[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24692-24700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11472]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL-7496-1]
RIN 2060-AH23


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: In this proposal we, the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), propose to add Procedure 3, Quality Assurance Requirements for 
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, to the 
regulations. This action provides quality assurance/quality control 
procedures for a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) used for 
compliance purposes. We are seeking public comments on this proposal.

DATES: Comments. You must submit comments so that they are received on 
or before July 7, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing has been requested, and anyone 
contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing by May 22, 2003, a 
public hearing will be held on August 6, 2003 beginning at 9 a.m. EST. 
If you are interested in attending the hearing, you must call the 
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). If a 
hearing is held, rebuttal and supplementary information may be 
submitted to the docket for 30 days following the hearing.

[[Page 24693]]

    Request to Speak at Hearing. If you wish to present oral testimony 
at the public hearing, you must call the contact person listed below 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) by July 7, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact 
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. You should 
contact Mr. Solomon Ricks, Source Measurement Analysis Group, 
Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (D243-02), U. S. EPA, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 
541-5242, to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a 
hearing will be held.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Solomon Ricks, Source Measurement 
Analysis Group, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (D243-02), 
U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 
number (919) 541-5242; facsimile number (919) 541-1039; electronic mail 
(e-mail) address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. A-91-08. The official public docket is the 
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air 
and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    2. Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, 
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the 
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents 
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the 
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (``CBI'') and 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is 
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that 
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in 
Section I.B.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket 
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. A-
91-08. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA 
will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. A-91-08. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that

[[Page 24694]]

you mail to the mailing address identified in Section I.B.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. A-91-08.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and 
Radiation Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (West), 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC, 20004, Attention 
Docket ID No. A-91-08. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 
Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Section I.A.1.

II. Outline

    We provided the following outline to aid in reading the preamble to 
this proposal.

I. Introduction
    A. Regulatory History of the Proposed Rule
II. Differences between Proposed Method 203 and the Proposed Rule 
(Procedure 3)
    A. Quarterly Performance Audit
    B. Corrective Action Section
    C. Replacement Opacity Monitors
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paper Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Introduction

A. Regulatory History of the Proposed Rule

    Procedure 3, Quality Assurance (QA) Requirements for Continuous 
Opacity Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, was originally 
published in the Federal Register on October 7, 1992 (57 FR 46114) as 
Method 203. At that time, it was proposed as an addition to appendix M, 
Example Test Methods for State implementation plans (SIP's), in 40 CFR 
part 51. Concurrently, work was underway to update and revise 
Performance Specification 1 (PS-1), Performance Specifications for a 
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS). It was decided to postpone 
further work on Method 203 until the revisions to PS-1 were 
promulgated. Revisions to PS-1 were published in the Federal Register 
on November 25, 1994 (59 FR 60585). 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. To ensure adequate understanding of the 
technical issues uncovered in the comments, a public stakeholders' 
meeting was held on June 12, 1996. As a result of that meeting, 
representatives from the American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) D22.03, a Subcommittee on Ambient Atmospheres and Source 
Emissions, volunteered to undertake development of a standard practice 
for opacity monitor manufacturers.
    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. After addressing the 
comments from the supplemental proposal, we published PS-1 as a final 
rule in the Federal Register on August 10, 2000 (65 FR 48914).
    Following the promulgation of PS-1, we formed a stakeholders' group 
to address technical concerns, similar to the concerns revealed in PS-
1, with Method 203 as it was originally proposed. The stakeholders' 
group was open to the public and consisted of opacity monitor 
manufacturers, representatives from the ASTM D22.03 subcommittee, 
State/local, and regional office personnel. After holding a series of 
phone conferences, we decided to re-write and re-propose Method 203. 
The re-write takes into account technological advances in the design 
and manufacture of opacity monitors, as well as the revisions to PS-1. 
We decided to re-propose the method as an additional procedure, 
Procedure 3, to be added to 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Quality 
Assurance Procedures for Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems. 
Today's proposal provides you the opportunity to comment on the changes 
made to Method 203 (Procedure 3) since its original proposal in October 
1992, including the codification of Procedure 3 in the aforementioned 
appendix. Comments are not limited to the changes contained in this 
proposal; you may comment on Procedure 3 in its entirety. It is for 
this reason we are allowing a 60-day comment period.

II. Differences Between Proposed Method 203 and the Proposed Rule 
(Procedure 3)

A. Quarterly Performance Audit

    In re-writing Method 203 we determined that, because of 
technological advancements in opacity monitors, requirements proposed 
in October 1992 were no longer necessary. Specifically, regarding the 
quarterly performance audits, we decided to delete the optical surface 
dust accumulation check, the stack exit correlation error (pathlength 
correction factor) check, as well as the zero and upscale response 
checks.
    The design specifications outlined in ASTM D 6216-98, incorporated 
by reference into PS-1, requires manufacturers to build opacity 
monitors capable of adjusting the reading due to the accumulation of 
dust on exposed optical surfaces. Opacity monitors are also required to 
display the level of dust accumulation. We also determined it to be in 
the source's best interest to be aware of dust accumulation on a 
regular basis, since the result of dust accumulation would lead to 
higher opacity readings.
    The stack exit correlation error (pathlength correction factor 
[PLCF]) was deleted because opacity monitor manufacturers are required 
to certify the system has been built so that the PLCF either cannot be 
changed, is recorded during each calibration cycle, or an alarm sounds 
when the value is changed from the certified value.
    The quarterly zero and upscale response checks were deleted because 
the calibration drift checks (zero and upscale) are required on a daily 
basis. We determined that requiring zero and upscale response checks in 
addition to the calibration drift checks offered no additional benefits 
in verifying the performance of the COMS.

