[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58480-58481]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-98]

Petitions for Exemptions; Summary of Petition Received; Extension
of Comments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice: Extension.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to extend the comment period to improve the
public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption
process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before January 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1046
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.

     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynette Mitterer, AIR673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email [email protected], phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, email
[email protected], phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 6, 2017.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-1046.
    Petitioner: Bombardier Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.813(e).
    Description of Relief Sought: Allow installation of doors between
passenger seats and emergency exits on the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12
(Global 7000) and BD-700-2A13 (Global 8000) airplanes. The exemption,
if granted, would not prohibit aircraft with interior doors from being
operated for hire pursuant to 14 CFR part 135.

[FR Doc. 2017-26682 Filed 12-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31252-31253]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14122]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0002]
RIN 1218-AB80

Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall
Protection Systems) for General Industry; Approval of Collections of
Information

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This technical amendment revises an OSHA regulation to reflect
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collections
of information contained in the general industry Walking-Working
Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems)
standards.

DATES: Effective July 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, OSHA, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 18, 2016, OSHA published a final
rule revising and updating the general industry Walking-Working
Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems)
standards (29 CFR 1910, subparts D and I) (81 FR 82494) to provide
workers with greater protections from slip, trip and fall hazards. This
technical amendment adds to Sec.  1910.8, which displays OSHA's
approved general industry collections of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1985 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the OMB
control number for the new collection requirements in the final rule.
    Final subpart D contains three new collections of information.
First, final Sec.  1910.23(b)(10) requires that employers ensure any
ladder with structural or

other defects be tagged immediately with ``Dangerous: Do Not Use'' or
similar language and removed from service until ``repaired . . . or
replaced.'' The information will alert employers and workers that the
ladder is not safe and must not be used.
    Second, final Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(i) requires, before any rope
descent system is used, that the building owner inform the employer in
writing that the building owner has identified, tested, certified, and
maintained each anchorage so it is capable of supporting at least 5,000
pounds (268 kg), in any direction for each employee attached. The
information must be based on an annual inspection by a qualified person
and certification of each anchorage by a qualified person, as
necessary, and at least every 10 years. The information will assure
employers and workers that the building owner has inspected, tested and
certified the anchorage, which the employer may not own or have any
control over, as safe to use. A related provision, final Sec.
1910.27(b)(1)(ii), requires that the employer ensure no employee uses
any anchorage before the employer has obtained written information from
the building owner indicating that each anchorage meets the
requirements of Sec.  1910.27(b)(1)(i). The employer must keep the
information for the duration of the job. The information will assure
employers and workers that the anchorages employers use, but may not
own or have any control over, are safe to use.
    Third, final Sec.  1910.28(b)(1)(ii) specifies that when employers
can demonstrate that it is not feasible or creates a greater hazard to
use guardrail, safety net, or personal fall protection systems on
residential roofs, they must develop and implement a written fall
protection plan that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(k) and
training that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.503(a) and (c). The
information collection ensures that employers and workers will know
what alternative measures will be used at a given worksite to provide
an appropriate level of protection when conventional fall protection is
not feasible.
    These requirements are contained in the Information Collection
Request (ICR) approved by OMB under control number 1218-0199, which
OSHA included in the final rule published in the Federal Register (81
FR 82978-80). The collections of information in final subpart D are
necessary to ensure workers are protected from death or injury from
falls from elevated heights.
    Final subpart I expands the existing collections of information
contained in the hazard assessment and verification requirements in 29
CFR 1910.132 to include assessments for workers who use personal fall
protection systems (29 CFR 1910.140). These requirements are contained
in the Information Collection Request (ICR) approved by OMB under
control number 1218-0205, which OSHA included in the final rule
published in the Federal Register (81 FR 82978-80).
    Additional public comment on the information collections in the
final rule is not necessary. The public already has had the opportunity
to comment on the collections of information and OMB has approved them.
This revision of Sec.  1910.8 is a purely technical step to increase
public awareness of OMB's approval of the collections of information.

Authority and Signature

    Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 28, 2017.
Dorothy Dougherty,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration amends 29 CFR part 1910 as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart A to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
Numbers 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736),1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), or
1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as applicable.
    Sections 1910.6, 1910.7, 1910.8 and 1910.9 also issued under 29
CFR 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701; 29
U.S.C. 9a; 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222);
Public Law 11-8 and 111-317; and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8,
1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.8 by adding to the table, in the proper numerical
sequence, the entries for ``1910.27,'' and ``1910.28,'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  1910.8  OMB control numbers under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     29 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
1910.27.................................................       1218-0199
1910.28.................................................       1218-0199

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-14122 Filed 7-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58778-58779]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2246-098]

Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for Temporary Variance of Pulse
Flow Requirement.
    b. Project No: 2246-098.
    c. Date Filed: September 6, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Yuba County Water Agency (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Yuba River Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Middle Yuba River, North
Fork Yuba River, and Oregon Creek in Nevada, Yuba, and Sierra counties,
California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Willie Whittlesey, General Manager, Yuba
County Water Agency,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Jonathan Schram,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: October 20, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-2246-098. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary
variance of its winter pulse flow requirement. Specifically, the
licensee proposes to forego its required 1,000 cubic feet per second
(cfs) flow pulse from January 1-15, 2023. The licensee proposes to
instead, release a flow of 700 cfs in the lower Yuba River from
Englebright Dam. In addition, the licensee requests that compliance
during the variance period be based on the 5-day running average of
daily average flows, with the 15-minute flow not less than 90 percent
of the adjusted flow requirement. The licensee requests the variance in
order to conserve limited water resources at the project as a result of
current drought conditions.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: September 20, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-20953 Filed 9-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 11008-11010]
[DOCID:fr03mr06-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53376; File No. SR-PCX-2006-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Clearly Erroneous
Executions

February 27, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 23, 2006, the Pacific Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the PCX. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The PCX proposes to amend PCX Equities, Inc. (``PCXE'') Rule
7.10(e) pertaining to clearly erroneous executions of securities issued
in initial public offerings. The text of the proposed rule change is
set forth below.\3\ Brackets indicate deletions; italics indicates new
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange inadvertently indicated that the title of PCXE
Rule 7.10 was new text. The Commission corrected this technical
error in the text of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Rules of the PCX Equities, Inc.

