1. Introduction 2. Monitors and Samplers with Probe Inlets 3. Open Path Analyzers 4. Waiver Provisions 5. References 1. Introduction 1.1 Applicability

(a) This appendix contains specific location criteria applicable to ambient air quality monitoring probes, inlets, and optical paths of SLAMS, NCore, PAMS, and other monitor types whose data are intended to be used to determine compliance with the NAAQS. These specific location criteria are relevant after the general location has been selected based on the monitoring objectives and spatial scale of representation discussed in appendix D to this part. Monitor probe material and sample residence time requirements are also included in this appendix. Adherence to these siting criteria is necessary to ensure the uniform collection of compatible and comparable air quality data.

(b) The probe and monitoring path siting criteria discussed in this appendix must be followed to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that there may be situations where some deviation from the siting criteria may be necessary. In any such case, the reasons must be thoroughly documented in a written request for a waiver that describes whether the resulting monitoring data will be representative of the monitoring area and how and why the proposed or existing siting must deviate from the criteria. This documentation should help to avoid later questions about the validity of the resulting monitoring data. Conditions under which the EPA would consider an application for waiver from these siting criteria are discussed in section 4 of this appendix.

(c) The pollutant-specific probe and monitoring path siting criteria generally apply to all spatial scales except where noted otherwise. Specific siting criteria that are phrased with “shall” or “must” are defined as requirements and exceptions must be granted through the waiver provisions. However, siting criteria that are phrased with “should” are defined as goals to meet for consistency but are not requirements.

2. Monitors and Samplers with Probe Inlets 2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Placement

(a) For O3 and SO2 monitoring, and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5, PM2.5, NO2, and CO sites, the probe must be located greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(b) Middle scale CO and NO2 monitors must have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(c) Middle scale PM10-2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(d) Microscale Pb, PM10, PM10-2.5, and PM2.5 sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(e) Microscale near-road NO2 monitoring sites are required to have sampler inlets greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(f) The probe inlets for microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways must be greater than or equal to 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. Those probe inlets for microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways in downtown areas or urban street canyons must be greater than or equal to 2.5 meters and less than or equal to 3.5 meters above ground level. The probe must be at least 1.0 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If the probe is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.

2.2 Spacing From Minor Sources

(a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular site in order to interpret this requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO2, lead, or particles, can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site will likely be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would, in all likelihood, be a microscale-type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitor probe inlet near local, minor sources, because a plume from a local minor source should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site. Particulate matter sites should not be located in an unpaved area unless there is vegetative ground cover year-round, so that the impact of windblown dusts will be kept to a minimum.

(b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 in the vicinity of probes for O3. To minimize these potential interferences from nearby minor sources, the probe inlet should be placed at a distance from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.

2.3 Spacing From Obstructions

(a) Obstacles may scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, the probe inlet must have unrestricted airflow pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and should be located at a distance from obstacles. The horizontal distance from the obstacle to the probe inlet must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the probe inlet. An obstacle that does not meet the minimum distance requirement is considered an obstruction that restricts airflow to the probe inlet. The EPA does not generally consider objects or obstacles such as flag poles or site towers used for NOy convertors and meteorological sensors, etc. to be deemed obstructions.

(b) A probe inlet located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to removal mechanisms. A probe inlet must have unrestricted airflow with no obstructions (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees. An unobstructed continuous arc of 180 degrees is allowable when the applicable network design criteria specified in appendix D of this part require monitoring in street canyons and the probe is located on the side of a building. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential. For particle sampling, there must be a minimum of 2.0 meters of horizontal separation from walls, parapets, and structures for rooftop site placement.

(c) A sampling station with a probe inlet located closer to an obstacle than required by the criteria in this section should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a station would more closely represent these smaller scales.

(d) For near-road monitoring stations, the monitor probe shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitor probe, between the monitor probe and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

2.4 Spacing From Trees

(a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, or NO2 adsorption or reactions and surfaces for particle deposition. Trees can also act as obstructions in locations where the trees are between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the probe inlet. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, the probe inlet should be 20 meters or more from the drip line of trees and must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of trees. If a tree or group of trees is an obstacle, the probe inlet must meet the distance requirements of section 2.3 of this appendix.

(b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.

