[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 155 (Thursday, August 10, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48914-48929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20021]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL-6846-6]
RIN 2060-AG22


Amendments to Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
Sources; Monitoring Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing revisions to the monitoring requirements to 
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) of appendix B to part 60. The 
revisions clarify and update requirements for source owners and 
operators who must install and use continuous stack or duct opacity 
monitoring equipment. The revisions also update design and performance 
validation requirements for continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) 
equipment in appendix B, PS-1. These revisions do not change an 
affected facility's applicable emission standards or requirements to 
monitor opacity. However, the revisions do the following: clarify the 
obligations of owners, operators, and opacity monitor vendors; reaffirm 
and update COMS design and performance requirements by incorporating by 
reference American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 6216-98 
(approved February 10, 1998); provide EPA and affected facilities with 
equipment assurances for carrying out effective monitoring.

DATES: This rule is effective February 6, 2001. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Air Docket Section (MC-6102), Attention: Docket No. A-91-07, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room M-1500, First Floor, 
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Mr. Solomon 
Ricks, Source Characterization Group A, Emissions, Monitoring, and 
Analysis Division (MD-19), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Solomon Ricks, (919) 541-5242; Air 
Docket, (202) 260-7548.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Docket, No. A-91-07, containing information relevant to this 
rulemaking, is available for public inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 
noon and 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for 
Federal holidays, at EPA's Air Docket Section. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.
    Overview. The preamble summarizes the legal authority for these 
revisions, background information, technical and economic methodology 
used by the Agency to develop these revisions, impacts of these 
revisions, regulatory implementation, responses to public comments, and 
the availability of supporting documents.
    Regulated Entities. These revisions apply to certain facilities, 
and they may apply to others.
    (a) The revisions apply to any facility that is:
    (1) Required to install a new COMS, relocate an existing COMS, 
replace an existing COMS.
    (2) Required to recertify an existing COMS that has undergone 
substantial refurbishing (in the opinion of the enforcing agency).
    (3) Specifically required to recertify the COMS, as required in the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
    (b) These requirements may also apply to stationary sources located 
in a State, District, Reservation, or Territory that has adopted these 
revisions into its implementation plan.
    Background Documentation. The following is a list of background 
documents pertaining to this rulemaking:
    (1) Summary of Comments and Responses to the Proposed Revisions to 
PS-1. July 1998. Docket item No. IV-A-01.
    (2) Summary of Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) Stakeholder 
Meeting. June 1996. Docket item No. IV-E-01.
    (3) Summary of Comments and Responses to the PS-1 Supplemental 
Proposal. April 1999. Docket item No. IV-A-02.
    (4) The EPA Public Comment Meeting: Measurement Methods for Opacity 
Stack Monitoring. October 1998. Docket item No. IV-E-02.
    The two Summary of Comments and Responses documents (items 1 and 3) 
for this final rule contain a summary of all public comments made on 
the rule and our response to the comments. The Summary of Performance 
Specification 1 (PS-1) Stakeholder Meeting (item 2) contains a brief 
summary of the meeting taken from a poor quality audio recording of the 
meeting. The EPA Public Comment Meeting: Measurement Methods for 
Opacity Stack Monitoring (item 4) contains a transcript of the public 
hearing on the Supplemental Proposal.
    Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
is one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control. New air regulations are posted on the TTN through the world 
wide web at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn''.
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Regulatory History of This Rulemaking
III. Major Public Comments and EPA Responses and Changes to the 
Proposed Revisions
    A. Comments and Responses on the Proposed PS-1
    B. Comments and Responses on the Supplemental Proposal
    C. Applicability
    D. Definitions

[[Page 48915]]

    E. Changes in Design Specifications
    F. Other Revisions
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12866
    C. Executive Order 13132
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    F. Unfunded Mandates Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Executive Order 13045
    I. Congressional Review Act
    J. Executive Order 13084

I. Background

    We published the Specifications and Test Procedures for Opacity 
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources, PS-1 (40 
CFR Part 60 Appendix B) in the Federal Register on October 6, 1975 (40 
FR 64250). We published an amendment to PS-1 on March 30, 1983 (48 FR 
13322). Since the 1983 amendment, we gained more experience and 
understanding of COMS performance and operation. Also, manufacturers 
continued to improve the design of opacity monitors. In 1989 and 1990, 
we conducted opacity monitor manufacturer evaluations and found varying 
levels of sophistication in how manufacturers tested the performance of 
their monitors. For example, the detection limits of some testing 
equipment used by the manufacturers, were found to be limiting factors 
in evaluating COMS. In other cases, the evaluation showed that the COMS 
manufacturers had identified incorrect calculation procedures as well 
as inclusion of a component that caused an unacceptable COMS response. 
Other evaluations done in 1992 identified a continuing problem of 
clearly depicting misalignment of the transceiver and retroreflector. 
In 1992, we observed COMS responses over different distances for the 
COMS alignment test and concluded that the alignment check needed to be 
done at the installation pathlength. Moreover, from 1989 to 1992, we 
observed the angle of view (AOV) and angle of projection (AOP) testing, 
conducted by 10 major manufacturers of COMS, and concluded that the AOV 
and AOP should be reduced from the current 5 degrees to 4 degrees. This 
change reflects manufacturers' improvement in the monitors' 
capabilities. Lastly, the primary concern of COMS data users was the 
capability of the monitor to measure opacity accurately at or near the 
applicable standard. Once the opacity level exceeds the standard, the 
magnitude of the emissions is of lesser concern than the duration of 
the exceedance. Therefore, the levels at which the opacity monitor is 
evaluated needed to be revised. Based on the findings of our 
evaluations, we decided to update PS-1 to meet current industry 
practices and to ensure a continued improvement in the quality of 
opacity data.

II. Regulatory History of This Rulemaking

    We proposed revisions to PS-1 in the Federal Register (59 FR 60585) 
on November 25, 1994. Public comments were accepted for 60 days, until 
January 24, 1995. We received a total of 89 individual comments from 14 
separate commenters. Comments on the November 1994 proposal revealed 
some concern and confusion with the design specifications and with the 
test procedures to verify compliance with the design specifications. A 
summary of the public comments and EPA's response to those comments is 
in the docket (IV-A-01). To ensure adequate understanding of the 
technical issues uncovered in the comments, we held a public 
stakeholder meeting on June 12, 1996. Attendees included opacity 
monitor manufacturers, State and local agencies, EPA regional offices, 
and COMS owners and operators. A few of the monitor manufacturers were 
also members of ASTM. A summary of the stakeholder meeting is in the 
docket (IV-E-01). As an outcome of the stakeholder meeting, in 
September 1996, ASTM D22.03, a Subcommittee on Ambient Atmospheres and 
Source Emissions, volunteered to undertake development of a Standard 
Practice for opacity monitor manufacturers. The Standard Practice that 
they developed (1) offered additional design and performance 
specifications and test procedures to eliminate many of the performance 
problems that EPA encountered with existing COMS and (2) contributed to 
ensuring the quality of opacity monitoring results without restricting 
future technological development.
    On September 23, 1998, we published a supplemental proposal in the 
Federal Register (63 FR 50824) to incorporate ASTM D 6216-98 by 
reference into the proposed revisions to PS-1. Public comments were 
accepted for 60 days. A total of 12 commenters responded to the 
supplemental proposal. A summary of the public comments and EPA's 
response to those comments is in the docket (IV-A-02). On October 23, 
1998, by request, we held a public hearing on the supplemental 
proposal. A summary of the public hearing is in the docket (IV-E-02).

