
range of measurements that are not limited to criteria pollutants but
also extend to non-criteria pollutant measurements at PAMS stations,
meteorological measurements at PAMS and NCore stations, and
PM2.5 chemical speciation parameters.
    The EPA proposed 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 proposed 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.
Second, the EPA proposed that the required AQS reports be submitted to
the Regional Administrator rather than through the Regional
Administrator to the Administrator as is currently required. Finally,
minor editorial changes were 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).
    Seven commenters specifically addressed the proposed changes to
data certification. Three monitoring agencies, one MJO, and one
consulting firm were supportive of the changes. One of these commenters
also noted that the data certification and QA report hosted on the AQS
system, the AMP600 report, should be modified to provide more useful
data certification flag recommendations for regions and states. Another
of these supportive commenters also stated that the EPA should ensure
that QA practices and responsibilities remain in place to validate PAMS
and PM2.5 chemical speciation data. A joint environmental
group comment stated that the EPA had not provided a rational basis for
the proposed changes, and that an inconsistency exists between
proposing to retain the data certification process for criteria
pollutants while stating that existing QA plans and procedures would be
sufficient to validate non-criteria pollutant measurements. In this
commenter's view, the data certification process, as it exists today,
appears to delay the availability of data for use in computing criteria
pollutant design values, so perhaps the agency should consider
eliminating the process entirely if it is deemed unnecessary. Finally,
one commenter asked that the EPA consider moving the data certification
deadline from May 1 back to July 1, and also to consider not requiring
chemical speciation data to be certified.
    With regard to the adverse comment, the EPA notes that the proposed
changes were made to protect the viability of the process in the face
of a rapidly increasing volume of data subject to certification
requirements versus the available resources at the monitoring agency
and EPA level needed to meet the requirements and deadline. We continue
to believe that the data certification process adds the greatest degree
of value when focused on criteria pollutants that support the
calculation of design values and the mandatory designations process.
The review of design values occurs on an annual basis and there is a
long-standing practice of waiting for criteria pollutant data to be
certified before such calculations are completed.\13\ This process
provides a basis for documenting that a state's review of their data is
complete and that the data are considered final for key purposes such
as comparison to the NAAQS. The same annual pattern of regular data
usage and oversight does not exist for non-criteria pollutants such as
PAMS, PM2.5 chemical species, and air toxics data, and these
data are not directly compared to the NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
believes that the applicability and visibility of the data
certification process for these measurements is less critical. As
stated in the proposal, there are existing standardized procedures and
QA documents that provide a framework for assuring the quality of

non-criteria pollutants,\14\ and we believe that the resulting quality
of such data will not be compromised by their removal from the data
certification process. With regard to the comment requesting that the
data certification deadline be pushed back to July 1, the EPA notes
that this deadline was not proposed for revision and, therefore, is not
being considered in this final rulemaking. With regard to the comment
about excluding chemical speciation data from the certification
process, the EPA notes that this procedural change would occur as a
result of the proposed revisions as explained above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(a) as revised
on January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3278).
    \14\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html and http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/airtoxqa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the comments, the EPA is finalizing the changes to
data certification requirements as proposed. The EPA agrees with
commenters that efforts to improve the validation procedures for non-
criteria data should continue and the agency has invested in revised
tools, such as the recently launched Data Analysis and Reporting Tool
(DART) web resource that can assist monitoring agencies with the
validation of data including PAMS and air toxics data.\15\ Improvements
are also being made to the AMP600 report to improve the utility of the
program for generating recommended certification flags for
consideration by monitoring agencies and EPA Regional Offices during
the annual review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/2014conference/mondatdewinter.pdf or access DART at http://www.airnowtech.org/dart/dartwelcome.cfm (username and password required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and public
reporting; specific ozone (O3) and PM2.5
precursor measurements such as those obtained at PAMS, NCore, and CSN
stations; selected meteorological measurements at PAMS and NCore
stations; and associated QA data that support the assessment of
precision and bias. In 1997, an additional set of required supplemental
measurements was added to 40 CFR 58.16 in support of the newly
promulgated FRM for PM2.5, described in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix L. In the 2006 monitoring amendments, many of these
supplemental measurements were removed from the requirements based on
the EPA's confidence that the PM2.5 FRM was meeting data
quality objectives (see 71 FR 2748). At that time, reporting
requirements were retained for average daily ambient temperature and
average daily ambient pressure, as well as any applicable sampler
flags, in addition to PM2.5 mass and field blank mass.