(c) Beginning January 1, 2024, microscale sites of any air pollutant shall have no trees or shrubs located at or above the line-of-sight fetch between the probe and the source under investigation, e.g., a roadway or a stationary source.

2.5 Spacing From Roadways 2.5.1 Spacing for Ozone Probes

In siting an O3 monitor, it is important to minimize destructive interferences from sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O3. Table E-1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe inlet for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A sampling site with a monitor probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent these smaller scales.

2.5.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Probes

(a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.

(b) Microscale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2.0 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.

(c) Microscale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection, preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.

(d) Neighborhood scale CO monitor probe inlets in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located according to the requirements in Table E-2 of this appendix.

2.5.3 Spacing for Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM2.5-10, PM10, Pb) Inlets

(a) Since emissions associated with the operation of motor vehicles contribute to urban area particulate matter ambient levels, spacing from roadway criteria are necessary for ensuring national consistency in PM sampler siting.

(b) The intent is to locate localized hot-spot sites in areas of highest concentrations, whether it be caused by mobile or multiple stationary sources. If the area is primarily affected by mobile sources and the maximum concentration area(s) is judged to be a traffic corridor or street canyon location, then the monitors should be located near roadways with the highest traffic volume and at separation distances most likely to produce the highest concentrations. For microscale traffic corridor sites, the location must be greater than or equal 5.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters from the major roadway. For the microscale street canyon site, the location must be greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 10 meters from the roadway. For the middle scale site, a range of acceptable distances from the roadway is shown in Figure E-1 of this appendix. This figure also includes separation distances between a roadway and neighborhood or larger scale sites by default. Any PM probe inlet at a site, 2.0 to 15 meters high, and further back than the middle scale requirements will generally be neighborhood, urban or regional scale. For example, according to Figure E-1 of this appendix, if a PM sampler is primarily influenced by roadway emissions and that sampler is set back 10 meters from a 30,000 ADT (average daily traffic) road, the site should be classified as microscale, if the sampler's inlet height is between 2.0 and 7.0 meters. If the sampler's inlet height is between 7.0 and 15 meters, the site should be classified as middle scale. If the sampler is 20 meters from the same road, it will be classified as middle scale; if 40 meters, neighborhood scale; and if 110 meters, an urban scale.

2.5.4 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Probes

(a) In siting near-road NO2 monitors as required in section 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitor probe shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment. Where possible, the near-road NO2 monitor probe should be within 20 meters of the target road segment.

(b) In siting NO2 monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E-1 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and a probe inlet for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A site with a monitor probe located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-1 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale.

2.6 Probe Material and Pollutant Sampler Residence Time

(a) For the reactive gases (SO2, NO2, and O3), approved probe materials must be used for monitors. Studies25 34 have been conducted to determine the suitability of materials such as polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, Tygon®, aluminum, brass, stainless steel, copper, borosilicate glass, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), and fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) for use as intake sampling lines. Of the above materials, only borosilicate glass, PVDF, PTFE, PFA, and FEP have been found to be acceptable for use as intake sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous pollutants. Furthermore, the EPA 25 has specified borosilicate glass, FEP Teflon®, or their equivalents as the only acceptable probe materials for delivering test atmospheres in the determination of reference or equivalent methods. Therefore, borosilicate glass, PVDF, PTFE, PFA, FEP, or their equivalents must be the only material in the sampling train (from probe inlet to the back of the monitor) that can be in contact with the ambient air sample for reactive gas monitors. Nafion TM, which is composed primarily of PTFE, can be considered equivalent to PTFE; it has been shown in tests to exhibit virtually no loss of ozone at 20-second residence times. 35

(b) For volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring at PAMS, FEP Teflon® is unacceptable as the probe material because of VOC adsorption and desorption reactions on the FEP Teflon®. Borosilicate glass, stainless steel, or their equivalents are the acceptable probe materials for VOC and carbonyl sampling. Care must be taken to ensure that the sample residence time is kept to 20 seconds or less.

(c) No matter how nonreactive the sampling probe material is initially, after a period of use, reactive particulate matter is deposited on the probe walls. Therefore, the time it takes the gas to transfer from the probe inlet to the sampling device is critical. Ozone in the presence of nitrogen oxide (NO) will show significant losses, even in the most inert probe material, when the residence time exceeds 20 seconds. 26 Other studies 27 28indicate that a 10-second or less residence time is easily achievable. Therefore, sampling probes for all reactive gas monitors for SO2, NO2, and O3 must have a sample residence time less than 20 seconds.