III. Major Public Comments and EPA Responses and Changes to the 
Proposed Revisions

A. Comments and Responses on the Proposed PS-1

    We received a total of 89 individual comments from 14 separate 
commenters on the November 24, 1994, proposed revisions. The 
significant comments on the 1994 proposal came from manufacturers and 
focused primarily on the design specification and the verification test 
procedures. Specifically, one manufacturer stated PS-1 should include 
specifications for: (1) limiting the analyzer's sensitivity to ambient 
light, (2) limiting the analyzer's sensitivity to AC line voltage 
variations, (3) limiting the analyzer's potential opacity error over 
the entire range of expected operating temperatures, and (4) describing 
the analyzer's ability to meet some normal shock and vibration 
criteria. Another manufacturer stated a specification and verification 
test should be added to determine the homogeneity of the light beam. 
Several manufacturers suggested terminology was needed in PS-1 to 
distinguish between zero drift and dust accumulation on exposed optical 
surfaces. Another manufacturer described in detail the shortcomings of 
the angle of view and angle of projection verification procedures. 
Specifically, the manufacturer stated that the equipment being tested 
should incorporate whatever field restricting devices that will be 
installed with the transmissometer. He felt since most light sources 
are chopped to differentiate between ambient light and measurement 
light, it needs to be specified that the nondirectional light source 
may be chopped if required to be compatible with the light detection 
scheme. Also, since some chopping rates are so high as to only be 
feasible with light emitting diodes, it should be allowable to use the 
actual source, if necessary. If the actual source is used without 
projection optics, and it does not provide sufficient light at 3 meters 
to be detectable, a shorter distance should be allowed or use the 
normal projection optics, if required. Each of these issues is already 
addressed by the ASTM D 6216-98 Standard Practice. Therefore we adopted 
ASTM's Standard Practice by reference into PS-1.
    Several commenters requested that existing COMS that are moved or 
refurbished should not have to meet the requirements of this new PS-1. 
They argued that existing COMS would be required to have new span 
filters (in the PS-1 revisions, the term ``span'' is no longer used; it 
has been replaced with

[[Page 48916]]

upscale calibration value) installed and certified if relocated or 
refurbished. This issue was also raised in the comments on the 
supplemental proposal. The relocation of a COMS is likely to have an 
impact on the pathlength correction factor, which will impact the 
upscale calibration value. A change in the upscale calibration value 
could necessitate a change in the upscale calibration filter. The 
revisions to PS-1 ensure continued improvement in the quality of 
opacity data being collected, primarily due to the clarification of the 
design specification verification procedures and the performance 
specifications. The procedures are written in a manner to eliminate 
diverse interpretations. Therefore, we are requiring relocated or 
refurbished COMS to meet the new PS-1.
    Many commenters suggested that the 20 percent dirty window 
compensation should not be allowed for any COMS. The commenters 
believed opacity monitor manufacturers are capable of utilizing 
improved purge systems to prevent dirt buildup. Also, it was suggested 
that errors of deliberate misadjustment or neglect of maintenance of 
monitors could result. We agreed with the suggestion that deliberate 
misadjustment could occur, as well as neglect of maintenance of 
monitors, and the dirty window compensation is now 4 percent.
    Several manufacturers commented that the calibration error test, 
instrument response time test, and optical alignment sight test should 
also be done by the manufacturer and not solely at the source by the 
owner or operator. Because the manufacturers have the special equipment 
to do these tests, we agreed that the calibration error, instrument 
response time, and optical alignment sight tests should be done by the 
manufacturer. In the supplemental proposal, we only required the 
manufacturers to perform the aforementioned tests. We received comments 
on the supplemental proposal from state regulatory agencies stating 
that facilities should continue to also be responsible for conducting 
these tests. One commenter argued that the burden on facilities would 
be minimal, because manufacturers' representatives typically are 
directly involved with initial onsite installation and testing. The 
final rule requires both the manufacturers and facilities to perform 
the calibration error, instrument response time, and optical alignment 
sight tests. The final rule also requires the manufacturer to conduct 
performance verification tests on each monitor at installation-specific 
conditions or at clearly defined default conditions if installation 
conditions are not known.

B. Comments and Responses on the Supplemental Proposal

    A total of 12 commenters submitted written comments about the 
September 23, 1998 supplemental proposal. Three people that spoke at 
the public hearing did not submit written comments. The most frequent 
comment concerned the manner in which we incorporated ASTM D 6216-98 by 
reference into PS-1. Representatives from ASTM believed incorporating D 
6216-98 by citing the various paragraphs disrupted the flow of the 
Standard Practice. They felt it would be more advantageous if we 
incorporated the Standard Practice in its entirety. We agreed with this 
assessment; therefore, in this final rule, we have incorporated D 6216-
98 in its entirety.
    Both manufacturers and State agency representatives commented about 
the lack of field audit procedures to confirm the performance of the 
COMS after it was installed. They suggested we include the procedures 
that were in the 1994 PS-1 proposal (59 FR 60585) for the calibration 
error test, instrument response time test, and optical alignment sight 
test. Also, other commenters suggested that the field audit procedures 
should include a check of the entire monitoring system to verify that 
the combined opacity monitor and data recording system correctly 
average and record averaging period values. We agreed that field audit 
procedures were necessary at the source, therefore we included field 
performance audit procedures and made them consistent with ASTM D 6216 
in terms of both terminology and technology.
    Many commenters expressed concern with the amount of time allowed 
for opacity monitor manufacturers to comply with the new 
specifications. They felt 30 days was not enough time. Several 
manufacturers suggested they could be in compliance within 180 days. We 
agreed with the suggested time for compliance and moved the effective 
date from 30 days to 180 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.
    Some commenters questioned our replacing the old 168-hour 
Conditioning Period and 168-hour Operational Test Period with an 
extended 336-hour Operational Test Period. Commenters suggested making 
the Operational Test Period, during which the zero and upscale drift 
tests are conducted, consistent with the 7-day drift test period for a 
gaseous monitoring system. Also, a few commenters asked that normal 
source downtime be included in the Operational Test Period. Recognizing 
that source owners and operators would run informal conditioning period 
prior to beginning the operational test period, we eliminated the 168-
hour Conditioning Period and reduced the Operational Test Period from 
336 hours to 168 hours. We also clarified the language in the final 
rule and included minimum source operating times required during the 
Operational Test Period for batch operations and continuous operating 
processes.
    Other commenters questioned our retaining the calibration stability 
test in PS-1 when tests were included in the ASTM Standard Practice to 
detect opacity monitors that have short-term drift problems. They 
believed including the test in PS-1 was redundant and unnecessary. We 
agreed with the suggestion that the test was redundant, and deleted the 
calibration stability test from the final rule.
    One commenter stated that, as proposed, the requirements relating 
to daily zero and upscale calibration check levels would impose 
manufacturing problems which would significantly increase the cost to 
manufacture opacity monitors. This comment was given due to the manner 
in which ASTM D 6216-98 was incorporated in the supplemental proposal. 
The commenter stated that incorporating only certain sections of the 
standard created unnecessary confusion regarding the applicable 
requirements, allowed for mis-application of the ASTM standard, and 
created unnecessary complexity and significantly increased costs for 
regulatory agencies, instrument manufacturers, and the regulated 
facilities. Specifically, it was stated that to meet the values in the 
supplemental proposal given for the zero and upscale calibration, a 
manufacturer would have to maintain 900 calibration filters. Although 
we did not agree with this interpretation of the rule, after reviewing 
the comments submitted on the supplemental proposal, we agreed that 
misunderstandings could occur with the rule as proposed. With the 
incorporation of the ASTM standard in its entirety, we have eliminated 
any confusion which may occur, and we have eliminated any unnecessary 
complexity in the rule. The final rule will not significantly increase 
the cost for regulatory agencies, instrument manufacturers, or the 
regulated facilities.