Rule 7

Rule 7.10

Clearly Erroneous Executions

    (a)-(d) No Change.
    (e) Trade Nullification and Price Adjustments for UTP Securities
that are Subject of Initial Public Offerings (``IPOs''). Pursuant to
SEC Rule 12f-2, as amended, the Corporation may extend unlisted trading
privileges to a security that is the subject of an initial public
offering when at least one transaction in

the subject security has been effected on the national securities
exchange or association upon which the security is listed and the
transaction has been reported pursuant to an effective transaction
reporting plan. A clearly erroneous error [will] may be deemed to have
occurred in the opening transaction of the subject security if the
execution price of the opening transaction on the Corporation is the
lesser of $1.00 or 10% away from the opening price on the listing
exchange or association. In such circumstances, the Officer shall
declare the opening transaction null and void or adjust the transaction
price to the opening price on the listing exchange or association.
Clearly erroneous executions of subsequent transactions of the subject
security will be reviewed in the same manner as the procedure set forth
in (c)(1). Absent extraordinary circumstances, any such action of the
Officer pursuant to this subsection (e) shall be taken in a timely
fashion, generally within thirty (30) minutes of the detection of the
erroneous transaction. Each party involved in the transaction shall be
notified as soon as practicable by the Corporation, and the party
aggrieved by the action may appeal such action to the PCXE CRO in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (c)(2)-(4) above.
* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the procedures
for trade nullifications (``busts'') and price adjustments
(``adjusts'') for securities issued in initial public offerings
(``IPOs'') from an automatic to a discretionary basis. Given the unique
nature of IPOs, public customers have an expectation that the opening
of the security will be orderly and that the pricing will be reasonable
for the listing company. Opening execution prices transacted on the
primary listed exchange (and other market centers) represent the price
of the stock in the secondary market, which may not necessarily reflect
the IPO pricing disseminated prior to the start of secondary market
trading by the underwriters/syndicates. According to the Exchange,
there may be varying first prices in a security that is issued in an
IPO because market centers may have different prices at the same
second.
    Due to the possibility of varying prices at the same second in a
security issued in an IPO, PCXE staff reviews the openings of IPOs on
ArcaEx on a best efforts basis. The review of IPO opening prices
utilizes criteria that also are used to judge erroneous executions
during the pre-core, core and post-core sessions. IPO trades are
evaluated for uniformity with the primary listed exchange as well as
with other market centers' prices. Currently, initial trades on ArcaEx
that are executed at prices more than $1.00 from the primary listed
exchange's opening price are automatically busted or adjusted to the
primary listed exchange's opening price.
    Under the proposed rule, PCXE staff would have the discretion to
bust or adjust initial trades that are executed more than $1.00 from
the primary listed exchange's opening price. The Exchange believes that
the change from automatic to discretionary adjustments or busts is
necessary because often the primary exchange lists the IPO at multiple
first prices. Many times, but not always, the first price is not
indicative of the actual price of the IPO and thus the PCXE staff must
review all of the first prices to determine if the trade at issue has
to be adjusted or busted.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form at http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
; or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-PCX-2006-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090

.All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2006-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.

Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Section. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2006-12 and should be
submitted on or before March 24, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-3030 Filed 3-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 12409]
[DOCID:fr07mr08-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP08-218-000]

Gulfstream Natural Gas System, LLC; Notice of Petition for
Temporary Waiver of Tariff Provisions and Request for Expedited Action

February 29, 2008.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2008, Gulfstream Natural Gas
System, LLC (Gulfstream) filed a Petition for Temporary Waiver of
Tariff Provisions. Gulfstream states that the purpose of this filing is
to seek waiver of section 3.3 of Rate Schedule PALS and section 6 of
Gulfstream's General Terms and Conditions, so that Gulfstream can offer
parking and lending services to its firm shippers at below the minimum
rate for such services and for the terms described in the Petition.
    Gulfstream states that it proposes to offer such parking service
for the period commencing 10 gas days immediately preceding an April
2008 construction-related outage on its system through and including
the last gas day of a second construction-related outage in April 2008.
Gulfstream states that it proposes to offer such lending service for
the period commencing on the first gas day of the first outage through
and including the seventh gas day following the second outage, with the
ability to receive loans of line pack gas at the proposed rate only
during the outages.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment due date.
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time March 6, 2008.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-4497 Filed 3-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


and staff, lines of authority, and required interfaces for those
planning, implementing, assessing and reporting activities involving
environmental data operations (EDO). The PSD PQAOs may combine
pertinent elements of the QMP into the QAPP rather than requiring
the submission of both QMP and QAPP documents separately, with prior
approval of the PSD reviewing authority. Additional guidance on QMPs
can be found in reference 2 of this appendix.
    2.2 Independence of Quality Assurance Management. The PSD PQAO
must provide for a quality assurance management function for its PSD
data collection operation, that aspect of the overall management
system of the organization that determines and implements the
quality policy defined in a PSD PQAO's QAPP. Quality management
includes strategic planning, allocation of resources and other
systematic planning activities (e.g., planning, implementation,
assessing and reporting) pertaining to the quality system. The
quality assurance management function must have sufficient technical
expertise and management authority to conduct independent oversight
and assure the implementation of the organization's quality system
relative to the ambient air quality monitoring program and should be
organizationally independent of environmental data generation
activities.
    2.3. Data Quality Performance Requirements.
    2.3.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). The DQOs, or the results
of other systematic planning processes, are statements that define
the appropriate type of data to collect and specify the tolerable
levels of potential decision errors that will be used as a basis for
establishing the quality and quantity of data needed to support air
monitoring objectives (reference 5 of the appendix). The DQOs have
been developed by the EPA to support attainment decisions for
comparison to national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
reviewing authority and the PSD monitoring organization will be
jointly responsible for determining whether adherence to the EPA
developed NAAQS DQOs specified in appendix A of this part are
appropriate or if DQOs from a project-specific systematic planning
process are necessary.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Measurement Uncertainty for Automated and Manual PM2.5
Methods. The goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty for
precision is defined as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the
coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 percent and plus or minus 10
percent for total bias.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Measurement Uncertainty for Automated Ozone Methods. The
goal for acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision
as an upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 7 percent and
for bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute
bias of 7 percent.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Measurement Uncertainty for Pb Methods. The goal for
acceptable measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an
upper 90 percent confidence limit for the CV of 20 percent and for
bias as an upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias
of 15 percent.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Measurement Uncertainty for NO2. The goal for acceptable
measurement uncertainty is defined for precision as an upper 90
percent confidence limit for the CV of 15 percent and for bias as an
upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 15
percent.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Measurement Uncertainty for SO2. The goal for acceptable
measurement uncertainty for precision is defined as an upper 90
percent confidence limit for the CV of 10 percent and for bias as an
upper 95 percent confidence limit for the absolute bias of 10
percent.
    2.4 National Performance Evaluation Program. Organizations
operating PSD monitoring networks are required to implement the
EPA's national performance evaluation program (NPEP) if the data
will be used for NAAQS decisions and at the discretion of the PSD
reviewing authority if PSD data is not used for NAAQS decisions. The
NPEP includes the National Performance Audit Program (NPAP), the
PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PM2.5-
PEP) and the Pb Performance Evaluation Program (Pb-PEP). The PSD
QAPP shall provide for the implementation of NPEP including the
provision of adequate resources for such audit programs. Contact the
PSD reviewing authority to determine the best procedure for
implementing the audits which may include an audit by the PSD
reviewing authority, a contractor certified for the activity, or
through self-implementation which is described in sections below. A
determination of which entity will be performing this audit program
should be made as early as possible and during the QAPP development
process. The PSD PQAOs, including contractors that plan to implement
these programs on behalf of PSD PQAOs, that plan to implement these
programs (self-implement) rather than use the federal programs, must
meet the adequacy requirements found in the appropriate sections
that follow, as well as meet the definition of independent
assessment that follows.
    2.4.1 Independent Assessment. An assessment performed by a
qualified individual, group, or organization that is not part of the
organization directly performing and accountable for the work being
assessed. This auditing organization must not be involved with the
generation of the routinely-collected ambient air monitoring data.
An organization can conduct the performance evaluation (PE) if it
can meet this definition and has a management structure that, at a
minimum, will allow for the separation of its routine sampling
personnel from its auditing personnel by two levels of management.
In addition, the sample analysis of audit filters must be performed
by a laboratory facility and laboratory equipment separate from the
facilities used for routine sample analysis. Field and laboratory
personnel will be required to meet the performance evaluation field
and laboratory training and certification requirements. The PSD PQAO
will be required to participate in the centralized field and
laboratory standards certification and comparison processes to
establish comparability to federally implemented programs.
    2.5 Technical Systems Audit Program. The PSD reviewing authority
or the EPA, may conduct system audits of the ambient air monitoring
programs or organizations operating PSD networks. The PSD monitoring
organizations shall consult with the PSD reviewing authority to
verify the schedule of any such technical systems audit. Systems
audit programs are described in reference 10 of this appendix.
    2.6 Gaseous and Flow Rate Audit Standards.
    2.6.1 Gaseous pollutant concentration standards (permeation
devices or cylinders of compressed gas) used to obtain test
concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) must be traceable to either a National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM)
or a NIST-certified Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard (GMIS),
certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in
reference 4 of this appendix. Vendors advertising certification with
the procedures provided in reference 4 of this appendix and
distributing gases as ``EPA Protocol Gas'' must participate in the
EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or not use ``EPA'' in any form
of advertising. The PSD PQAOs must provide information to the PSD
reviewing authority on the gas vendors they use (or will use) for
the duration of the PSD monitoring project. This information can be
provided in the QAPP or monitoring plan, but must be updated if
there is a change in the producer used.