2.7 Summary

Table E-3 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for probe siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. Table E-3 requires different elevation distances above the ground for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitor or probe inlet. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For source oriented and near-road monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a single manifold for monitoring more than one pollutant.

3. Open Path Analyzers 3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Placement

(a) For all O3 and SO2 monitoring sites and for neighborhood or larger spatial scale NO2, and CO sites, at least 80 percent of the monitoring path must be located greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(b) Middle scale CO and NO2 sites must have monitoring paths greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 15 meters above ground level.

(c) Microscale near-road monitoring sites are required to have monitoring paths greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level.

(d) For microscale carbon monoxide monitors that are being used to measure concentrations near roadways, the monitoring path must be greater than or equal 2.0 meters and less than or equal to 7.0 meters above ground level. If the microscale carbon monoxide monitors measuring concentrations near roadways are in downtown areas or urban street canyons, the monitoring path must be greater than or equal 2.5 meters and less than or equal to 3.5 meters above ground level and at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must be at least 1.0 meter vertically or horizontally away from any supporting structure, walls, parapets, penthouses, etc., and away from dusty or dirty areas. If a significant portion of the monitoring path is located near the side of a building or wall, then it should be located on the windward side of the building relative to the prevailing wind direction during the season of highest concentration potential for the pollutant being measured.

3.2 Spacing From Minor Sources

(a) It is important to understand the monitoring objective for a particular site in order to interpret this requirement. Local minor sources of a primary pollutant, such as SO2 can cause high concentrations of that particular pollutant at a monitoring site. If the objective for that monitoring site is to investigate these local primary pollutant emissions, then the site will likely be properly located nearby. This type of monitoring site would, in all likelihood, be a microscale type of monitoring site. If a monitoring site is to be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, such as a neighborhood or city, a monitoring agency should avoid placing a monitoring path near local, minor sources, because a plume from a local minor source should not be allowed to inappropriately impact the air quality data collected at a site.

(b) Similarly, local sources of nitric oxide (NO) and ozone-reactive hydrocarbons can have a scavenging effect causing unrepresentatively low concentrations of O3 in the vicinity of monitoring paths for O3. To minimize these potential interferences from nearby minor sources, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be at a distance from furnace or incineration flues or other minor sources of SO2 or NO. The separation distance should take into account the heights of the flues, type of waste or fuel burned, and the sulfur content of the fuel.

3.3 Spacing From Obstructions

(a) Obstacles may scavenge SO2, O3, or NO2, and can act to restrict airflow for any pollutant. To avoid this interference, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path must have unrestricted airflow and should be located at a distance from obstacles. The horizontal distance from the obstacle to the monitoring path must be at least twice the height that the obstacle protrudes above the monitoring path. An obstacle that does not meet the minimum distance requirement is considered an obstruction that restricts airflow to the monitoring path. The EPA does not generally consider objects or obstacles such as flag poles or site towers used for NOy convertors and meteorological sensors, etc. to be deemed obstructions.

(b) A monitoring path located near or along a vertical wall is undesirable because air moving along the wall may be subject to removal mechanisms. At least 90 percent of the monitoring path for open path analyzers must have unrestricted airflow with no obstructions (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section) in a continuous arc of at least 270 degrees. An unobstructed continuous arc of 180 degrees is allowable when the applicable network design criteria specified in appendix D of this part require monitoring in street canyons and the monitoring path is located on the side of a building. This arc must include the predominant wind direction for the season of greatest pollutant concentration potential.

(c) Special consideration must be given to the use of open path analyzers given their inherent potential sensitivity to certain types of interferences and optical obstructions. A monitoring path must be clear of all trees, brush, buildings, plumes, dust, or other optical obstructions, including potential obstructions that may move due to wind, human activity, growth of vegetation, etc. Temporary optical obstructions, such as rain, particles, fog, or snow, should be considered when siting an open path analyzer. Any of these temporary obstructions that are of sufficient density to obscure the light beam will negatively affect the ability of the open path analyzer to continuously measure pollutant concentrations. Transient, but significant obscuration of especially longer measurement paths, could occur as a result of certain meteorological conditions (e.g., heavy fog, rain, snow) and/or aerosol levels that are of a sufficient density to prevent the open path analyzer's light transmission. If certain compensating measures are not otherwise implemented at the onset of monitoring (e.g., shorter path lengths, higher light source intensity), data recovery during periods of greatest primary pollutant potential could be compromised. For instance, if heavy fog or high particulate levels are coincident with periods of projected NAAQS-threatening pollutant potential, the representativeness of the resulting data record in reflecting maximum pollution concentrations may be substantially impaired despite the fact that the site may otherwise exhibit an acceptable, even exceedingly high, overall valid data capture rate.