C. Applicability

    The ASTM D22.03 Task Group chairperson indicated in his comments on 
the supplemental proposal that the

[[Page 48917]]

calibration error specification of 3 percent opacity, the 
zero and upscale drift specifications of 2 percent opacity, 
and the PS-1 requirements to adjust monitors when drift exceeds two 
times the specification (i.e., 4 percent opacity) are 
inappropriate for monitoring an opacity standard below 10 percent. 
Special calibration attenuators and calibration techniques, not yet 
available on a broad basis, are needed for cases where the opacity 
standard is below 10 percent. He noted that imprecision allowances of 
this magnitude create excessive uncertainty for establishing compliance 
with a low opacity limit. The ASTM representative noted that ASTM D 
6216-98 specifications ensure accurate COMS measurements at sources 
with opacity standards of 10 percent opacity or greater.
    The ASTM representative also indicated that the design 
specification for full scale to be set at 80 percent opacity or above 
is inappropriate for sources where the compliance level is below 10 
percent opacity. The commenter also indicated other technical issues 
related to continuous monitoring of opacity from sources subject to 
opacity standards less than 10 percent which PS-1 does not adequately 
address. Therefore, the ASTM opacity Task Group elected to defer 
consideration of these special issues in ASTM D 6216-98 and instead 
specified that ASTM D 6216-98 will ensure that COMS ``meet minimum 
design and calibration requirements, necessary in part, for accurate 
opacity monitoring measurements in regulatory environmental monitoring 
applications subject to 10 percent or higher opacity standards.''
    We recognize there are potential measurement errors associated with 
monitoring opacity in stacks especially for emission units subject to 
opacity limits less than 10 percent. The uncertainties in measurement 
accuracy result from several factors. One is the current unavailability 
of calibration attenuators for opacity levels below 6 percent (3 
percent for single-pass instruments). There are experimental techniques 
under review that would allow preparation and validation of calibration 
attenuators at levels down to 1 or 2 percent; however, the process for 
manufacturing and validating such devices is not yet in place. We 
intend to work with the ASTM Task Group to further this development 
work.
    A second source of potential measurement error is that associated 
with the calibration error allowances, the zero and upscale drift 
specifications, the mandatory drift adjustment levels, and the 
imprecision associated with the allowed compensation for dirt 
accumulation. The imprecision associated with these tolerances may be 
adequate for assuring the quality of higher opacity measurements, but 
may be inadequate for assuring the quality of measurements of opacity 
less than 10 percent. In cooperation with the ASTM Task Group, we will 
continue to evaluate the capabilities of COMS relative to these 
performance specifications. The purpose of these evaluations is to 
determine whether tighter specifications are achievable and whether 
such tighter specifications would assure data of sufficient quality at 
opacity levels less than 10 percent. Possible outcomes include another 
revision to PS-1 addressing the on-site performance requirements or a 
second performance specification directed at COMS used at facilities 
with opacity limits less than 10 percent.
    A third factor is the minimum full scale range of 80 percent 
opacity required of COMS in PS-1. This range is necessary in many cases 
to ensure that short term (i.e., less than 6 minutes) excursions at 
high opacity levels are captured in the 6-minute average. On the other 
hand, the specified full scale range may be inappropriately high for 
accurate measurements of opacity less than 10 percent for some 
instruments. We, again in cooperation with the ASTM Task Group, will 
evaluate a number of options to address this concern. Among potential 
options is the reduction of the required measurement range for low 
opacity applications; another is a requirement for dual range output 
with separate calibration and drift allowances. The revised PS-1 
includes an option to establish a site-specific full scale range of no 
less than 50 percent opacity at facilities with opacity limits less 
than 10 percent.
    We can estimate the upper range of potential measurement error that 
may be associated with COMS data by using a propagation of errors 
statistical analysis of the calibration error, zero and upscale drift, 
and alignment tolerances as specified in PS-1. This very conservative 
approach produces a potential measurement error of about 4 percent 
opacity. A properly operating and aligned COMS should experience 
measurement error significantly less than this magnitude.
    While we recognize the potential for measurement error associated 
with monitoring opacity where the opacity limit is less than 10 
percent, we believe it is inappropriate to limit the applicability of 
PS-1 based on the applicable emission limit. The final PS-1 is 
applicable to all COMS required to be certified or recertified. Instead 
of limiting the applicability, the final PS-1 will take into account 
(through statistical procedures or otherwise) the measurement 
uncertainty associated with COMS measurements below 10 percent opacity. 
Regardless of the potential for error in low level COMS readings, you, 
the owner or operator, are expected to respond to and correct as soon 
as possible any indication of excess emissions for an opacity limit 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions as required by Part 60 and other regulations.

D. Definitions

    All of the definitions from ASTM D 6216-98 are incorporated by 
reference. Comments received concerning the definitions suggested that 
they were subject to a variety of interpretations as written. As a 
result of incorporating ASTM D 6216-98 in its entirety in the final 
rule, we deleted redundant definitions present in the proposal and we 
defined terminology exclusive to PS-1 to be consistent with ASTM D 
6216-98.