    2.6.2 Test concentrations for ozone (O3) must be
obtained in accordance with the ultraviolet photometric calibration
procedure specified in appendix D to part 50, and by means of a
certified NIST-traceable O3 transfer standard. Consult
references 7 and 8 of this appendix for guidance on transfer
standards for O3.
    2.6.3 Flow rate measurements must be made by a flow measuring
instrument that is NIST-traceable to an authoritative volume or
other applicable standard. Guidance for certifying some types of
flow-meters is provided in reference 10 of this appendix.
    2.7 Primary Requirements and Guidance. Requirements and guidance
documents for developing the quality system are contained in
references 1 through 11 of this appendix, which also contain many
suggested procedures, checks, and control specifications. Reference
10 describes specific guidance for the development of a quality
system for data collected for comparison to the NAAQS. Many specific
quality control checks and specifications for methods are included
in the respective reference methods described in part 50 or in the
respective equivalent method descriptions available from the EPA
(reference 6 of this appendix). Similarly, quality control
procedures related to specifically designated reference and
equivalent method monitors are contained in the respective operation
or instruction manuals associated with those monitors. For PSD
monitoring, the use of reference and equivalent method monitors are
required.

3. Measurement Quality Check Requirements

    This section provides the requirements for PSD PQAOs to perform
the measurement quality checks that can be used to assess data
quality. Data from these checks are required to be submitted to the
PSD reviewing authority within the same time frame as routinely-
collected ambient concentration data as described in 40 CFR 58.16.
Table B-1 of this appendix provides a summary of the types and
frequency of the measurement quality checks that are described in
this section. Reporting these results to AQS may be required by the
PSD reviewing authority.
    3.1 Gaseous monitors of SO2, NO2, O3, and CO.
    3.1.1 One-Point Quality Control (QC) Check for SO2, NO2, O3, and
CO. (a) A one-point QC check must be performed at least once every 2
weeks on each automated monitor used to measure SO2,
NO2, O3 and CO. With the advent of automated
calibration systems, more frequent checking is strongly encouraged
and may be required by the PSD reviewing authority. See Reference 10
of this appendix for guidance on the review procedure. The QC check
is made by challenging the monitor with a QC check gas of known
concentration (effective concentration for open path monitors)
between the prescribed range of 0.005 and 0.08 parts per million
(ppm) for SO2, NO2, and O3, and
between the prescribed range of 0.5 and 5 ppm for CO monitors. The
QC check gas concentration selected within the prescribed range must
be related to the mean or median of the ambient air concentrations
normally measured at sites within the PSD monitoring network in
order to appropriately reflect the precision and bias at these
routine concentration ranges. If the mean or median concentrations
at the sites are below or above the prescribed range, select the
lowest or highest concentration in the range. An additional QC check
point is encouraged for those organizations that may have occasional
high values or would like to confirm the monitors' linearity at the
higher end of the operational range.
    (b) Point analyzers must operate in their normal sampling mode
during the QC check and the test atmosphere must pass through all
filters, scrubbers, conditioners and other components used during
normal ambient sampling and as much of the ambient air inlet system
as is practicable. The QC check must be conducted before any
calibration or adjustment to the monitor.
    (c) Open-path monitors are tested by inserting a test cell
containing a QC check gas concentration into the optical measurement
beam of the instrument. If possible, the normally used transmitter,
receiver, and as appropriate, reflecting devices should be used
during the test and the normal monitoring configuration of the
instrument should be altered as little as possible to accommodate
the test cell for the test. However, if permitted by the associated
operation or instruction manual, an alternate local light source or
an alternate optical path that does not include the normal
atmospheric monitoring path may be used. The actual concentration of
the QC check gas in the test cell must be selected to produce an
effective concentration in the range specified earlier in this
section. Generally, the QC test concentration measurement will be
the sum of the atmospheric pollutant concentration and the QC test
concentration. As such, the result must be corrected to remove the
atmospheric concentration contribution. The corrected concentration
is obtained by subtracting the average of the atmospheric
concentrations measured by the open path instrument under test
immediately before and immediately after the QC test from the QC
check gas concentration measurement. If the difference between these
before and after measurements is greater than 20 percent of the
effective concentration of the test gas, discard the test result and
repeat the test. If possible, open path monitors should be tested
during periods when the atmospheric pollutant concentrations are
relatively low and steady.
    (d) Report the audit concentration of the QC gas and the
corresponding measured concentration indicated by the monitor. The
percent differences between these concentrations are used to assess
the precision and bias of the monitoring data as described in
sections 4.1.2 (precision) and 4.1.3 (bias) of this appendix.
    3.1.2 Quarterly performance evaluation for SO2, NO2, O3 , or CO.
Evaluate each primary monitor each calendar quarter during which
monitors are operated or a least once (if operated for less than one
quarter). The quarterly performance evaluation (quarterly PE) must
be performed by a qualified individual, group, or organization that
is not part of the organization directly performing and accountable
for the work being assessed. The person or entity performing the
quarterly PE must not be involved with the generation of the
routinely-collected ambient air monitoring data. A PSD monitoring
organization can conduct the quarterly PE itself if it can meet this
definition and has a management structure that, at a minimum, will
allow for the separation of its routine sampling personnel from its
auditing personnel by two levels of management. The quarterly PE
also requires a set of equipment and standards independent from
those used for routine calibrations or zero, span or precision
checks. The PE personnel will be required to meet PE training and
certification requirements.
    <IP_ADDRESS> The evaluation is made by challenging the monitor with
audit gas standards of known concentration from at least three audit
levels. Two of the audit levels selected will represent a range of
10-80 percent of the typical ambient air concentrations either
measured by the monitor or in the PQAOs network of monitors. The
third point should be at the NAAQS level or above the highest
anticipated routine hourly concentration, whichever is greater. An
additional 4th level is encouraged for those PSD organizations that
would like to confirm the monitor's linearity at the higher end of
the operational range. In rare circumstances, there may be sites
measuring concentrations above audit level 10. These sites should be
identified to the PSD reviewing authority.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Concentration range, ppm
             Audit level             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              O3                SO2                NO2                 CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................       0.004-0.0059      0.0003-0.0029      0.0003-0.0029        0.020-0.059
2...................................        0.006-0.019      0.0030-0.0049      0.0030-0.0049        0.060-0.199
3...................................        0.020-0.039      0.0050-0.0079      0.0050-0.0079        0.200-0.899
4...................................        0.040-0.069      0.0080-0.0199      0.0080-0.0199        0.900-2.999
5...................................        0.070-0.089      0.0200-0.0499      0.0200-0.0499        3.000-7.999
6...................................        0.090-0.119      0.0500-0.0999      0.0500-0.0999       8.000-15.999
7...................................        0.120-0.139      0.1000-0.1499      0.1000-0.2999      16.000-30.999
8...................................        0.140-0.169      0.1500-0.2599      0.3000-0.4999      31.000-39.999