(d) A sampling station with a monitoring path located closer to an obstacle than required by the criteria in this section should be classified as middle scale or microscale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a station would more closely represent these smaller scales.

(e) For near-road monitoring stations, the monitoring path shall have an unobstructed air flow, where no obstacles exist at or above the height of the monitoring path, between the monitoring path and the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

3.4 Spacing From Trees

(a) Trees can provide surfaces for SO2, O3, or NO2 adsorption or reactions. Trees can also act as obstructions in locations where the trees are located between the air pollutant sources or source areas and the monitoring site, and where the trees are of a sufficient height and leaf canopy density to interfere with the normal airflow around the monitoring path. To reduce this possible interference/obstruction, at least 90 percent of the monitoring path should be 20 meters or more from the drip line of trees and must be at least 10 meters from the drip line of trees. If a tree or group of trees could be considered an obstacle, the monitoring path must meet the distance requirements of section 3.3 of this appendix.

(b) The scavenging effect of trees is greater for O3 than for other criteria pollutants. Monitoring agencies must take steps to consider the impact of trees on ozone monitoring sites and take steps to avoid this problem.

(c) Beginning January 1, 2024, microscale sites of any air pollutant shall have no trees or shrubs located at or above the line-of-sight fetch between the monitoring path and the source under investigation, e.g., a roadway or a stationary source.

3.5 Spacing from Roadways

3.5.1 Spacing for Ozone Monitoring Paths

In siting an O3 open path analyzer, it is important to minimize destructive interferences form sources of NO, since NO readily reacts with O3. Table E-4 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A monitoring site with a monitoring path located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-4 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale, rather than neighborhood or urban scale, since the measurements from such a site would more closely represent these smaller scales. The monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For locations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference from automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined from Table E-4 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

3.5.2 Spacing for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Paths

(a) Near-road microscale CO monitoring sites, including those located in downtown areas, urban street canyons, and other near-road locations such as those adjacent to highly trafficked roads, are intended to provide a measurement of the influence of the immediate source on the pollution exposure on the adjacent area.

(b) Microscale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located a minimum distance of 2.0 meters and a maximum distance of 10 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane.

(c) Microscale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located at least 10 meters from an intersection, preferably at a midblock location. Midblock locations are preferable to intersection locations because intersections represent a much smaller portion of downtown space than do the streets between them. Pedestrian exposure is probably also greater in street canyon/corridors than at intersections.

(d) Neighborhood scale CO monitoring paths in downtown areas or urban street canyon locations shall be located according to the requirements in Table E-5 of this appendix.

3.5.3 Spacing for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Monitoring Paths

(a) In siting near-road NO2 monitors as required in section 4.3.2 of appendix D of this part, the monitoring path shall be as near as practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment but shall not be located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segment.

(b) In siting NO2 open path monitors for neighborhood and larger scale monitoring, it is important to minimize near-road influences. Table E-5 of this appendix provides the required minimum separation distances between a roadway and at least 90 percent of a monitoring path for various ranges of daily roadway traffic. A site with a monitoring path located closer to a roadway than allowed by the Table E-4 requirements should be classified as microscale or middle scale rather than neighborhood or urban scale. The monitoring path(s) must not cross over a roadway with an average daily traffic count of 10,000 vehicles per day or more. For locations where a monitoring path crosses a roadway with fewer than 10,000 vehicles per day, monitoring agencies must consider the entire segment of the monitoring path in the area of potential atmospheric interference form automobile emissions. Therefore, this calculation must include the length of the monitoring path over the roadway plus any segments of the monitoring path that lie in the area between the roadway and minimum separation distance, as determined from Table E-5 of this appendix. The sum of these distances must not be greater than 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

3.6 Cumulative Interferences on a Monitoring Path

The cumulative length or portion of a monitoring path that is affected by minor sources, trees, or roadways must not exceed 10 percent of the total monitoring path length.