    The EPA believes that it is no longer necessary to require agencies
to report the average daily temperature and average daily pressure from
manual PM2.5 samplers, given the long-standing experience
with the FRM and the ubiquitous availability of meteorological data,
and these specific AQS reporting requirements were proposed for removal
in the monitoring proposal. The EPA also proposed 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 given the importance of
having on-site meteorological data to correlate with PM2.5
and O3 precursor measurements. The EPA also proposed a
change to the data reporting schedule described in 40 CFR 58.16(b) and
(d) to provide additional flexibility for reporting PM2.5
chemical speciation data measured at CSN stations. Specifically, we
proposed that such data be required to be reported to AQS within 6
months following the end of each quarterly reporting period, as is
presently required for certain PAMS measurements such as volatile
organic compounds. This change would provide an additional 90 days for
PM2.5 chemical speciation data to be reported compared with
the current requirement of reporting 90 days after the end of each
quarterly reporting period. This change was 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.
    Seven commenters specifically addressed the proposed changes to
data submittal and archiving requirements. One state monitoring agency,
one MJO, and one consulting firm were supportive of all of the proposed
changes in this rule section, with the consulting firm comment also
noting that average temperature and pressure information should still
be archived within monitoring programs for data validation purposes.
Two state monitoring agencies expressed concerns about the proposed
change in the reporting deadline for PM2.5 chemical
speciation data by noting the impacts on their usage of the data, one
agency noting that efforts to submit timely exceptional event
demonstrations would be impacted by the longer period allowed for
reporting data, and the other state agency noting that their use of the
speciation data to validate PM2.5 FRM and ion (e.g.,
sulfate, nitrate) data would be impacted.
    With specific regard to the impact on state submissions of
exceptional event data exclusion determinations, the EPA understands
the impact of the additional 90-day delay in gaining access to
PM2.5 chemical speciation data, but also notes that the
relatively long timelines that currently exist within the exceptional
events rule framework can typically accommodate an additional delay of
90 days without significant impact on the submitting agency.
Accordingly, we do not believe that the additional 90 days being
proposed for reporting PM2.5 chemical speciation data should
materially impact the ability of submitters to develop exceptional
event data exclusion determinations within allowable timeframes.\16\
Concerning the comment relating to the availability of PM2.5
chemical speciation data to QA practices for PM2.5 FRM data,
the EPA acknowledges the comparative value of such data but believes
that the existing availability of PM2.5 sampler diagnostic
records, collocated FRM data, as well as the potential availability of
continuous monitoring data from collocated monitors and/or nearby
sites, should be more than sufficient to validate PM2.5 FRM
data in the absence of more timely reported speciation data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The EPA expects chemical speciation data to be reported
within 30 days of PM2.5 mass data based on the revised
analytical framework that took effect in late 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the comments noted above, the EPA is finalizing
the changes to data submittal and archiving requirements as proposed.

I. Network Design Criteria (Appendix D)

    Appendix D to part 58 contains important information about ambient
monitoring objectives, site types, spatial scales, as well as other
general and specific minimum requirements

concerning network size and design criteria.
    The EPA proposed 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/ncore.html for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed a minor change to section 3 of appendix D to part
58, the design criteria for NCore sites, specifically, the deletion of
the requirement to measure speciated PM10-2.5 from the list
of measurements in section 3(b). An identical revision was finalized in
the text of 40 CFR 58.16(a) in the 2013 p.m. NAAQS final rule (see 78
FR 3244). 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 proposed this change to align the NCore
monitoring requirements between the two sections noted above.
    The EPA also proposed to delete the requirement to measure Pb at
urban NCore sites, either as Pb in Total Suspended Particles (Pb-TSP)
or as Pb-PM10. This requirement was finalized as part of the
reconsideration of Pb monitoring requirements that occurred in 2010
(see 75 FR 81126). Since that time, non-source oriented Pb 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.\18\
This is an expected result given the elimination of Pb from gasoline
and the refocusing of the ambient network to characterize emissions at
sites that have been placed in relative close proximity to the
remaining industrial sources around a given threshold. We expect the
vast majority of non-source sites to have the 3 years of data necessary
to calculate a design value following the completion of monitoring in
2015. 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, non-source
oriented Pb data will continue to be measured (as Pb-PM10)
at the 27 National Air Toxics Trends Sites (NATTS) and at hundreds of
PM2.5 speciation stations that comprise the CSN and IMPROVE
networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the EPA proposed to delete the requirement to monitor
for non-source oriented Pb at NCore sites from appendix D of 40 CFR
part 58.\19\ Given the requirement to collect a minimum of 3 years of
Pb data in order to support the calculation of design values, the EPA
proposed that monitoring agencies would be able to request permission
to discontinue non-source oriented monitoring following the collection
of at least 3 years of data at each urban NCore site.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Specific revisions are proposed in 40 CFR part 58, appendix
D, section 3(b) and sections 4.5(b) and 4.5(c).