E. Changes in Design Specifications

    There were specific changes in the design specifications detailed 
in the 1994 proposal (59 FR 60585). These changes were a result of the 
opacity monitor manufacturer evaluations conducted in 1989 and 1990. 
Also, the specifications for voltage, temperature, and light 
fluctuations were introduced in the supplemental proposal (63 FR 
50824). There were no comments on the specifications, only on the 
verification procedures for the specifications. The design 
specifications changes are as follows:
    (1) Angle of View and Angle of Projection. The AOV and AOP are 
reduced from 5 degrees to 4 degrees.
    (2) Calibration Drift Checking System. The COMS must provide a 
means to simulate a zero and an upscale calibration drift check value 
in order to check the COMS transmitter/receiver calibration drift. The 
calibration drift checking system must include, at the same time, all 
active analyzer internal optics with power or curvature, all active 
electronic circuitry including the light source, photodetector 
assembly, electronic or electro-mechanical systems, and hardware and/or 
software used during normal measurement operation. The upscale 
calibration check response may not be altered by electronic hardware or 
software modification during the calibration cycle; the response is 
representative of

[[Page 48918]]

the gains and offsets applied to normal effluent opacity measurements.
    (3) Alarms and Warnings. The COMS must provide operators visual or 
audible alarms or fault condition warnings to facilitate proper 
operation and maintenance of the COMS.
    (4) Zero Compensations. The COMS must provide an automated means to 
assess and record accumulated automatic zero compensations on a 24-hour 
basis in order to achieve the correct response to the simulated zero 
device.
    (5) Compensation for Dirt Accumulation. The automatic compensation 
for dirt accumulation on the exposed optical surfaces of the COMS must 
now include the compensation allowance in the 4 percent opacity 
tolerance for zero drift adjustment. Only those optical surfaces 
directly in the light beam path under normal operation to measure 
opacity may be measured and compensated for dust accumulation. The COMS 
must now provide a means to display the level of dust compensation.
    (6) Opacity Monitor and External Audit Filters. The opacity monitor 
must now accommodate independent audits of the measurement system 
response to external audit filters. The external audit filter access 
design must ensure (a) the filters are used in conjunction with a zero 
condition based on the same energy level, or within 5 percent of the 
energy reaching the detector under actual clear path conditions, (b) 
the entire beam received by the detector will pass through the 
attenuator, and (c) the attenuator is inserted in a manner that 
minimizes interference from reflected light.
    (7) Opacity Emissions and the Pathlength Correction Factor. The 
COMS must now automatically correct opacity emissions that are measured 
at the COMS installation location to the emission outlet pathlength. 
The COMS must be designed to ensure the pathlength correction factor 
(PLCF) cannot be changed by the end user, or the PLCF is recorded 
during each calibration drift check cycle, or an alarm sounds when the 
PLCF value is changed.
    (8) Voltage, Temperature, and Light Fluctuations. As a result of 
incorporating ASTM D 6216-98 in its entirety, we incorporated three new 
design specifications to ensure that the accuracy of opacity monitor 
data is not affected by fluctuations in supply voltage, ambient 
temperature, and ambient light over the range specified by the 
manufacturer.

F. Other Revisions

    This final rule also contains some revisions to 40 CFR part 60 
Sec. 60.13(d)(1) and (d)(2) and several revisions or corrections to PS-
1. These revisions and corrections were given in detail in the 1994 
proposal (59 FR 60585) and the supplemental proposal (63 FR 50824). 
There were no comments on the revisions and corrections, which are 
summarized below.
    We revised 60.13(d)(1) to distinguish between gaseous continuous 
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) and continuous opacity monitoring 
systems (COMS).
    We revised 60.13(d)(2) to clarify and update which parts of the 
COMS must be checked by the daily simulated zero and upscale 
calibration drift checks and to be consistent with ASTM D 6216-98.
    Because the new design specifications now require that the opacity 
monitor exhibit no interference from ambient light, we modified the 
installation guidelines. The modification removes the limitation of 
locating the opacity monitor at a place free of interference from 
ambient light.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all information 
submitted or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) to allow 
interested parties to identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as 
the record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review 
materials) [Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(A)].

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to 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.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, 
therefore, not subject to OMB review.

C. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to 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, EPA 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 EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This 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 final rule is a revision to 
an existing rule already being used by State and local governments. The 
revisions have no impact on how State and local governments apply the 
rule. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain any information collection 
requirements subject to the Office of Management and

[[Page 48919]]

Budget review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also 
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
    This 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 
requirements of the final rule reaffirm the existing design 
specifications for a COMS to demonstrate conformance with PS-1. The 
final rule clarifies the verification procedures for the design 
specifications, as well as clarifies the responsibilities of 
manufacturers of opacity monitors and the owners/operators without 
placing additional burden on either parties.

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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 
one 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.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. This rule does not include additional 
requirements for the performance specifications of opacity monitors; 
the rule only clarifies the language in the specification. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Again, the rule does not add any new requirements; it only 
clarifies the existing requirements.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 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. This rulemaking involves 
technical standards. EPA decided to use a voluntary consensus standard 
developed and adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM), ASTM D 6216-98, Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor 
Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance 
Specifications. This standard was chosen because it was developed by 
ASTM with EPA involvement. The standard used the requirements outlined 
in PS-1 and developed clear and concise verification procedures for the 
requirements. Copies of the ASTM standard can be obtained by contacting 
the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428.

H. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``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.
    EPA interprets 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 rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental 
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

I. 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. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804 (2). This rule will be effective February 6, 2001.

J. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with

[[Page 48920]]

those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. This rule revises an existing regulation which 
details the performance and design specifications for continuous 
opacity monitoring systems. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control; Continuous 
emission monitoring; Incorporation by reference; Opacity; Particulate 
matter; Performance specification; Preparation, submittal, and adoption 
of State implementation plans; Transmissometers; Visible emissions.

    Dated: July 31, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601, and 
7602.

Subpart A--General Provisions

    2. Amend Sec. 60.13 by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) as 
follows:


Sec. 60.13  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Owners and operators of a CEMS installed in accordance with 
the provisions of this part, must automatically check the zero (or low 
level value between 0 and 20 percent of span value) and span (50 to 100 
percent of span value) calibration drifts at least once daily in 
accordance with a written procedure. The zero and span must, as a 
minimum, be adjusted whenever either the 24-hour zero drift or the 24-
hour span drift exceeds two times the limit of the applicable 
performance specification in appendix B of this part. The system must 
allow the amount of the excess zero and span drift to be recorded and 
quantified whenever specified. Owners and operators of a COMS installed 
in accordance with the provisions of this part, must automatically, 
intrinsic to the opacity monitor, check the zero and upscale (span) 
calibration drifts at least once daily. For a particular COMS, the 
acceptable range of zero and upscale calibration materials is as 
defined in the applicable version of PS-1 in appendix B of this part. 
For a COMS, the optical surfaces, exposed to the effluent gases, must 
be cleaned before performing the zero and upscale drift adjustments, 
except for systems using automatic zero adjustments. The optical 
surfaces must be cleaned when the cumulative automatic zero 
compensation exceeds 4 percent opacity.
    (2) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the following 
procedures must be followed for a COMS. Minimum procedures must include 
an automated method for producing a simulated zero opacity condition 
and an upscale opacity condition using a certified neutral density 
filter or other related technique to produce a known obstruction of the 
light beam. Such procedures must provide a system check of all active 
analyzer internal optics with power or curvature, all active electronic 
circuitry including the light source and photodetector assembly, and 
electronic or electro-mechanical systems and hardware and or software 
used during normal measurement operation.
* * * * *

