[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 251 (Tuesday, December 31, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80326-80328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32384]



[[Page 80325]]

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

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 58



National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter; Final Rule 
and Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 80326]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58

[AD-FRL-7388-4]
RIN 2060-AK05


National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to amend the national 
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. The revision 
reduces to 15 percent the requirement that reporting organizations 
collocate 25 percent of State and local air monitoring station (SLAMS) 
sites with a second sampler in order to estimate precision at a 
reporting organization level.
    The regulations describe the number of collocated sites required 
within a reporting organization. With today's action, EPA is making a 
simple change in the regulations by changing the requirement to 
collocate 25 percent of reporting organizations sites to 15 percent of 
the reporting organizations sites. The effect of this change will be to 
reduce the number of monitors which must be collocated. This in turn 
will reduce the cost of implementing and maintaining monitoring 
networks but without significantly affecting our confidence in the 
precision at the reporting organization level or in providing 
acceptable estimates of achievement of the precision Data Quality 
Objectives (DQOs). Since reporting organizations are of unequal size in 
the number of monitors they implement, 15 percent was considered an 
acceptable limit of providing enough precision information for smaller 
reporting organizations while not unduly burdening larger reporting 
organizations.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on March 31, 2003 
without further notice, unless significant adverse comments are 
received by January 30, 2003. If significant adverse comments are 
received, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 
informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention: Docket No. A96-51, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket A96-51, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. We request that you send a separate copy of your 
comments to Mr. Michael Papp, Monitoring and Quality Assurance Group 
(C339-02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the direct 
final rule, contact Mr. Michael Papp, Monitoring and Quality Assurance 
Group (C339-02), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this direct final without 
prior proposal because we view this as noncontroversial and do not 
anticipate adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rule section of 
this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal in the event that adverse comments are filed.
    If we receive any significant adverse comments, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that 
this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public 
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will 
not institute a second comment period on this direct final rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of information 
compiled by EPA in developing this direct final rule. The docket is a 
dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the docket contains the record in the case of judicial review. The 
docket number for this rulemaking is A-96-51.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
electronic copies of this action will be posted on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, we will post a copy of the 
supplemental proposal on the Air Monitoring Technology Information 
Center's TTN Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmcfr.html under 
the title ``PM 2.5 Collocated Precision Reduction.'' The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If you need more information regarding the TTN, call 
the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Authority. Sections 110, 301(a), and 319 of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7601 (a), 7619.

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act as amended (1990 Amendments), established 
requirements for States to prepare and submit State Implementation 
plans (SIPs) to EPA to implement and enforce national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS). 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Specifically, section 
110 of the Clean Air Act (Act) identifies particular requirements for 
these SIPs and lists the elements which each must contain in order to 
be approvable by EPA. Included in these provisions is the requirement 
that each SIP:

    provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, 
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to--
    (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, 
and
    (ii) upon request, make such data available to the 
Administrator;

42 U.S.C 7410(a)(2)(B). Any air quality monitoring systems required in 
such SIP's were further required to utilize standard criteria and 
methodologies established by regulations to be promulgated by EPA 
pursuant to section 319 of the Act.
    When EPA promulgated NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM 
2.5), it also adopted regulations for air sampling (62 FR 
38833, July 18, 1997). These regulations included quality assurance 
(QA) requirements in Appendix A based on data quality objectives 
developed using PM 2.5 data available in EPA's Aerometric 
Information Retrieval System (AIRS) and other sources prior to the July 
18, 1997 rulemaking. These QA objectives were developed to ensure that 
decision makers would have PM 2.5 data of adequate quality 
to support important decisions such as the comparison to the PM 
2.5 NAAQS.
    In response to complaints that arose under previous regulations 
about the burden of QA requirements, 62 FR 38767, July 18, 1997 section 
IV, ``Discussion of Regulatory Revisions and Major Comments on Part 
58,'' EPA stated that ``[i]n an effort to assist State and local 
agencies in achieving the data quality objectives of the PM 
2.5 monitoring program, an incentive program has been 
established that is based on network performance and