    \20\ The EPA will review requests for shutdown under the
provisions of 40 CFR 58.14. Although the EPA anticipates that these
non-source oriented monitors will have design values well below the
NAAQS and will be eligible to be discontinued after 3 years of data
have been collected, in the event that a monitor records levels
approaching the NAAQS, it may not qualify to be discontinued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eight commenters specifically addressed the proposed changes to
network design criteria. Five state or local monitoring agencies, one
MJO, and one consulting firm were supportive of all of the proposed
changes in this appendix, with several of the monitoring agencies
characterizing their measurements of Pb at urban NCore sites as either
``extremely low'' or between 3 percent or 5 to 7 percent of the Pb
NAAQS. One joint environmental group comment disagreed with the
proposed change to Pb monitoring, noting the perspective that there is
no safe level of Pb and that data even well below the level of the
NAAQS could assist communities with finding ways of reducing Pb
exposure and that such data would also assist researchers investigating
the risks of Pb exposure for children. This commenter also noted that
the EPA might propose to lower the Pb NAAQS in an upcoming rulemaking
that was pending at the time when the comment was submitted.
    With regard to the adverse comment, the EPA notes in the referenced
docket memo that well over 300 monitoring sites for Pb would remain in
operation following the proposed termination of monitoring at urban
NCore sites. These remaining sites would provide characterization of Pb
in TSP, PM10, and PM2.5 in a variety of urban and
rural locations including source oriented sites, neighborhood/community
locations, and background areas. We also note that the EPA retains the
authority to require additional Pb monitoring as determined by Regional
Administrators per the rule language in appendix D, section 4.5(c).
With regard to the reference to the EPA's upcoming decision on the Pb
NAAQS, we note that on December 19, 2014, based on a review of the full
body of evidence, the EPA proposed to retain, without revision, the
current NAAQS of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (as a 3-month average
in TSP) as requisite to protect public health and welfare.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/actions.html#dec2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In consideration of the supportive comments noted above, the EPA is
finalizing the changes to network design criteria as proposed. With
specific regard to Pb monitoring at urban NCore sites, monitoring
agencies should request permission from the EPA Regional Administrator
to discontinue non-source oriented monitoring following the collection
of at least 3 years of complete data at each affected site. Monitoring
agencies should work closely with their respective EPA Regional Offices
to ensure review and coordination of these changes to the network and
inclusion of such changes in annual monitoring network plans.

III. Amendments 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 changes to monitoring requirements relate to appendix
A to part 58. Changes that affect the overall appendix are discussed in
this section of the preamble while changes specific to the various
sections of the appendix will be addressed in subsequent sections of
the preamble. The EPA notes that the entire regulatory text section for
appendix A will be reprinted since this section is being reorganized
for clarity as well as being selectively revised as described in detail
below. Additionally, although the EPA proposed a new appendix B to
apply to PSD monitors, much of the proposed content of appendix B was
taken directly from the existing requirements for these monitors set
forth in appendix A. It should be noted that a number of provisions
from appendix A were reprinted in the regulatory text for appendix B
solely for clarity, to assist the public in understanding the changes
being proposed. The EPA did not solicit comment on those provisions and
did not make any changes to those provisions in this rulemaking.

    The QA requirements in appendix A have been developed for measuring
the criteria pollutants of O3, NO2, sulfur
dioxide (SO2), CO, Pb and PM (PM10 and
PM2.5), and are minimum requirements for monitoring these
ambient air pollutants for use in NAAQS attainment demonstrations. To
emphasize the objective of this appendix, the EPA proposed 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 besides making comparisons to the NAAQS.
Therefore, appendix A clarifies 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. There were no
adverse comments to the change in the title and, therefore, the title
will be changed as proposed.