    3. Amend Sec. 60.17 by adding paragraph (a)(64) as follows:


Sec. 60.17  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (64) ASTM D 6216-98 Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor 
Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance 
Specifications, IBR approved February 6, 2001 for appendix B, PS-1.
* * * * *

    4. Appendix B, Performance Specification 1 is revised to read as 
follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

Performance Specification 1--Specifications and Test Procedures for 
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources

1.0  What Is the Purpose and Applicability of Performance 
Specification 1?

    Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) provides (1) requirements for 
the design, performance, and installation of a continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS) and (2) data computation procedures for 
evaluating the acceptability of a COMS. It specifies activities for 
two groups (1) the owner or operator and (2) the opacity monitor 
manufacturer.
    1.1  Measurement Parameter. PS-1 covers the instrumental 
measurement of opacity caused by attenuation of projected light due 
to absorption and scatter of the light by particulate matter in the 
effluent gas stream.
    1.2  What COMS must comply with PS-1? If you are an owner or 
operator of a facility with a COMS as a result of this Part, then 
PS-1 applies to your COMS if one of the following is true:
    (1) Your facility has a new COMS installed after February 6, 
2001; or
    (2) Your COMS is replaced, relocated, or substantially 
refurbished (in the opinion of the regulatory authority) after 
February 6, 2001; or
    (3) Your COMS was installed before February 6, 2001 and is 
specifically required by regulatory action other than the 
promulgation of PS-1 to be recertified.
    If you are an opacity monitor manufacturer, then paragraph 8.2 
applies to you.
    1.3  Does PS-1 apply to a facility with an applicable opacity 
limit less than 10 percent? If you are an owner or operator of a 
facility with a COMS as a result of this Part and the applicable 
opacity limit is less than 10 percent, then PS-1 applies to your 
COMS as described in section 1.2; taking into account (through 
statistical procedures or otherwise) the uncertainties associated 
with opacity measurements, and following the conditions for 
attenuators selection for low opacity applications as outlined in 
Section 8.1(3)(ii). At your option, you, the source owner or 
operator, may select to establish a reduced full scale range of no 
less than 50 percent opacity instead of the 80 percent as prescribed 
in section 3.5, if the applicable opacity limit for your facility is 
less than 10 percent. The EPA recognizes that reducing the range of 
the analyzer to 50 percent does not necessarily result in any 
measurable improvement in measurement accuracy at opacity levels 
less than 10 percent; however, it may allow improved chart recorder 
interpretation.
    1.4  What data uncertainty issues apply to COMS data? The 
measurement uncertainties associated with COMS data result from 
several design and performance factors including limitations on the 
availability of calibration attenuators for opacities less than 
about 6 percent (3 percent for single-pass instruments), calibration 
error tolerances, zero and upscale drift tolerances, and

[[Page 48921]]

allowance for dust compensation that are significant relative to low 
opacity levels. The full scale requirements of this PS may also 
contribute to measurement uncertainty for opacity measurements where 
the applicable limits are below 10 percent opacity.

2.0  What Are the Basic Requirements of PS-1?

    PS-1 requires (1) opacity monitor manufacturers comply with a 
comprehensive series of design and performance specifications and 
test procedures to certify opacity monitoring equipment before 
shipment to the end user, (2) the owner or operator to follow 
installation guidelines, and (3) the owner or operator to conduct a 
set of field performance tests that confirm the acceptability of the 
COMS after it is installed.
    2.1  ASTM D 6216-98 is the reference for design specifications, 
manufacturer's performance specifications, and test procedures. The 
opacity monitor manufacturer must periodically select and test an 
opacity monitor, that is representative of a group of monitors 
produced during a specified period or lot, for conformance with the 
design specifications in ASTM D 6216-98. The opacity monitor 
manufacturer must test each opacity monitor for conformance with the 
manufacturer's performance specifications in ASTM D 6216-98.
    2.2  Section 8.1(2) provides guidance for locating an opacity 
monitor in vertical and horizontal ducts. You are encouraged to seek 
approval for the opacity monitor location from the appropriate 
regulatory authority prior to installation.
    2.3  After the COMS is installed and calibrated, the owner or 
operator must test the COMS for conformance with the field 
performance specifications in PS-1.

3.0  What Special Definitions Apply to PS-1?

    3.1  All definitions and discussions from section 3 of ASTM D 
6216-98 are applicable to PS-1.
    3.2  Centroid Area. A concentric area that is geometrically 
similar to the stack or duct cross-section and is no greater than 1 
percent of the stack or duct cross-sectional area.
    3.3  Data Recorder. That portion of the installed COMS that 
provides a permanent record of the opacity monitor output in terms 
of opacity. The data recorder may include automatic data reduction 
capabilities.
    3.4  External Audit Device. The inherent design, equipment, or 
accommodation of the opacity monitor allowing the independent 
assessment of the COMS's calibration and operation.
    3.5  Full Scale. The maximum data display output of the COMS. 
For purposes of recordkeeping and reporting, full scale will be 
greater than 80 percent opacity.
    3.6  Operational Test Period. A period of time (168 hours) 
during which the COMS is expected to operate within the established 
performance specifications without any unscheduled maintenance, 
repair, or adjustment.
    3.7  Primary Attenuators. Those devices (glass or grid filter 
that reduce the transmission of light) calibrated according to 
procedures in section 7.1.
    3.8  Secondary Attenuators. Those devices (glass or grid filter 
that reduce the transmission of light) calibrated against primary 
attenuators according to procedures in section 7.2.
    3.9  System Response Time. The amount of time the COMS takes to 
display 95 percent of a step change in opacity on the COMS data 
recorder.

4.0  Interferences. Water Droplets

5.0  What Do I Need To Know To Ensure the Safety of Persons Using 
PS-1?

    The procedures required under PS-1 may involve hazardous 
materials, operations, and equipment. PS-1 does not purport to 
address all of the safety problems associated with these procedures. 
Before performing these procedures, you must establish appropriate 
safety and health practices, and you must determine the applicable 
regulatory limitations. You should consult the COMS user's manual 
for specific precautions to take.

6.0  What Equipment and Supplies Do I Need?

    6.1  Continuous Opacity Monitoring System. You, as owner or 
operator, are responsible for purchasing an opacity monitor that 
meets the specifications of ASTM D 6216-98, including a suitable 
data recorder or automated data acquisition handling system. Example 
data recorders include an analog strip chart recorder or more 
appropriately an electronic data acquisition and reporting system 
with an input signal range compatible with the analyzer output.
    6.2  Calibration Attenuators. You, as owner or operator, are 
responsible for purchasing a minimum of three calibration 
attenuators that meet the requirements of PS-1. Calibration 
attenuators are optical filters with neutral spectral 
characteristics. Calibration attenuators must meet the requirements 
in section 7 and must be of sufficient size to attenuate the entire 
light beam received by the detector of the COMS. For 
transmissometers operating over a narrow bandwidth (e.g., laser), a 
calibration attenuator's value is determined for the actual 
operating wavelengths of the transmissometer. Some filters may not 
be uniform across the face. If errors result in the daily 
calibration drift or calibration error test, you may want to examine 
the across-face uniformity of the filter.
    6.3  Calibration Spectrophotometer. Whoever calibrates the 
attenuators must have a spectrophotometer that meets the following 
minimum design specifications:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Parameter                          Specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wavelength range..........................  300-800 nm.
Detector angle of view....................  10 deg..
Accuracy..................................  0.5% transmittance, NIST
                                             traceable calibration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.0  What Reagents and Standards Do I Need?