9...................................        0.170-0.189      0.2600-0.7999      0.5000-0.7999      40.000-49.999
10..................................        0.190-0.259       0.8000-1.000       0.8000-1.000      50.000-60.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <IP_ADDRESS> The NO2 audit techniques may vary depending
on the ambient monitoring method. For chemiluminescence-type
NO2 analyzers, gas phase titration (GPT) techniques
should be based on the EPA guidance documents and monitoring agency
experience. The NO2 gas standards may be more appropriate
than GPT for direct NO2 methods that do not employ
converters. Care should be taken to ensure the stability of such gas
standards prior to use.
    <IP_ADDRESS> The standards from which audit gas test concentrations
are obtained must meet the specifications of section 2.6.1 of this
appendix.
    <IP_ADDRESS> For point analyzers, the evaluation shall be carried out
by allowing the monitor to analyze the audit gas test atmosphere in
its normal sampling mode such that the test atmosphere passes
through all filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other sample inlet
components used during normal ambient sampling and as much of the
ambient air inlet system as is practicable.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Open-path monitors are evaluated by inserting a test
cell containing the various audit gas concentrations into the
optical measurement beam of the instrument. If possible, the
normally used transmitter, receiver, and, as appropriate, reflecting
devices should be used during the evaluation, and the normal
monitoring configuration of the instrument should be modified as
little as possible to accommodate the test cell for the evaluation.
However, if permitted by the associated operation or instruction
manual, an alternate local light source or an alternate optical path
that does not include the normal atmospheric monitoring path may be
used. The actual concentrations of the audit gas in the test cell
must be selected to produce effective concentrations in the
evaluation level ranges specified in this section of this appendix.
Generally, each evaluation concentration measurement result will be
the sum of the atmospheric pollutant concentration and the
evaluation test concentration. As such, the result must be corrected
to remove the atmospheric concentration contribution. The corrected
concentration is obtained by subtracting the average of the
atmospheric concentrations measured by the open-path instrument
under test immediately before and immediately after the evaluation
test (or preferably before and after each evaluation concentration
level) from the evaluation concentration measurement. If the
difference between the before and after measurements is greater than
20 percent of the effective concentration of the test gas standard,
discard the test result for that concentration level and repeat the
test for that level. If possible, open path monitors should be
evaluated during periods when the atmospheric pollutant
concentrations are relatively low and steady. Also, if the open-path
instrument is not installed in a permanent manner, the monitoring
path length must be reverified to be within plus or minus 3 percent
to validate the evaluation, since the monitoring path length is
critical to the determination of the effective concentration.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Report both the evaluation concentrations (effective
concentrations for open-path monitors) of the audit gases and the
corresponding measured concentration (corrected concentrations, if
applicable, for open-path monitors) indicated or produced by the
monitor being tested. The percent differences between these
concentrations are used to assess the quality of the monitoring data
as described in section 4.1.1 of this appendix.
    3.1.3 National Performance Evaluation Program (NPAP).
    As stated in sections 1.1 and 2.4, PSD monitoring networks may
be subject to the NPEP, which includes the NPAP. The NPAP is a
performance evaluation which is a type of audit where quantitative
data are collected independently in order to evaluate the
proficiency of an analyst, monitoring instrument and laboratory. The
NPAP should not be confused with the quarterly PE program described
in section 3.1.2. The PSD organizations shall consult with the PSD
reviewing authority or the EPA regarding whether the implementation
of NPAP is required and the implementation options available.
Details of the EPA NPAP can be found in reference 11 of this
appendix. The program requirements include:
    <IP_ADDRESS> Performing audits on 100 percent of monitors and sites
each year including monitors and sites that may be operated for less
than 1 year. The reviewing authority has the authority to require
more frequent audits at sites they consider to be high priority.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Developing a delivery system that will allow for the
audit concentration gasses to be introduced at the probe inlet where
logistically feasible.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Using audit gases that are verified against the National
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) standard reference
methods or special review procedures and validated annually for CO,
SO2 and NO2, and at the beginning of each
quarter of audits for O3.
    <IP_ADDRESS> The PSD PQAO may elect to self-implement NPAP. In these
cases, the PSD reviewing authority will work with those PSD PQAOs to
establish training and other technical requirements to establish
comparability to federally implemented programs. In addition to
meeting the requirements in sections <IP_ADDRESS> through <IP_ADDRESS>, the
PSD PQAO must:
    (a) Ensure that the PSD audit system is equivalent to the EPA
NPAP audit system and is an entirely separate set of equipment and
standards from the equipment used for quarterly performance
evaluations. If this system does not generate and analyze the audit
concentrations, as the EPA NPAP system does, its equivalence to the
EPA NPAP system must be proven to be as accurate under a full range
of appropriate and varying conditions as described in section
<IP_ADDRESS>.
    (b) Perform a whole system check by having the PSD audit system
tested at an independent and qualified EPA lab, or equivalent.
    (c) Evaluate the system with the EPA NPAP program through
collocated auditing at an acceptable number of sites each year (at
least one for a PSD network of five or less sites; at least two for
a network with more than five sites).
    (d) Incorporate the NPAP into the PSD PQAO's QAPP.
    (e) Be subject to review by independent, EPA-trained personnel.
    (f) Participate in initial and update training/certification
sessions.
    3.2 PM2.5.
    3.2.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM2.5. A one-point
flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every
month (each verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each
monitor used to measure PM2.5. The verification is made
by checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the
verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it
must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard
procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance
with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow
rate. Care should be used in selecting and using the flow rate
measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating
flow rate of the monitor. Flow rate verification results are to be
reported to the PSD reviewing authority quarterly as described in
section 5.1. Reporting these results to AQS is encouraged. The
percent differences between the audit and measured flow rates are
used to assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in
section 4.2.2 of this appendix (using flow rates in lieu of
concentrations).
    3.2.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM2.5. Every 6
months, audit the flow rate of the PM2.5 particulate
monitors. For short-term monitoring operations (those less than 1
year), the flow rate audits must occur at start up, at the midpoint,
and near the completion of the monitoring project. The audit must be
conducted by a trained technician other than the routine site
operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal
operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in
accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard
used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for
verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the
calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the
same primary flow rate or volume standard.