    The previous appendix A regulation had separate sections for
automated (continuous) and manual method types. The EPA proposed to
reformat the document by pollutant rather than by method type. The four
gaseous pollutants (CO, NO2, SO2 and
O3) will be contained in one section since the quality
control (QC) requirements are very similar, and separate sections will
be provided for PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.
    The EPA received one supportive comment from a consulting firm made
on the proposed reformatting and no adverse comments. Therefore,
appendix A and appendix B will be reformatted as proposed.
    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 operated
only for a period of 1 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 PSD reviewing authorities for PSD). The combined regulations
have caused confusion among monitoring organizations and those
implementing PSD requirements, so the EPA proposed 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.
    The EPA received one supportive comment to adopt this change and
received no adverse comments. Therefore, PSD QA requirements will be
placed into appendix B as proposed.
    Finally, the EPA proposed that appendix A 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 was not
proposed for change. Since the PQAO can be a consolidation of a number
of local monitoring organizations, the EPA proposed 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 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 proposed to eliminate wording that
suggests that PQAO approvals can only occur during events like network
reviews or audits.
    The EPA received one comment supporting the clarifying language
suggesting it will reduce unnecessary work on the part of the
monitoring agencies by combining and consolidating QA/QC activities and
also fostering a unified approach to air monitoring across an entire
state's PQAO. The EPA received no adverse comments. Therefore, the EPA
is finalizing the language as proposed.
2. Quality System Requirements
    The EPA proposed to remove the QA requirements for
PM10-2.5 (see current sections 3.2.6, 3.2.8, 3.3.6, 3.3.8,
4.3). Appendix A has traditionally been used to describe the QA
requirements of the criteria pollutants used in making NAAQS attainment
decisions. While the part 58 Ambient Air Monitoring regulation requires
monitoring for the CSN, PAMS, and total oxides of nitrogen
(NOy) for NCore, the QA requirements for these networks are
found in technical assistance documents and not in appendix A. In 2006,
the EPA proposed a PM10-2.5 NAAQS along with requisite QA
requirements in appendix A. While the PM10-2.5 NAAQS was not
promulgated, PM10-2.5 monitoring was required to be
performed at NCore sites and the EPA proposed requisite QA requirements
in appendix A. Some of the PM requirements, like collocation for
precision and the performance evaluation programs for bias, are
accomplished on a percentage of monitoring sites within a PQAO. For
example, collocated sampling for PM2.5 and PM10
is required at approximately 15 percent of the monitoring sites within
a PQAO. Since virtually every NCore site is the responsibility of a
different PQAO, the appendix A requirements for PM10-2.5, if
implemented at the PQAO level, would have been required to be
implemented at almost every NCore site, which would have been expensive
and an unintended burden. Therefore, the EPA required the
implementation of the PM10-2.5 QC requirements at a national
level and worked with the EPA Regions and monitoring organizations to
identify the sites that would implement the requirements. The
implementation of the PM10-2.5 QC requirements at NCore
sites fundamentally changed how QC is implemented in appendix A and has
been a cause of confusion. Since PM10-2.5 is not a NAAQS
pollutant and the QC requirements cannot be cost-effectively
implemented at a PQAO level, the EPA proposed to eliminate the
PM10-2.5 requirements including flow rate verifications,
semi-annual flow rate audits, collocated sampling procedures, and the
PM10-2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP). Similar to
the technical assistance documents associated for the CSN \22\ and PAMS
\23\ networks, the EPA will develop QA guidance for the
PM10-2.5 network which will afford more flexibility for
implementation and revision of QC activities for PM10-2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specguid.html for CSN
quality assurance project plan.
    \23\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pamsguidance.html for PAMS
technical assistance document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received comments from a state and a consulting firm in
support of

the removal of these requirements and no adverse comments. Therefore,
the EPA will remove the PM10-2.5 QA requirements as
proposed.
    The EPA proposed that the QA Pb requirements of collocated sampling
(see current section <IP_ADDRESS>) and Pb performance evaluation procedures
(see current section <IP_ADDRESS>) for non-source oriented 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 their NCore
sites. Since the appendix A requirements are focused on PQAOs, the QC
requirements would increase at PQAOs who were required to implement Pb
monitoring at their NCore site. Similar to the PM10-2.5 QA
requirements, the requirement for Pb at NCore sites forced the EPA away
from a focus on PQAOs to working with the EPA Regions and monitoring
organizations for implementation of the Pb-PEP at NCore sites at
national levels. Therefore, the EPA proposed to eliminate the
collocation requirement and the Pb-PEP requirements at NCore sites
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 Pb monitoring in the NCore network, which
will afford more flexibility for change/revision to accommodate Pb
monitoring at non-source oriented NCore sites. Additionally, the EPA
proposed to delete the requirement to measure Pb at these specific
NCore sites, either as Pb-TSP or as Pb-PM10 (see section
II.I). Such a revision would eliminate the need for any associated QA
requirements including collocation, Pb-PEP or any QC requirements for
these monitors.