    You will need to use attenuators (i.e., neutral density filters) 
to check the daily calibration drift and calibration error of a 
COMS. Attenuators are designated as either primary or secondary 
based on how they are calibrated.
    7.1  Attenuators are designated primary in one of two ways:
    (1) They are calibrated by NIST; or
    (2) They are calibrated on a 6-month frequency through the 
assignment of a luminous transmittance value in the following 
manner:
    (i) Use a spectrophotometer meeting the specifications of 
section 6.3 to calibrate the required filters. Verify the 
spectrophotometer calibration through use of a NIST 930D Standard 
Reference Material (SRM). A SRM 930D consists of three neutral 
density glass filters and a blank, each mounted in a cuvette. The 
wavelengths and temperature to be used in the calibration are listed 
on the NIST certificate that accompanies the reported values. 
Determine and record a transmittance of the SRM values at the NIST 
wavelengths (three filters at five wavelengths each for a total of 
15 determinations). Calculate a percent difference between the NIST 
certified values and the spectrophotometer response. At least 12 of 
the 15 differences (in percent) must be within 0.5 
percent of the NIST SRM values. No difference can be greater than 
1.0 percent. Recalibrate the SRM or service the 
spectrophotometer if the calibration results fail the criteria.
    (ii) Scan the filter to be tested and the NIST blank from 
wavelength 380 to 780 nm, and record the spectrophotometer percent 
transmittance responses at 10 nm intervals. Test in this sequence: 
blank filter, tested filter, tested filter rotated 90 degrees in the 
plane of the filter, blank filter. Calculate the average 
transmittance at each 10 nm interval. If any pair of the tested 
filter transmittance values (for the same filter and wavelength) 
differ by more than 0.25 percent, rescan the tested 
filter. If the filter fails to achieve this tolerance, do not use 
the filter in the calibration tests of the COMS.
    (iii) Correct the tested filter transmittance values by dividing 
the average tested filter transmittance by the average blank filter 
transmittance at each 10 nm interval.
    (iv) Calculate the weighted (to the response of the human eye), 
tested filter transmittance by multiplying the transmittance value 
by the corresponding response factor shown in table 1-1, to obtain 
the Source C Human Eye Response.
    (v) Recalibrate the primary attenuators semi-annually if they 
are used for the required calibration error test. Recalibrate the 
primary attenuators annually if they are used only for calibration 
of secondary attenuators.
    7.2  Attenuators are designated secondary if the filter 
calibration is done using a laboratory-based transmissometer. 
Conduct the secondary attenuator calibration using a laboratory-
based transmissometer calibrated as follows:
    (i) Use at least three primary filters of nominal luminous 
transmittance 50, 70 and 90 percent, calibrated as specified in 
section

[[Page 48922]]

7.1(2)(i), to calibrate the laboratory-based transmissometer. 
Determine and record the slope of the calibration line using linear 
regression through zero opacity. The slope of the calibration line 
must be between 0.99 and 1.01, and the laboratory-based 
transmissometer reading for each primary filter must not deviate by 
more than 2 percent from the linear regression line. If 
the calibration of the laboratory-based transmissometer yields a 
slope or individual readings outside the specified ranges, secondary 
filter calibrations cannot be performed. Determine the source of the 
variations (either transmissometer performance or changes in the 
primary filters) and repeat the transmissometer calibration before 
proceeding with the attenuator calibration.
    (ii) Immediately following the laboratory-based transmissometer 
calibration, insert the secondary attenuators and determine and 
record the percent effective opacity value per secondary attenuator 
from the calibration curve (linear regression line).
    (iii) Recalibrate the secondary attenuators semi-annually if 
they are used for the required calibration error test.