Care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be certain that the
flow measurement device does not alter the normal operating flow
rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of the transfer
standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor.
The percent differences between these flow rates are used to
evaluate monitor performance.
    3.2.3 Collocated Sampling Procedures for PM2.5. A PSD
PQAO must have at least one collocated monitor for each PSD
monitoring network.
    <IP_ADDRESS> For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one
sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to
report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the QC
monitor. There can be only one primary monitor at a monitoring site
for a given time period.
    (a) If the primary monitor is a FRM, then the quality control
monitor must be a FRM of the same method designation.
    (b) If the primary monitor is a FEM, then the quality control
monitor must be a FRM unless the PSD PQAO submits a waiver for this
requirement, provides a specific reason why a FRM cannot be
implemented, and the waiver is approved by the PSD reviewing
authority. If the waiver is approved, then the quality control
monitor must be the same method designation as the primary FEM
monitor.
    <IP_ADDRESS> In addition, the collocated monitors should be deployed
according to the following protocol:
    (a) The collocated quality control monitor(s) should be deployed
at sites with the highest predicted daily PM2.5
concentrations in the network. If the highest PM2.5
concentration site is impractical for collocation purposes,
alternative sites approved by the PSD reviewing authority may be
selected. If additional collocated sites are necessary, the PSD PQAO
and the reviewing authority should determine the appropriate
location(s) based on data needs.
    (b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each
other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200
liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates
less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver
allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters
vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated
quality control monitor may be approved by the PSD reviewing
authority for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of
representation. This waiver may be approved during the QAPP review
and approval process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be
the same for both collocated samplers and the same as for all other
samplers in the network.
    (c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 6-day
schedule for sites not requiring daily monitoring and on a 3-day
schedule for any site requiring daily monitoring. Report the
measurements from both primary and collocated quality control
monitors at each collocated sampling site. The calculations for
evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are
described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.
    3.2.4 PM2.5 Performance Evaluation Program (PEP)
Procedures. As stated in sections 1.1 and 2.4 of this appendix, PSD
monitoring networks may be subject to the NPEP, which includes the
PM2.5 PEP. The PSD monitoring organizations shall consult
with the PSD reviewing authority or the EPA regarding whether the
implementation of PM2.5 PEP is required and the
implementation options available for the PM2.5 PEP. For
PSD PQAOs with less than or equal to five monitoring sites, five
valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and reported
each year. For PSD PQAOs with greater than five monitoring sites,
eight valid performance evaluation audits must be collected and
reported each year. Additionally, within the five or eight required
audits, each type of method designation (FRM/FEM designation) used
as a primary monitor in the PSD network shall be audited. For a PE
to be valid, both the primary monitor and PEP audit measurements
must meet quality control requirements and be above 3 [micro]g/m\3\
or a predefined lower concentration level determined by a systematic
planning process and approved by the PSD reviewing authority. Due to
the relatively short-term nature of most PSD monitoring, the
likelihood of measuring low concentrations in many areas attaining
the PM2.5 standard and the time required to weigh filters
collected in PEs, a PSD monitoring organization's QAPP may contain a
provision to waive the 3 [micro]g/m\3\ threshold for validity of PEs
conducted in the last quarter of monitoring, subject to approval by
the PSD reviewing authority.
    3.3 PM10.
    3.3.1 Flow Rate Verification for PM10. A one-point
flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every
month (each verification minimally seperated by 14 days) on each
monitor used to measure PM10. The verification is made by
checking the operational flow rate of the monitor. If the
verification is made in conjunction with a flow rate adjustment, it
must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment. For the standard
procedure, use a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance
with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's normal flow
rate. Care should be taken in selecting and using the flow rate
measurement device such that it does not alter the normal operating
flow rate of the monitor. The percent differences between the audit
and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the
monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix
(using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).
    3.3.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for PM10. Every 6
months, audit the flow rate of the PM10 particulate
monitors. For short-term monitoring operations (those less than 1
year), the flow rate audits must occur at start up, at the midpoint,
and near the completion of the monitoring project. Where possible,
the EPA strongly encourages more frequent auditing. The audit must
be conducted by a trained technician other than the routine site
operator. The audit is made by measuring the monitor's normal
operating flow rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in
accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard
used for auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used for
verifications or to calibrate the monitor. However, both the
calibration standard and the audit standard may be referenced to the
same primary flow rate or volume standard. Care must be taken in
auditing the flow rate to be certain that the flow measurement
device does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the monitor.
Report the audit flow rate of the transfer standard and the
corresponding flow rate measured by the monitor. The percent
differences between these flow rates are used to evaluate monitor
performance
    3.3.3 Collocated Sampling Procedures for Manual PM10.
A PSD PQAO must have at least one collocated monitor for each PSD
monitoring network.
    <IP_ADDRESS> For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one
sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to
report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the
quality control monitor.
    <IP_ADDRESS> In addition, the collocated monitors should be deployed
according to the following protocol:
    (a) The collocated quality control monitor(s) should be deployed
at sites with the highest predicted daily PM10
concentrations in the network. If the highest PM10
concentration site is impractical for collocation purposes,
alternative sites approved by the PSD reviewing authority may be
selected.
    (b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each
other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200
liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates
less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver
allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters
vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated
sampler may be approved by the PSD reviewing authority for sites at
a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be
approved during the QAPP review and approval process. Calibration,
sampling, and analysis must be the same for both collocated samplers
and the same as for all other samplers in the network.
    (c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 6-day
schedule or 3-day schedule for any site requiring daily monitoring.
Report the measurements from both primary and collocated quality
control monitors at each collocated sampling site. The calculations
for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are
described in section 4.2.1 of this appendix.
    (d) In determining the number of collocated sites required for
PM10, PSD monitoring networks for Pb-PM10
should be treated independently from networks for particulate matter
(PM), even though the separate networks may share one or more common
samplers. However, a single quality control monitor that meets the
collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and PM10
may serve as a collocated quality control monitor for both networks.
Extreme care must be taken if using the filter from a quality
control monitor for both PM10 and Pb analysis.
PM10 filter weighing should occur prior to any Pb
analysis.