    The EPA received two state comments and one MJO comment in support
of the removal of this requirement and no adverse comments. Therefore,
the EPA will remove the Pb QA requirements at non-source oriented NCore
sites as proposed. As noted earlier in section II.I, the EPA is also
finalizing the proposed deletion of Pb monitoring requirements at NCore
sites from appendix D.
    The EPA proposed 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. From 2007 to 2011, the EPA tracked the
submission and approval of QMPs and QAPPs by polling the EPA Regions
each year and updating a spreadsheet that was posted on the Ambient
Monitoring Technical Information Center (AMTIC) Web site. The
development of the annual spreadsheet was time-consuming on the part of
monitoring organizations and the EPA and, due to polling delays, took a
significant amount of time to assemble a final version for posting. It
is expected that simplified reporting by monitoring organizations and
EPA 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 populated AQS with
the last set of updated QMP and QAPP data from the 2011 listing.
Monitoring organizations will need to update AQS only when submitting
new or revised versions of QAPP or QMPs (one or two fields) and the EPA
can then add approval dates.
    The EPA received one state comment in support of this proposal, and
two states, a consulting firm and one MJO commented expressing concern.
One state commenter mentioned that the preamble indicates that the
monitoring organizations would be responsible for submitting the dates
associated with QMP and QAPP submittals and approvals and, if this was
the intent of the proposed rule, AQS must be modified to allow
monitoring organizations the ability to enter this data. The commenter
also mentioned that the EPA's AQS web application only allows
monitoring organizations to view QAPP and QMP dates, but the
functionality to enter or revise those dates is unavailable. The
commenter mentioned other issues related to the current functionality
of the system but not a disagreement with the proposed requirement to
report the data.
    The MJO commenter mentioned that reporting to AQS was an
unnecessary burden on state air monitoring agencies because the EPA
Regional Offices receive these reports and the information is available
to the public on the EPA AMTIC Web site. The consulting firm did not
understand how shifting this burden to ``monitoring organizations''
would relieve the reporting burden on any organization other than the
EPA.
    As mentioned in the proposal, the approach of reporting QAPP and
QMP information to AMTIC was not only time-consuming for monitoring
organizations but also for EPA who would work for 2 to 3 months to pull
together this annual report. By reporting the information directly to
AQS, the monitoring organization's requirements are also reduced since
they do not need to be polled every year to gather this information,
review it for accuracy and completeness, and transmit it to the EPA
Regional Office. The monitoring organizations will only need to report
updates to AQS when they occur and will not be burdened with this
request/review process every year.
    In regard to the comment related to the current functionality of
AQS, which did not allow agency reporting of the QMP/QAPP information,
the EPA notes that AQS is now available for monitoring organizations,
and EPA Regional Offices, to report this information that has currently
been reported and revised by the EPA. Therefore, rather than posting a
static table on AMTIC each year (which could change through-out the
time period between updates), AMTIC can host a link to the most up-to-
date information in AQS, which is a much more efficient method than the
cumbersome annual collection and reporting method described above.
Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the requirement as proposed.
    The EPA proposed 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 (TSA).
    The EPA did not receive any supporting or adverse comments to this
proposal, but did receive a state comment suggesting that a copy of all
approved QAPP's be submitted annually rather than at the time when a
QAPP is submitted or approved. The EPA notes that during recent systems
audits, EPA auditors have found language in approved QAPPs that do not
meet ambient air regulatory requirements. Non-conformance with a
regulatory requirement can lead to data invalidation. In an effort to
identify any non-conformance with regulatory requirements as early as
possible, especially with monitoring organizations that have been
delegated responsibility to approve their own

QAPPs, the EPA believes it is important to have the opportunity to
review these documents as early as possible to eliminate potential data
invalidation issues. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing this language as
proposed.
    In the QAPP requirement language, the EPA proposed to clarify that
the QAPP include a list of sites and monitors associated with the QAPP.