8.0  What Performance Procedures Are Required To Comply With PS-1?

    Procedures to verify the performance of the COMS are divided 
into those completed by the owner or operator and those completed by 
the opacity monitor manufacturer.
    8.1  What procedures must I follow as the Owner or Operator?
    (1) You must purchase an opacity monitor that complies with ASTM 
D 6216-98 and obtain a certificate of conformance from the opacity 
monitor manufacturer.
    (2) You must install the opacity monitor at a location where the 
opacity measurements are representative of the total emissions from 
the affected facility. You must meet this requirement by choosing a 
measurement location and a light beam path as follows:
    (i) Measurement Location. Select a measurement location that is 
(1) at least 4 duct diameters downstream from all particulate 
control equipment or flow disturbance, (2) at least 2 duct diameters 
upstream of a flow disturbance, (3) where condensed water vapor is 
not present, and (4) accessible in order to permit maintenance.
    (ii) Light Beam Path. Select a light beam path that passes 
through the centroidal area of the stack or duct. Also, you must 
follow these additional requirements or modifications for these 
measurement locations:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your measurement location                          Then use a light
          is in a:                   And is:         beam path that is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Straight vertical section  Less than 4           In the plane defined
 of stack or duct.             equivalent            by the upstream
                               diameters             bend (see figure 1-
                               downstream from a     1).
                               bend.
2. Straight vertical section  Less than 4           In the plane defined
 of stack or duct.             equivalent            by the downstream
                               diameters upstream    bend (see figure 1-
                               from a bend.          2).
3. Straight vertical section  Less than 4           In the plane defined
 of stack or duct.             equivalent            by the upstream
                               diameters             bend (see figure 1-
                               downstream and is     3).
                               also less than 1
                               diameter upstream
                               from a bend.
4. Horizontal section of      At least 4            In the horizontal
 stack or duct.                equivalent            plane that is
                               diameters             between \1/3\ and
                               downstream from a     \1/2\ the distance
                               vertical bend.        up the vertical
                                                     axis from the
                                                     bottom of the duct
                                                     (see figure 1-4).
5. Horizontal section of      Less than 4           In the horizontal
 duct.                         equivalent            plane that is
                               diameters             between \1/2\ and
                               downstream from a     \2/3\ the distance
                               vertical bend.        up the vertical
                                                     axis from the
                                                     bottom of the duct
                                                     for upward flow in
                                                     the vertical
                                                     section, and is
                                                     between \1/3\ and
                                                     \1/2\ the distance
                                                     up the vertical
                                                     axis from the
                                                     bottom of the duct
                                                     for downward flow
                                                     (figure 1-5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Alternative Locations and Light Beam Paths. You may select 
locations and light beam paths, other than those cited above, if you 
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Administrator or delegated 
agent, that the average opacity measured at the alternative location 
or path is equivalent to the opacity as measured at a location 
meeting the criteria of sections 8.1(2)(i) and 8.1(2)(ii). The 
opacity at the alternative location is considered equivalent if (1) 
the average opacity value measured at the alternative location is 
within 10 percent of the average opacity value measured 
at the location meeting the installation criteria, and (2) the 
difference between any two average opacity values is less than 2 
percent opacity (absolute). You use the following procedure to 
conduct this demonstration: simultaneously measure the opacities at 
the two locations or paths for a minimum period of time (e.g., 180-
minutes) covering the range of normal operating conditions and 
compare the results. The opacities of the two locations or paths may 
be measured at different times, but must represent the same process 
operating conditions. You may use alternative procedures for 
determining acceptable locations if those procedures are approved by 
the Administrator.
    (3) Field Audit Performance Tests. After you install the COMS, 
you must perform the following procedures and tests on the COMS.
    (i) Optical Alignment Assessment. Verify and record that all 
alignment indicator devices show proper alignment. A clear 
indication of alignment is one that is objectively apparent relative 
to reference marks or conditions.
    (ii) Calibration Error Check. Conduct a three-point calibration 
error test using three calibration attenuators that produce outlet 
pathlength corrected, single-pass opacity values shown in ASTM D 
6216-98, section 7.5. If your applicable limit is less than 10 
percent opacity, use attenuators as described in ASTM D 6216-98, 
section 7.5 for applicable standards of 10 to 19 percent opacity. 
Confirm the external audit device produces the proper zero value on 
the COMS data recorder. Separately, insert each calibration 
attenuators (low, mid, and high-level) into the external audit 
device. While inserting each attenuator, (1) ensure that the entire 
light beam passes through the attenuator, (2) minimize interference 
from reflected light, and (3) leave the attenuator in place for at 
least two times the shortest recording interval on the COMS data 
recorder. Make a total of five nonconsecutive readings for each 
attenuator. At the end of the test, correlate each attenuator 
insertion to the corresponding value from the data recorder. 
Subtract the single-pass calibration attenuator values corrected to 
the stack exit conditions from the COMS responses. Calculate the 
arithmetic mean difference, standard deviation, and confidence 
coefficient of the five measurements value using equations 1-3, 1-4, 
and 1-5. Calculate the calibration error as the sum of the absolute 
value of the mean difference and the 95 percent confidence 
coefficient for each of the three test attenuators using equation 1-
6. Report the calibration error test results for each of the three 
attenuators.
    (iii) System Response Time Check. Using a high-level calibration 
attenuator, alternately insert the filter five times and remove it 
from the external audit device. For each filter insertion and 
removal, measure the amount of time required for the COMS to display 
95 percent of the step change in opacity on the COMS data recorder. 
For the upscale response time, measure the time from insertion to 
display of 95 percent of the final, steady upscale reading. For the 
downscale response time, measure the time from removal to display 5 
percent of the initial upscale reading. Calculate the mean of the 
five upscale response time measurements and the mean of the five 
downscale response time measurements. Report both the upscale and 
downscale response times.
    (iv) Averaging Period Calculation and Recording Check. After the 
calibration error check, conduct a check of the averaging period 
calculation (e.g., 6-minute integrated average). Consecutively 
insert each of the calibration error check attenuators (low, mid, 
and high-level) into the external audit device

[[Page 48923]]

for a period of two times the averaging period plus 1 minute (e.g., 
13 minutes for a 6-minute averaging period). Compare the path length 
corrected opacity value of each attenuator to the valid average 
value calculated by the COMS data recording device for that 
attenuator.
    (4) Operational Test Period. Before conducting the operational 
testing, you must have successfully completed the field audit tests 
described in sections 8.1(3)(i) through 8.1(3)(iv). Then, you 
operate the COMS for an initial 168-hour test period while the 
source is operating under normal operating conditions. If normal 
operations contain routine source shutdowns, include the source's 
down periods in the 168-hour operational test period. However, you 
must ensure that the following minimum source operating time is 
included in the operational test period: (1) For a batch operation, 
the operational test period must include at least one full cycle of 
batch operation during the 168-hour period unless the batch 
operation is longer than 168 hours or (2) for continuous operating 
processes, the unit must be operating for at least 50 percent of the 
168-hour period. Except during times of instrument zero and upscale 
calibration drift checks, you must analyze the effluent gas for 
opacity and produce a permanent record of the COMS output. During 
this period, you may not perform unscheduled maintenance, repair, or 
adjustment to the COMS. Automatic zero and calibration adjustments 
(i.e., intrinsic adjustments), made by the COMS without operator 
intervention or initiation, are allowable at any time. At the end of 
the operational test period, verify and record that the COMS optical 
alignment is still correct. If the test period is interrupted 
because of COMS failure, record the time when the failure occurred. 
After the failure is corrected, you restart the 168-hour period and 
tests from the beginning (0-hour). During the operational test 
period, perform the following test procedures:
    (i) Zero Calibration Drift Test. At the outset of the 168-hour 
operational test period and at each 24-hour interval, the automatic 
calibration check system must initiate the simulated zero device to 
allow the zero drift to be determined. Record the COMS response to 
the simulated zero device. After each 24-hour period, subtract the 
COMS zero reading from the nominal value of the simulated zero 
device to calculate the 24-hour zero drift (ZD). At the end of the 
168-hour period, calculate the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, 
and confidence coefficient of the 24-hour ZDs using equations 1-3, 
1-4, and 1-5. Calculate the sum of the absolute value of the mean 
and the absolute value of the confidence coefficient using equation 
1-6, and report this value as the 24-hour ZD error.
    (ii) Upscale Calibration Drift Test. At each 24-hour interval 
after the simulated zero device value has been checked, check and 
record the COMS response to the upscale calibration device. After 
each 24-hour period, subtract the COMS upscale reading from the 
nominal value of the upscale calibration device to calculate the 24-
hour calibration drift (CD). At the end of the 168-hour period, 
calculate the arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and confidence 
coefficient of the 24-hour CD using equations 1-3, 1-4, and 1-5. 
Calculate the sum of the absolute value of the mean and the absolute 
value of the confidence coefficient using equation 1-6, and report 
this value as the 24-hour CD error.
    (5) Retesting. If the COMS fails to meet the specifications for 
the tests conducted under the operational test period, make the 
necessary corrections and restart the operational test period. 
Depending on the opinion of the enforcing agency, you may have to 
repeat some or all of the field audit tests.
    8.2  What are the responsibilities of the Opacity Monitor 
Manufacturer?
    You, the manufacturer, must carry out the following activities:
    (1) Conduct the verification procedures for design 
specifications in section 6 of ASTM D 6216-98.
    (2) Conduct the verification procedures for performance 
specifications in section 7 of ASTM D 6216-98.
    (3) Provide to the owner or operator, a report of the opacity 
monitor's conformance to the design and performance specifications 
required in sections 6 and 7 of ASTM D 6216-98 in accordance with 
the reporting requirements of section 9 in ASTM D 6216-98.