    3.4 Pb.
    3.4.1 Flow Rate Verification for Pb. A one-point flow rate
verification check must be performed at least once every month (each
verification minimally separated by 14 days) on each monitor used to
measure Pb. The verification is made by checking the operational
flow rate of the monitor. If the verification is made in conjunction
with a flow rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate
adjustment. Use a flow rate transfer standard certified in
accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix to check the monitor's
normal flow rate. Care should be taken in selecting and using the
flow rate measurement device such that it does not alter the normal
operating flow rate of the monitor. The percent differences between
the audit and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the
monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix
(using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).
    3.4.2 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Pb. Every 6 months, audit
the flow rate of the Pb particulate monitors. For short-term
monitoring operations (those less than 1 year), the flow rate audits
must occur at start up, at the midpoint, and near the completion of
the monitoring project. Where possible, the EPA strongly encourages
more frequent auditing. The audit must be conducted by a trained
technician other than the routine site operator. The audit is made
by measuring the monitor's normal operating flow rate using a flow
rate transfer standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of
this appendix. The flow rate standard used for auditing must not be
the same flow rate standard used to in verifications or to calibrate
the monitor. However, both the calibration standard and the audit
standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume
standard. Great care must be taken in auditing the flow rate to be
certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal
operating flow rate of the monitor. Report the audit flow rate of
the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured by
the monitor. The percent differences between these flow rates are
used to evaluate monitor performance.
    3.4.3 Collocated Sampling for Pb. A PSD PQAO must have at least
one collocated monitor for each PSD monitoring network.
    <IP_ADDRESS> For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one
sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to
report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the
quality control monitor.
    <IP_ADDRESS> In addition, the collocated monitors should be deployed
according to the following protocol:
    (a) The collocated quality control monitor(s) should be deployed
at sites with the highest predicted daily Pb concentrations in the
network. If the highest Pb concentration site is impractical for
collocation purposes, alternative sites approved by the PSD
reviewing authority may be selected.
    (b) The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each
other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200
liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow rates
less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A waiver
allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3 meters
vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and collocated
sampler may be approved by the reviewing authority for sites at a
neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This waiver may be
approved during the QAPP review and approval process. Calibration,
sampling, and analysis must be the same for both collocated samplers
and the same as for all other samplers in the network.
    (c) Sample the collocated quality control monitor on a 6-day
schedule if daily monitoring is not required or 3-day schedule for
any site requiring daily monitoring. Report the measurements from
both primary and collocated quality control monitors at each
collocated sampling site. The calculations for evaluating precision
between the two collocated monitors are described in section 4.2.1
of this appendix.
    (d) In determining the number of collocated sites required for
Pb-PM10, PSD monitoring networks for PM10
should be treated independently from networks for Pb-
PM10, even though the separate networks may share one or
more common samplers. However, a single quality control monitor that
meets the collocation requirements for Pb-PM10 and
PM10 may serve as a collocated quality control monitor
for both networks. Extreme care must be taken if using a using the
filter from a quality control monitor for both PM10 and
Pb analysis. The PM10 filter weighing should occur prior
to any Pb analysis.
    3.4.4 Pb Analysis Audits. Each calendar quarter, audit the Pb
reference or equivalent method analytical procedure using filters
containing a known quantity of Pb. These audit filters are prepared
by depositing a Pb standard on unexposed filters and allowing them
to dry thoroughly. The audit samples must be prepared using batches
of reagents different from those used to calibrate the Pb analytical
equipment being audited. Prepare audit samples in the following
concentration ranges:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Equivalent ambient Pb
                Range                    concentration, [micro]g/m\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  30-100% of Pb NAAQS.
2...................................  200-300% of Pb NAAQS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Audit samples must be extracted using the same extraction
procedure used for exposed filters.
    (b) Analyze three audit samples in each of the two ranges each
quarter samples are analyzed. The audit sample analyses shall be
distributed as much as possible over the entire calendar quarter.
    (c) Report the audit concentrations (in [micro]g Pb/filter or
strip) and the corresponding measured concentrations (in [micro]g
Pb/filter or strip) using AQS unit code 077 (if reporting to AQS).
The percent differences between the concentrations are used to
calculate analytical accuracy as described in section 4.2.5 of this
appendix.
    3.4.5 Pb Performance Evaluation Program (PEP) Procedures. As
stated in sections 1.1 and 2.4, PSD monitoring networks may be
subject to the NPEP, which includes the Pb Performance Evaluation
Program. PSD monitoring organizations shall consult with the PSD
reviewing authority or the EPA regarding whether the implementation
of Pb-PEP is required and the implementation options available for
the Pb-PEP. The PEP is an independent assessment used to estimate
total measurement system bias. Each year, one PE audit must be
performed at one Pb site in each PSD PQAO network that has less than
or equal to five sites and two audits for PSD PQAO networks with
greater than five sites. In addition, each year, four collocated
samples from PSD PQAO networks with less than or equal to five sites
and six collocated samples from PSD PQAO networks with greater than
five sites must be sent to an independent laboratory for analysis.
The calculations for evaluating bias between the primary monitor and
the PE monitor for Pb are described in section 4.2.4 of this
appendix.