    The EPA received a state comment that considered it a burden to
update the QAPP every time a site or monitor is changed or is added.
The commenter suggested adding that this information can be referenced
in other publicly available documents. Since this section allows
standard operating procedures to be referenced in the QAPP, the EPA
will also allow the referencing of monitors and sites.
    The requirement to identify the sites/monitors in a QAPP is a
standard QAPP requirement and is why it is included in the regulation.
However, the QAPP can refer to an official table that is updated
annually that may be on a Web site or other official documentation
(e.g., annual network plan). In addition, if the QAPP does contain this
information, an addendum to the QAPP modifying this information (with
reference to the QAPP) can be accomplished without having to physically
edit the document each time a monitoring site is added because the
addition of the site does not affect how the quality system is
implemented.
    The EPA is finalizing the requirement as proposed, but is also
clarifying that sites and monitors may be allowed to be referenced from
other up-to-date sources.
    The EPA proposed 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
PM2.5-PEP, Pb-PEP and National Performance Audit Program
(NPAP) QAPPs, and is included in the self-implementation memo sent to
the monitoring organizations on an annual basis and posted on the AMTIC
Web site.\24\ The clarification codifies in regulation what was in
guidance, and provides a better reference for this information in
addition to the annual memo sent to the monitoring organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npepqa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received one state comment in support of the addition of
the independent assessment definition and one state comment noting
concern.
    The state comment of concern included a reference to the NPAP
revisions that are proposed below (section 3.1.3) and does not appear
to be related to the actual definition that was proposed in this
section. Further, we note that the state that made the comment
qualifies as eligible to conduct an ``independent assessment'' under
the current definition that was proposed and has been defined in this
way in annual self-implementation decision memorandums that have been
sent to monitoring organizations since 2008. This definition has not
changed and was expected to be achieved by monitoring organizations in
order to self-implement the various performance evaluations defined in
this section. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the requirement as
proposed.
    The EPA proposed to add clarifying language to the TSA section
(current section 2.4). As described in more detail below, the current
TSA requirements are clearly intended to be performed at the monitoring
organization level.
    The EPA proposed a TSA frequency of 3 years for each PQAO, but
included language that if a PQAO is made up of a number of monitoring
organizations, all monitoring organizations within the PQAO should be
audited within 6 years. This proposed language maintains the 3 year TSA
requirement as it applies to PQAOs but provided additional flexibility
for the EPA Regions to audit every monitoring organization within the
PQAO every 6 years. This revision was made to address logistical
concerns at the EPA Regions, particularly for those Regions with very
large PQAOs composed of many monitoring organizations. In the EPA's
view, the proposed revision did not materially affect the burden on
monitoring organizations.
    The EPA received one state comment supporting the proposed revision
as written, one comment by a joint environmental organization
suggesting that we maintain the current requirement to audit each
monitoring organization on a 3-year basis, and two state comments that
suggested that the proposed revision was a burden to monitoring
organizations.
    The comment from the joint environmental organization expressed
concern with the potential for reduced frequency of the TSAs for
monitoring organizations in consolidated PQAOs (proposed 6-year
frequency versus current 3-year frequency). The commenter believed such
a change could seriously jeopardize implementation of the Act and
threaten public health by delaying NAAQS decisions. The commenter cited
examples of recent invalidation of PM2.5 data that were
based on findings from TSAs. In their view, delaying audit frequencies
to once every 6 years (for a monitoring organization) raises the risk
of even greater delay and disruption of nonattainment designations in
areas that are violating NAAQS and have data quality issues at the
pertinent monitoring organizations.
    Two commenters from state agencies felt that the proposed language
would treat these monitoring organizations (within a PQAO) as
individual entities, causing an increase in the number of TSAs and
difficulty in ensuring consistency among monitoring organizations
within the PQAO, and would disrupt monitoring organizations with the
scheduling of these audits. The PQAO staff would be required to oversee
the changes throughout the monitoring organizations, participate in
each of the TSAs, track all corrective actions, verify implementation,
and ensure consistency of implementation across all monitoring
organizations.
    Commenters who were concerned with the proposed language to audit
individual monitoring organizations within a PQAO may have been
interpreting the current and earlier appendix A requirements somewhat
differently than the original intent of the EPA. Since 1996, the TSA
language in appendix A has been associated with auditing monitoring
agencies or monitoring organizations, not PQAOs (note--the PQAO term
was promulgated in 2006). For additional context, the following rule
excerpts provide a chronological history of the TSA language in
appendix A.