[[Page 80327]]

maturity that can reduce these QA requirements.'' Within 40 CFR part 
58, appendix A data quality objectives for precision (10 percent) and 
bias (+/- 10 percent) were identified. In order to meet the precision 
data quality objective, reporting organizations are currently required 
by the regulations to collocate 25 percent of the monitoring sites with 
a second federal reference method monitor. This second monitor would 
collect a sample every 6 days. The data quality objective is assessed 
using 3 years of this collocated information, which would provide 
approximately 182 values for any one site. Over the data collection 
years of 1999 and 2000, EPA performed data quality assessments on PM 
2.5 data and found that the majority of the reporting 
organizations are achieving the precision data quality objective.
    In 2001, EPA also reviewed the original 1997 data quality 
objectives using the 1999 and 2000 PM 2.5 data set. Using 
this more robust data set, EPA determined that the precision data 
quality objective was less influential on decision errors than the bias 
data quality objective and therefore greater imprecision could be 
tolerated in the network without adverse effect on overall uncertainty 
and therefore decision making. Based on the data quality assessments 
and the evaluation of the original data quality objective, EPA 
concluded that a reduction in the precision siting requirement would 
not significantly affect confidence in precision estimates at the 
reporting organization level or in providing acceptable estimates of 
achievement of the precision DQO. Therefore, in keeping with the 
commitment established in the July 18, 1997 Federal Register document, 
EPA has determined that it would be appropriate to reduce the monitor 
collocation requirements. We view these amendments as noncontroversial 
and anticipate no adverse comments, and we are publishing these 
amendments in a direct final rule.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have determined that this direct final rule does not qualify as 
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and therefore, is not subect to review by OMB.

B. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.

    This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires that we develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the State and local governments, or we 
consult with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless we 
consult with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule is a 
revision to an existing rule governing the requirements for State and 
local monitoring networks and reduces the burden on affected States. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this direct final rule.

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This direct final rule does 
not impose substantial direct compliance costs but lessens the existing 
requirements on the tribal governments. This rule revises an existing 
regulation which details the requirements for State, local and tribal 
air monitoring networks. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive 
Order 13175 do not apply to this action.

E. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that we determine (1) is ``economically significant'' as defined 
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because this does not establish an 
environmental

[[Page 80328]]

standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    We have determined that this direct final rule does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector in any 1 year. This rule does not impose new 
requirements, but rather reduces somewhat the requirements of existing 
regulations for State and local air monitoring networks. We have also 
determined that this rule does not significantly or uniquely impact 
small governments. Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates 
Act do not apply to this rule.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires that we conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other 
statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. This direct final rule does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because no 
additional cost will be incurred by such entities because of the 
changes specified by the rule. The rule reduces the requirements for 
the number of sites at which collocated monitors are required. 
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any information collection 
requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. 104-113, Sec.  12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this direct final rule there is no consensus standard for the 
setting of a precision requirement for a monitoring network. The 
determination of the confidence needed in the estimates derived for a 
particular monitoring network determine the amount and quality of the 
precision information. EPA used accepted statistical practices for the 
generation of the number of collocated sites it felt was appropriate 
for use in the network and used similar techniques for determining that 
the requirement could be reduced.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. We will submit a report containing this 
direct final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of this direct final rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This direct final is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 18, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, is 
amended as follows:

PART 58--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 58 continues to read as follows: 
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7416, 7601,and 7619.

    2. In Appendix A to part 58, section 3.5.2 is amended by revising 
paragraph (a)(1)to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 58--Quality Assurance Requirements for State and 
Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)

* * * * *
    3.5.2 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Have 15 percent of the monitors collocated (values of .5 and 
greater round up).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-32384 Filed 12-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P