4. Calculations for Data Quality Assessment

    (a) Calculations of measurement uncertainty are carried out by
PSD PQAO according to the following procedures. The PSD PQAOs should
report the data for all appropriate measurement quality checks as
specified in this appendix even though they may elect to perform
some or all of the calculations in this section on their own.
    (b) At low concentrations, agreement between the measurements of
collocated samplers, expressed as relative percent difference or
percent difference, may be relatively poor. For this reason,
collocated measurement pairs will be selected for use in the
precision and bias calculations only when both measurements are
equal to or above the following limits:
    (1) Pb: 0.002 [micro]g/m\3\ (Methods approved after 3/04/2010,
with exception of manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803).
    (2) Pb: 0.02 [micro]g/m\3\ (Methods approved before 3/04/2010,
and manual equivalent method EQLA-0813-803).
    (3) PM10 (Hi-Vol): 15 [micro]g/m\3\.
    (4) PM10 (Lo-Vol): 3 [micro]g/m\3\.
    (5) PM2.5: 3 [micro]g/m\3\.
    The PM2.5 3 [micro]g/m\3\ limit for the
PM2.5-PEP may be superseded by mutual agreement between
the PSD PQAO and the PSD reviewing authority as specified in section
3.2.4 of the appendix and detailed in the approved QAPP.
    4.1 Statistics for the Assessment of QC Checks for SO2, NO2, O3
and CO.
    4.1.1 Percent Difference. Many of the measurement quality checks
start with a comparison of an audit concentration or value (flow-
rate) to the concentration/value measured by the monitor and use
percent difference as the comparison statistic as described in
equation 1 of this section. For each single point check, calculate
the percent difference, di, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.008

where, meas is the concentration indicated by the PQAO's instrument
and audit is the audit concentration of the standard used in the QC
check being measured.
    4.1.2 Precision Estimate. The precision estimate is used to
assess the one-point QC checks for SO2, NO2,
O3, or CO described in section 3.1.1 of this appendix.
The precision estimator is the coefficient of variation upper bound
and is calculated using equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.009

where, n is the number of single point checks being aggregated; X\2\
0.1,n-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared
distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom.
    4.1.3 Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is calculated using the
one-point QC checks for SO2, NO2,
O3, or CO described in section 3.1.1 of this appendix.
The bias estimator is an upper bound on the mean absolute value of
the percent differences as described in equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.010

where, n is the number of single point checks being aggregated;
t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a t-distribution with
n-1 degrees of freedom; the quantity AB is the mean of the absolute
values of the di's and is calculated using equation 4 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.011

and the quantity AS is the standard deviation of the absolute value
of the di's and is calculated using equation 5 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.012

    <IP_ADDRESS> Assigning a sign (positive/negative) to the bias
estimate. Since the bias statistic as calculated in equation 3 of
this appendix uses absolute values, it does not have a tendency
(negative or positive bias) associated with it. A sign will be
designated by rank ordering the percent differences of the QC check
samples from a given site for a particular assessment interval.
    <IP_ADDRESS> Calculate the 25th and 75th percentiles of the percent
differences for each site. The absolute bias upper bound should be
flagged as positive if both percentiles are positive and negative if
both percentiles are negative. The absolute bias upper bound would
not be flagged if the 25th and 75th percentiles are of different
signs.
    4.2 Statistics for the Assessment of PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.
    4.2.1 Collocated Quality Control Sampler Precision Estimate for
PM10, PM2.5 and Pb. Precision is estimated via duplicate
measurements from collocated samplers. It is recommended that the
precision be aggregated at the PQAO level quarterly, annually, and
at the 3-year level. The data pair would only be considered valid if
both concentrations are greater than or equal to the minimum values
specified in section 4(c) of this appendix. For each collocated data
pair, calculate the relative percent difference, di,
using equation 6 of this appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.013

where, Xi is the concentration from the primary sampler
and Yi is the concentration value from the audit sampler.
The coefficient of variation upper bound is calculated using
equation 7 of this appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.014

where, n is the number of valid data pairs being aggregated, and
X\2\ 0.1,n-1 is the 10th percentile of a chi-squared
distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom. The factor of 2 in the
denominator adjusts for the fact that each di is
calculated from two values with error.
    4.2.2 One-Point Flow Rate Verification Bias Estimate for PM10,
PM2.5 and Pb. For each one-point flow rate verification, calculate
the percent difference in volume using equation 1 of this appendix
where meas is the value indicated by the sampler's volume
measurement and audit is the actual volume indicated by the auditing
flow meter. The absolute volume bias upper bound is then calculated
using equation 3, where n is the number of flow rate audits being
aggregated; t0.95,n-1 is the 95th quantile of a t-
distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom, the quantity AB is the
mean of the absolute values of the di's and is calculated
using equation 4 of this appendix, and the quantity AS in equation 3
of this appendix is the standard deviation of the absolute values if
the di's and is calculated using equation 5 of this
appendix.
    4.2.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit Bias Estimate for PM10, PM2.5
and Pb. Use the same procedure described in section 4.2.2 for the
evaluation of flow rate audits.
    4.2.4 Performance Evaluation Programs Bias Estimate for Pb. The
Pb bias estimate is calculated using the paired routine and the

PEP monitor as described in section 3.4.5. Use the same procedures
as described in section 4.1.3 of this appendix.
    4.2.5 Performance Evaluation Programs Bias Estimate for PM2.5.
The bias estimate is calculated using the PEP audits described in
section 4.1.3 of this appendix. The bias estimator is based on the
mean percent differences (Equation 1). The mean percent difference,
D, is calculated by Equation 8 below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE14.015

where, nj is the number of pairs and
d1,d2, . . . dnj are the biases for
each pair to be averaged.
    4.2.6 Pb Analysis Audit Bias Estimate. The bias estimate is
calculated using the analysis audit data described in section 3.4.4.
Use the same bias estimate procedure as described in section 4.1.3
of this appendix.

5. Reporting Requirements

    5.1 Quarterly Reports. For each quarter, each PSD PQAO shall
report to the PSD reviewing authority (and AQS if required by the
PSD reviewing authority) the results of all valid measurement
quality checks it has carried out during the quarter. The quarterly
reports must be submitted consistent with the data reporting
requirements specified for air quality data as set forth in 40 CFR
58.16 and pertain to PSD monitoring.