9.0  What quality control measures are required by PS-1?

    Opacity monitor manufacturers must initiate a quality program 
following the requirements of ASTM D 6216-98, section 8. The quality 
program must include (1) a quality system and (2) a corrective 
action program.

10.0  Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]

11.0  Analytical Procedure [Reserved]

12.0  What Calculations Are Needed for PS-1?

    12.1  Desired Attenuator Values. Calculate the desired 
attenuator value corrected to the emission outlet pathlength as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.008

Where:

OP1 = Nominal opacity value of required low-, mid-, or 
high-range calibration attenuators.
OP2 = Desired attenuator opacity value from ASTM D 6216-
98, section 7.5 at the opacity limit required by the applicable 
subpart.
L1 = Monitoring pathlength.
L2 = Emission outlet pathlength.
    12.2  Luminous Transmittance Value of a Filter. Calculate the 
luminous transmittance of a filter as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.009

Where:

LT = Luminous transmittance
Ti = Weighted tested filter transmittance.
    12.3  Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of a data 
set as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.010

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.011

    12.4  Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.012

Where:

Sd = Standard deviation of a data set.
    12.5  Confidence Coefficient. Calculate the 2.5 percent error 
confidence coefficient (one-tailed) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.013

Where:

CC = Confidence coefficient
    t0.975 = t-value (see table 1-2).
    12.6  Calibration Error. Calculate the error (calibration error, 
zero drift error, and calibration drift error) as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.014

Where:

Er = Error.


[[Page 48924]]


    12.7  Conversion of Opacity Values for Monitor Pathlength to 
Emission Outlet Pathlength. When the monitor pathlength is different 
from the emission outlet pathlength, use either of the following 
equations to convert from one basis to the other (this conversion 
may be automatically calculated by the monitoring system):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.016

Where:

Op1 = Opacity of the effluent based upon L1.
Op2 = Opacity of the effluent based upon L2.
L1 = Monitor pathlength.
L2 = Emission outlet pathlength.
OD1 = Optical density of the effluent based upon 
L1.
OD2 = Optical density of the effluent based upon 
L2.

    12.8  Mean Response Wavelength. Calculate the mean of the 
effective spectral response curve from the individual responses at 
the specified wavelength values as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.017

Where:

L = mean of the effective spectral response curve
Li = The specified wavelength at which the response 
gi is calculated at 20 nm intervals.
gi = The individual response value at Li.

13.0  What Specifications Does a COMS Have To Meet for 
Certification?

    A COMS must meet the following design, manufacturer's 
performance, and field audit performance specifications:
    13.1  Design Specifications. The opacity monitoring equipment 
must comply with the design specifications of ASTM D 6216-98.
    13.2  Manufacturer's Performance Specifications. The opacity 
monitor must comply with the manufacturer's performance 
specifications of ASTM D 6216-98.
    13.3  Field Audit Performance Specifications. The installed COMS 
must comply with the following performance specifications:
    (1) Optical Alignment. Objectively indicate proper alignment 
relative to reference marks (e.g., bull's-eye) or conditions.
    (2) Calibration Error. The calibration error must be 
3 percent opacity for each of the three calibration 
attenuators.
    (3) System Response Time. The COMS upscale and downscale 
response times must be 10 seconds as measured at the COMS 
data recorder.
    (4) Averaging Period Calculation and Recording. The COMS data 
recorder must average and record each calibration attenuator value 
to within 2 percent opacity of the certified value of 
the attenuator.
    (5) Operational Test Period. The COMS must be able to measure 
and record opacity and to perform daily calibration drift 
assessments for 168 hours without unscheduled maintenance, repair, 
or adjustment.
    (6) Zero and Upscale Calibration Drift Error. The COMS zero and 
upscale calibration drift error must not exceed 2 percent opacity 
over a 24 hour period.

14.0  Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

15.0  Waste Management. [Reserved]

16.0  Which references are relevant to this method?

    1. Experimental Statistics. Department of Commerce. National 
Bureau of Standards Handbook 91. Paragraph 3-3.1.4. 1963. 3-31 p.
    2. Performance Specifications for Stationary Source Monitoring 
Systems for Gases and Visible Emissions, EPA-650/2-74-013, January 
1974, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
NC.
    3. Koontz, E.C., Walton, J. Quality Assurance Programs for 
Visible Emission Evaluations. Tennessee Division of Air Pollution 
Control. Nashville, TN. 78th Meeting of the Air Pollution Control 
Association. Detroit, MI. June 16-21, 1985.
    4. Evaluation of Opacity CEMS Reliability and Quality Assurance 
Procedures. Volume 1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-340/1-86-009a.
    5. Nimeroff, I. ``Colorimetry Precision Measurement and 
Calibration.'' NBS Special Publication 300. Volume 9. June 1972.
    6. Technical Assistance Document: Performance Audit Procedures 
for Opacity Monitors. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/8-87-025. April 1987.
    7. Technical Assistance Document: Performance Audit Procedures 
for Opacity Monitors. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/4-92-010. April 1992.
    8. ASTM D 6216-98: Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor 
Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance 
Specifications. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 
April 1998.

17.0  What tables and diagrams are relevant to this method?

    17.1  Reference Tables.

                                 Table 1-1.--Source C, Human Eye Response Factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Wavelength  nanometers          Weighting  factor \a\    Wavelength  nanometers   Weighting  factor \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
380..................................                        0                      590                     6627
390..................................                        0                      600                     5316
400..................................                        2                      610                     4176
410..................................                        9                      620                     3153
420..................................                       37                      630                     2190
430..................................                      122                      640                     1443
440..................................                      262                      650                      886
450..................................                      443                      660                      504
460..................................                      694                      670                      259
470..................................                     1058                      680                      134
480..................................                     1618                      690                       62
490..................................                     2358                      700                       29
500..................................                     3401                      720                       14
510..................................                     4833                      720                        6
520..................................                     6462                      730                        3
530..................................                     7934                      740                        2
540..................................                     9194                      750                        1
550..................................                     9832                      760                        1
560..................................                     9841                      770                        0
570..................................                     9147                      780                        0

[[Page 48925]]

 
580..................................                     7992  .......................  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total of weighting factors = 100,000.


                                              Table 1-2. \T\ Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     n \a\                        \t\ 0.975      n \a\      \t\ 0.975      n \a\      \t\ 0.975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..............................................       12.706            7        2.447           12        2.201
3..............................................        4.303            8        2.365           13        2.179
4..............................................        3.182            9        2.306           14        2.160
5..............................................        2.776           10        2.262           15        2.145
6..............................................        2.571           11        2.228           16       2.131
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The values in this table are already corrected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal to the number of
  individual values.

    17.2  Diagrams.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 48926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.018


[[Page 48927]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.019


[[Page 48928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.020


[[Page 48929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.021

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-20021 Filed 8-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C