3.7 Maximum Monitoring Path Length

The monitoring path length must not exceed 1.0 kilometer for open path analyzers in neighborhood, urban, or regional scale. For middle scale monitoring sites, the monitoring path length must not exceed 300 meters. In areas subject to frequent periods of dust, fog, rain, or snow, consideration should be given to a shortened monitoring path length to minimize loss of monitoring data due to these temporary optical obstructions. For certain ambient air monitoring scenarios using open path analyzers, shorter path lengths may be needed in order to ensure that the monitoring site meets the objectives and spatial scales defined in appendix D to this part. The Regional Administrator may require shorter path lengths, as needed on an individual basis, to ensure that the SLAMS sites meet the appendix D requirements. Likewise, the Administrator may specify the maximum path length used at NCore monitoring sites.

3.8 Summary

Table E-6 of this appendix presents a summary of the general requirements for monitoring path siting criteria with respect to distances and heights. Table E-6 requires different elevation distances above the ground for the various pollutants. The discussion in this appendix for each of the pollutants describes reasons for elevating the monitoring path. The differences in the specified range of heights are based on the vertical concentration gradients. For source oriented and near-road monitors, the gradients in the vertical direction are very large for the microscale, so a small range of heights are used. The upper limit of 15 meters is specified for the consistency between pollutants and to allow the use of a monitoring path for monitoring more than one pollutant.

4. Waiver Provisions

Most sampling probes or monitors can be located so that they meet the requirements of this appendix. New sites, with rare exceptions, can be located within the limits of this appendix. However, some existing sites may not meet these requirements and may still produce useful data for some purposes. The EPA will consider a written request from the State, or where applicable local, agency to waive one or more siting criteria for some monitoring sites providing that the State or their designee can adequately demonstrate the need (purpose) for monitoring or establishing a monitoring site at that location.

4.1 For a proposed new site, a waiver may be granted only if both the following criteria are met:

4.1.1 The proposed new site can be demonstrated to be as representative of the monitoring area as it would be if the siting criteria were being met.

4.1.2 The monitor or probe cannot reasonably be located so as to meet the siting criteria because of physical constraints (e.g., inability to locate the required type of site the necessary distance from roadways or obstructions).

4.2 For an existing site, a waiver may be granted if either the criterion in section 4.1.1 or the criterion in 4.1.2 of this appendix is met.

4.3 Cost benefits, historical trends, and other factors may be used to add support to the criteria in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this appendix; however, by themselves, they will not be acceptable reasons for the EPA to grant a waiver. Written requests for waivers must be submitted to the Regional Administrator. Granted waivers must be renewed minimally every 5 years and ideally as part of the network assessment as defined in § 58.10(d). The approval date of the waiver must be documented in the annual monitoring network plan to support the requirements of § 58.10(a)(1) and 58.10(b)(10).

5. References

1. Bryan, R.J., R.J. Gordon, and H. Menck. Comparison of High Volume Air Filter Samples at Varying Distances from Los Angeles Freeway. University of Southern California, School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago, IL. June 24-28, 1973. APCA 73-158.)

2. Teer, E.H. Atmospheric Lead Concentration Above an Urban Street. Master of Science Thesis, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. January 1971.

3. Bradway, R.M., F.A. Record, and W.E. Belanger. Monitoring and Modeling of Resuspended Roadway Dust Near Urban Arterials. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. (Presented at 1978 Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. January 1978.)

4. Pace, T.G., W.P. Freas, and E.M. Afify. Quantification of Relationship Between Monitor Height and Measured Particulate Levels in Seven U.S. Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. (Presented at 70th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Toronto, Canada. June 20-24, 1977. APCA 77-13.4.)

5. Harrison, P.R. Considerations for Siting Air Quality Monitors in Urban Areas. City of Chicago, Department of Environmental Control, Chicago, IL. (Presented at 66th Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago, IL. June 24-28, 1973. APCA 73-161.)

6. Study of Suspended Particulate Measurements at Varying Heights Above Ground. Texas State Department of Health, Air Control Section, Austin, TX. 1970. p.7.

7. Rodes, C.E. and G.F. Evans. Summary of LACS Integrated Pollutant Data. In: Los Angeles Catalyst Study Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-600/4-77-034. June 1977.