6.0 References

(1) American National Standard--Specifications and Guidelines for
Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental
Technology Programs. ANSI/ASQC E4-2004. February 2004. Available
from American Society for Quality Control, 611 East Wisconsin
Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202.
(2) EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans. EPA QA/R-2. EPA/
240/B-01/002. March 2001, Reissue May 2006. Office of Environmental
Information, Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r2-final.pdf.
(3) EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for
Environmental Data Operations. EPA QA/R-5. EPA/240/B-01/003. March
2001, Reissue May 2006. Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf.
(4) EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards. EPA-600/R-12/531. May, 2012. Available from
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/appcd/mmd/db-traceability-protocol.html.
(5) Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4.
EPA/240/B-06/001. February, 2006. Office of Environmental
Information, Washington, DC 20460. http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.
(6) List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods. Available
from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences
Division, MD-D205-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
(7) Transfer Standards for the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring
Analyzers for Ozone. EPA-454/B-13-004 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, October, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qapollutant.html.
(8) Paur, R.J. and F.F. McElroy. Technical Assistance Document for
the Calibration of Ambient Ozone Monitors. EPA-600/4-79-057. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
September, 1979. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/cpreldoc.html.
(9) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Volume 1--A Field Guide to Environmental Quality Assurance.
EPA-600/R-94/038a. April 1994. Available from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ORD Publications Office, Center for Environmental
Research Information (CERI), 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45268. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html.
(10) Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Volume II: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program Quality
System Development. EPA-454/B-13-003. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qabook.html.
(11) National Performance Evaluation Program Standard Operating
Procedures. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/npapsop.html.

                            Table B-1--Minimum Data Assessment Requirements for NAAQS Related Criteria Pollutant PSD Monitors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Method                   Assessment method           Coverage           Minimum frequency     Parameters reported    AQS assessment type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Gaseous Methods (CO, NO2, SO2, O3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, O3, CO....  Response check at       Each analyzer.........  Once per 2 weeks.....  Audit concentration    1-Point QC.
                                      concentration 0.005-                                                   \1\ and measured
                                      0.08 ppm SO2, NO2,                                                     concentration \2\.
                                      O3, & 0.5 and 5 ppm
                                      CO.
Quarterly performance evaluation     See section 3.1.2 of    Each analyzer.........  Once per quarter.....  Audit concentration    Annual PE.
 for SO2, NO2, O3, CO.                this appendix.                                                         \1\ and measured
                                                                                concentration \2\
                                                                                for each level.
NPAP for SO2, NO2, O3, CO \3\......  Independent Audit.....  Each primary monitor..  Once per year........  Audit concentration    NPAP.
                                                                                \1\ and measured
                                                                                concentration \2\
                                                                                for each level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Particulate Methods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collocated sampling PM10, PM2.5, Pb  Collocated samplers...  1 per PSD Network per   Every 6 days or every  Primary sampler        No Transaction
                                                              pollutant.              3 days if daily        concentration and      reported as raw
                                                                                monitoring required.   duplicate sampler      data.
                                                                                concentration \4\.
Flow rate verification.............  Check of sampler flow   Each sampler..........  Once every month.....  Audit flow rate and    Flow Rate
PM10, PM2.5, Pb....................   rate.                                                                  measured flow rate     Verification.
                                                                                indicated by the
                                                                                sampler.
Semi-annual flow rate audit........  Check of sampler flow   Each sampler..........  Once every 6 months    Audit flow rate and    Semi Annual Flow Rate
PM10, PM2.5, Pb....................   rate using                                      or beginning, middle   measured flow rate     Audit.
                                      independent standard.                           and end of             indicated by the
                                                                                monitoring.            sampler.

Pb analysis audits.................  Check of analytical     Analytical............  Each quarter.........  Measured value and     Pb Analysis Audits.
Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10....................   system with Pb audit                                                   audit value (ug Pb/
                                      strips/filters.                                                        filter) using AQS
                                                                                unit code 077 for
                                                                                parameters:
                                                                                14129--Pb (TSP) LC
                                                                                FRM/FEM.
                                                                                85129--Pb (TSP) LC
                                                                                Non-FRM/FEM.
Performance Evaluation Program       Collocated samplers...  (1) 5 valid audits for  Over all 4 quarters..  Primary sampler        PEP.
 PM2.5 \3\.                                                   PQAOs with <= 5 sites.                         concentration and
                                                             (2) 8 valid audits for                          performance
                                                              PQAOs with > 5 sites.                          evaluation sampler
                                                             (3) All samplers in 6                           concentration.
                                                              years.
Performance Evaluation Program.....  Collocated samplers...  (1) 1 valid audit and   Over all 4 quarters..  Primary sampler        PEP.
Pb \3\.............................                           4 collocated samples                           concentration and
                                                              for PQAOs, with <=5                            performance
                                                              sites.                                         evaluation sampler
                                                             (2) 2 valid audits and                          concentration.
                                                              6 collocated samples                           Primary sampler
                                                              for PQAOs with > 5                             concentration and
                                                              sites.                                         duplicate sampler
                                                                                concentration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective concentration for open path analyzers.
\2\ Corrected concentration, if applicable for open path analyzers.
\3\ NPAP, PM2.5 PEP and Pb-PEP must be implemented if data is used for NAAQS decisions otherwise implementation is at PSD reviewing authority
  discretion.
\4\ Both primary and collocated sampler values are reported as raw data.

0
11. In Appendix D to part 58, revise paragraph 3(b), remove and reserve
paragraph 4.5(b), and revise paragraph 4.5(c) to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 58--Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring

* * * * *
    3. * * *
    (b) The NCore sites must measure, at a minimum, PM2.5
particle mass using continuous and integrated/filter-based samplers,
speciated PM2.5, PM10-2.5 particle mass,
O3, SO2, CO, NO/NOY, wind speed,
wind direction, relative humidity, and ambient temperature.
    (1) Although the measurement of NOy is required in
support of a number of monitoring objectives, available commercial
instruments may indicate little difference in their measurement of
NOy compared to the conventional measurement of
NOX, particularly in areas with relatively fresh sources
of nitrogen emissions. Therefore, in areas with negligible expected
difference between NOy and NOX measured
concentrations, the Administrator may allow for waivers that permit
NOX monitoring to be substituted for the required
NOy monitoring at applicable NCore sites.
    (2) The EPA recognizes that, in some cases, the physical
location of the NCore site may not be suitable for representative
meteorological measurements due to the site's physical surroundings.
It is also possible that nearby meteorological measurements may be
able to fulfill this data need. In these cases, the requirement for
meteorological monitoring can be waived by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    4.5 * * *
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) The EPA Regional Administrator may require additional
monitoring beyond the minimum monitoring requirements contained in
paragraph 4.5(a) of this appendix where the likelihood of Pb air
quality violations is significant or where the emissions density,
topography, or population locations are complex and varied. EPA
Regional Administrators may require additional monitoring at
locations including, but not limited to, those near existing
additional industrial sources of Pb, recently closed industrial
sources of Pb, airports where piston-engine aircraft emit Pb, and
other sources of re-entrained Pb dust.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-19758 Filed 9-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P