    Prior to 1998: ``Agencies operating SLAMS network stations shall be
subject to annual EPA systems audits of their ambient air monitoring
program and are required to participate in EPA's National Performance
Audit Program.''
    1998: ``Systems audits of the ambient air monitoring programs of
agencies operating SLAMS shall be conducted at least every 3 years by
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.''
    2005: ``Systems audits of the ambient air monitoring programs of
agencies operating SLAMS shall be conducted at least every 3 years by
the appropriate Regional Office.''
    2006-2014 (prior to this proposed change): ``Technical systems
audits of each ambient air monitoring organization shall be conducted
at least every 3 years by the appropriate EPA

Regional Office and reported to the AQS.''
    The EPA notes that the current definition (40 CFR 58.1) for a
monitoring agency (prior to this proposal) was defined as ``a state or
local agency responsible for meeting the requirements of this part.''
Monitoring organization was defined as a ``state, local, or other
monitoring organization responsible for operating a monitoring site for
which the quality assurance regulations apply.'' Neither definition
described any consolidation of agencies into a PQAO; therefore,
individual monitoring agencies or organizations were to receive a TSA
by the EPA Region annually prior to 1998 and every 3 years after 1998.
    As indicated by one of the commenters who suggested that the
proposed language would treat monitoring organizations as individual
entities, the TSA language was, in fact, defined to treat the
monitoring agencies as individual entities. The value of this approach
has been reaffirmed by recent TSAs where Regional Office auditors have
found that monitoring organizations within consolidated PQAOs, in some
cases, did not operate consistent quality systems.
    A commenter expressing concern about the proposed revision made the
point that all monitoring organizations covered under the umbrella of
the PQAO's quality system would have to make changes in their operation
each time a TSA at any of the monitoring organizations indicates an
issue with that monitoring organization's quality system. This comment
reflects a concern (and a tacit acknowledgement) that monitoring
organizations within a PQAO do not necessarily implement a consistent
quality system and need to be audited at some frequency. The commenter
is correct and the EPA agrees that an issue identified by a TSA at one
monitoring organization within the PQAO should be reviewed by the PQAO
to determine if corrective action should be instituted for all
monitoring organizations operating in the PQAO. That is the specific
concern that has driven the EPA's regulations to consistently require
TSAs at the monitoring organization level. The proposed TSA language
provides for this review of the PQAO every 3 years and of all
monitoring organizations within the PQAO within 6 years.
    A state agency commenter was also concerned that TSAs could affect
the data certification process. The commenter was concerned that EPA
concurrence with a PQAO's data certification could be prohibited due to
the lack of a TSA within the appropriate time frame. The EPA notes that
TSA completeness requirements are reported on certification reports but
do not affect the concurrence process itself and, therefore, do not
penalize the PQAO if the TSA is not performed at the required
frequency.
    In response to the comment from the joint environmental
organization and based on the recent findings in the TSAs,\25\ the EPA
Regions are providing more scrutiny on the PQAO requirements to ensure
that monitoring organizations consolidated in PQAOs develop and
document consistent quality practices. The EPA Headquarters and Regions
are working together to develop a more consistent TSA process based on
``lessons learned'' from the PM2.5 TSAs findings identified
in the joint environmental organization comment. In addition, Regions
are scrutinizing PQAO quality systems to ensure a level of QA
consistency of monitoring organizations within a PQAO and, where there
are issues, either taking corrective actions or suggesting that
monitoring organizations within a PQAO disaggregate. The EPA has also
seen PQAOs developing better documents and training for monitoring
organizations within PQAOs to improve quality system consistency. Based
on the information presented above, the EPA believes that the proposal
to allow monitoring organizations within a PQAO to be audited within a
6-year period is reasonable and is finalizing the requirement as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ McCabe, Janet G. (2014). Particle Pollution Quality
Assurance. Memorandum to the Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the revised regulation specifies that EPA Regional
Offices conduct TSAs of every PQAO at a 3-year frequency and that they
should also perform a TSA on all monitoring organizations within the
PQAO within 6 years. Where resources permit, the EPA encourages the
adoption of the practice of some PQAOs to perform their own agency-
specific TSAs and monitoring site visits on member monitoring agencies
in the intervening years between required EPA Regional Office TSAs.