8. Lynn, D.A. et al. National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem: Volume 1, National Assessment. GCA Technology Division, Bedford, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-024. June 1976.

9. Pace, T.G. Impact of Vehicle-Related Particulates on TSP Concentrations and Rationale for Siting Hi-Vols in the Vicinity of Roadways. OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1978.

10. Ludwig, F.L., J.H. Kealoha, and E. Shelar. Selecting Sites for Monitoring Total Suspended Particulates. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-018. June 1977, revised December 1977.

11. Ball, R.J. and G.E. Anderson. Optimum Site Exposure Criteria for SO2 Monitoring. The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc., Hartford, CT. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-013. April 1977.

12. Ludwig, F.L. and J.H.S. Kealoha. Selecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide Monitoring. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-75-077. September 1975.

13. Ludwig, F.L. and E. Shelar. Site Selection for the Monitoring of Photochemical Air Pollutants. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-013. April 1978.

14. Lead Analysis for Kansas City and Cincinnati, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 66-02-2515, June 1977.

15. Barltrap, D. and C.D. Strelow. Westway Nursery Testing Project. Report to the Greater London Council. August 1976.

16. Daines, R. H., H. Moto, and D. M. Chilko. Atmospheric Lead: Its Relationship to Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 4:318, 1970.

17. Johnson, D. E., et al. Epidemiologic Study of the Effects of Automobile Traffic on Blood Lead Levels, Southwest Research Institute, Houston, TX. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/1-78-055, August 1978.

18. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC EPA-600/8-83-028 aF-dF, 1986, and supplements EPA-600/8-89/049F, August 1990. (NTIS document numbers PB87-142378 and PB91-138420.)

19. Lyman, D. R. The Atmospheric Diffusion of Carbon Monoxide and Lead from an Expressway, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 1972.

20. Wechter, S.G. Preparation of Stable Pollutant Gas Standards Using Treated Aluminum Cylinders. ASTM STP. 598:40-54, 1976.

21. Wohlers, H.C., H. Newstein and D. Daunis. Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide Adsorption On and Description From Glass, Plastic and Metal Tubings. J. Air Poll. Con. Assoc. 17:753, 1976.

22. Elfers, L.A. Field Operating Guide for Automated Air Monitoring Equipment. U.S. NTIS. p. 202, 249, 1971.

23. Hughes, E.E. Development of Standard Reference Material for Air Quality Measurement. ISA Transactions, 14:281-291, 1975.

24. Altshuller, A.D. and A.G. Wartburg. The Interaction of Ozone with Plastic and Metallic Materials in a Dynamic Flow System. Intern. Jour. Air and Water Poll., 4:70-78, 1961.

25. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR 53.22, July 1976.

26. Butcher, S.S. and R.E. Ruff. Effect of Inlet Residence Time on Analysis of Atmospheric Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone, Anal. Chem., 43:1890, 1971.

27. Slowik, A.A. and E.B. Sansone. Diffusion Losses of Sulfur Dioxide in Sampling Manifolds. J. Air. Poll. Con. Assoc., 24:245, 1974.

28. Yamada, V.M. and R.J. Charlson. Proper Sizing of the Sampling Inlet Line for a Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Environ. Sci. and Technol., 3:483, 1969.

29. Koch, R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria for Particulate Matter, GEOMET Technologies, Inc., Rockville, MD. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3584. EPA 450/4-87-009. May 1987.

30. Burton, R.M. and J.C. Suggs. Philadelphia Roadway Study. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-600/4-84-070 September 1984.

31. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and Analysis of Ozone Precursors. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/8-91-215. October 1991.

32. Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems: Volume IV. Meteorological Measurements. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 600/4-90-0003. August 1989.

33. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA 450/4-87-013. June 1987F.

34. Johnson, C., A. Whitehill, R. Long, and R. Vanderpool. Investigation of Gaseous Criteria Pollutant Transport Efficiency as a Function of Tubing Material. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA/600/R-22/212. August 2022.

35. Hannah Halliday, Cortina Johnson, Tad Kleindienst, Russell Long, Robert Vanderpool, and Andrew Whitehill. Recommendations for Nationwide Approval of Nafion TM Dryers Upstream of UV-Absorption Ozone Analyzers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. EPA/600/R-20/390. November 2020.

[89 FR 16396, Mar. 6, 2024]