Such visits can help to proactively identify potential QA deficiencies
before situations involving long-term data loss occur and can also
serve to assure uniformity in procedures across PQAOs through periods
of changing personnel, equipment, or EPA requirements.
    The EPA proposed 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 \26\ 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 proposed to
add the requirement to complete the survey to appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/Forward?SearchTarget=PRA&textfield=ambient+air+protocol+gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA received one consulting firm comment suggesting that entry
of data in the annual survey was a modest burden and another state
comment of support without additional comment. There were no adverse
comments on completing the annual survey. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the language as proposed.
    In addition, the EPA proposed 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 no more
frequently than every 5 years. Since many monitoring organizations
already volunteer to send in cylinders, this proposed new requirement
is not expected to materially affect most agencies and will not affect
those agencies that do not run gaseous ambient air monitors and,
therefore, do not use gas standards.
    The EPA received three state comments supporting and one MJO and
two state comments expressing concern about this aspect of the AA-PGVP
requirement. The supportive responses included one organization already
participating in the program and another that mentioned that the
independent verification of cylinder contents has value for monitoring
groups especially with respect to the lower target gas concentrations
now employed in QA procedures. A third response supported the action
with no additional comments. Comments expressing concern about the
proposal were related to the extra cost associated with shipping a
cylinder to the verification laboratory and the Department of
Transportation (DOT) training required for shipping the cylinder. One
commenter mentioned that the organizations are already required to use
traceable or certified gases and another suggested that the EPA could
also consider working with the standard gas vendors directly,
potentially through a federally funded gas certification and
verification program. A commenter suggested the

requirement is resource intensive because additional standard gases
will need to be maintained for use while the audited cylinder is not in
use.
    By way of background relating to the genesis of the AA-PGVP, the
EPA notes that the Office of Research and Development (ORD) operated a
protocol gas audit program that was discontinued in 1997. In the mid-
2000 timeframe, the EPA received a number of comments from monitoring
organizations that the program was needed and the current program
(implemented in 2010) was created based on those comments. The
monitoring organizations were concerned that they were receiving
cylinders that were not meeting the protocol gas specifications even
though the producers, as one commenter mentioned, are required to use
traceable or certified gases. Information from a 2009 Office of
Inspector General report indicated some failures to meet protocol gas
requirements by some protocol gas producers.\27\ Gas producers were
also sharing concerns with the EPA that some producers were selling
cylinders that were not properly verified. Although the EPA initially
tried to develop a program that would be funded by the gas vendors,
many of whom agreed to fund it, one producer lodged a protest and the
EPA could not implement the program in this manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``EPA Needs an
Oversight Program for Protocol Gases,'' Office of Inspector General
Report No. 09-P-0235, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the AA-PGVP is intended to be a blind verification of
the producers, meaning it would be most advantageous for the producer
not to know a cylinder is being sent to a verification lab and,
therefore, the EPA tries not to request cylinders directly from gas
producers. Although one commenter suggested that the EPA receive
cylinders directly from the producer, this would defeat the purpose of
the blind verification and the producers would have the opportunity to
send a cylinder that may have had additional testing against its
certified value. The AA-PGVP has been implemented since 2010 and the
EPA is starting to see a drop in monitoring organization participation,
yet we also received positive comments that the program is valuable in
keeping the producers aware of the need for the quality of their gas
standards.
    In response to the comment expressing concern about the cost of
participating in the program and the logistical difficulty of properly
being certified to ship cylinders, the EPA clarifies that with the
current program, the EPA covers the cost of shipping the cylinders to
and from the regional AA-PGVP verification laboratory. Online DOT
training is offered to monitoring organizations and is valid for 3
years. So although there is an expense to the monitoring organization
on the time to train, there is limited burden related to the rest of
the program. The EPA is aware that additional standard gases will need
to be maintained for use while the new cylinder is being sent for
verification. Most monitoring organizations order new cylinders prior
to expiration of older cylinders or before they run out of gas supply.
There is normally a transition period where new cylinders are on hand
and checked against the current cylinder before retiring the older
cylinder. The AA-PGVP Implementation Plan \28\ describes that during
this change-out process, if the new cylinder is ordered with enough
lead time (AA-PGVP estimates 30-45 days from shipping through
verification and cylinder return), it could be sent to the AA-PGVP
verification laboratory and verified prior to use by monitoring
organizations before it needed to be exchanged with an older cylinder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------