B. Corrective Action Section

    Procedure 3 includes a new section describing the corrective action 
required to return an opacity monitor to normal operation after a 
specified maintenance or repair procedure has been executed in response 
to a monitor failure or pending failure. After successful completion of 
the applicable corrective action, the monitor can be returned to an on-
line status which provides valid emission monitoring data as long as 
the on-going QA requirements are met.
    The corrective action section establishes four classes of 
maintenance and repair procedures: (1) Routine/preventative 
maintenance, (2) Measurement non-critical repairs, (3) Measurement 
critical repairs, and (4)

[[Page 24695]]

Rebuilt or refurbished analyzers. A table is included detailing the 
diagnostic tests required to maintain PS-1 certification following the 
appropriate corrective action.

C. Replacement Opacity Monitors

    Procedure 3 also allows the use of a temporary replacement monitor 
in the event a certified opacity monitor is removed for extended 
service and the repair of the monitor requires more downtime than the 
user wishes to incur. The use of a replacement monitor will be allowed 
provided the monitor meets requirements specified in Procedure 3.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we are 
required to judge whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of this 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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined 
that this rule is not ``significant'' because none of the listed 
criteria apply to this action. That is, this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, would not establish independent requirements for regulated 
entities. It would only apply where PS-1 is specified as the applicable 
method to demonstrate compliance with national emission standards or 
other control requirements. Consequently, this action was not submitted 
to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or 
any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent 
company has fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because no 
significant additional cost will be incurred by such entities because 
of the proposed rule. The requirements of the proposal details quality 
assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) procedures for COMS to demonstrate 
continued conformance with PS-1. Facilities required by other rules to 
use COMS for compliance purposes have some form of QA/QC in place 
already; this proposal adds only minor additional requirements.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We formed a 
stakeholders' group to address technical concerns, similar to the 
concerns revealed in PS-1, with the proposed rule. The stakeholders' 
group was open to the public and consisted of opacity monitor 
manufacturers, representatives from the ASTM D22.03 subcommittee, 
representatives from electric utilities, State/local, and regional 
office personnel. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts 
of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, we 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed 
rule, or any final rule for which a notice of proposed rulemaking was 
published, that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under 
Section 205, if a budgetary impact statement is required under Section 
202, we must select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule, unless 
we explain why this alternative is not selected or the selection of 
this alternative is inconsistent with law. Section 203 requires us to 
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that 
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. Section 204 
requires us to develop a process to allow elected State, local, and 
tribal government officials to provide input in the development of any 
proposal containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate.
    We have determined that this proposed rule does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector in any one year. Rules establishing test methods 
and/or quality assurance requirements impose no costs independent from 
national emission standards which require their use, and such costs are 
fully reflected in the regulatory impact assessment for those emission 
standards. We have also determined that this proposed rule does not 
significantly or uniquely impact small governments. Therefore, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires that we develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
    ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the

[[Page 24696]]

Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the State and local governments, or we consult with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless we consult 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule 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. 
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this proposed rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (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, EPA 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 that EPA considered. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically 
significant under Executive Order 12866 and because it does not concern 
environmental health and safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
expected to have a significant adverse affect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(NTTAA), Section 12(d), Public Law 104-113, requires Federal agencies 
and departments to use voluntary consensus standards instead of 
government-unique standards in their regulatory activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material 
specifications, test method, sampling and analytical procedures, 
business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations 
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers 
(SAE). The NTTAA requires federal agencies like us to provide Congress, 
through OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    During this rulemaking, we identified no voluntary consensus 
standards that might be applicable. Specifically, there were none which 
specified quality assurance/quality control procedures for continuous 
opacity monitoring systems.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Continuous opacity 
monitoring.

    Dated: May 2, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
    We propose that 40 CFR part 60 be amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Appendix F of part 60 is amended by adding Procedure 3 to read 
as follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

* * * * *

Procedure 3--Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity 
Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

    1. What Are the Purpose and Applicability of Procedure 3? The 
purpose of Procedure 3 is to help implement procedures established 
by Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) for testing and verification 
of continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) applicable to new 
stationary sources by establishing the minimum quality control (QC) 
and quality assurance (QA) requirements to assess and assure the 
quality of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). Procedure 
3 applies to a COMS used for continuously determining compliance 
with emission standards as specified in an applicable federally 
enforceable regulation.
    1.1 Who must comply with Procedure 3? You must comply with 
Procedure 3 if you are required by a federally enforceable 
regulation to install and operate a COMS on a continuous basis.
    1.2 What are the data quality objectives of Procedure 3? The 
overall data quality objective (DQO) of Procedure 3 is the 
generation of valid, representative opacity data. Procedure 3 
specifies the minimum requirements for controlling and assessing the 
quality of COMS data submitted to us or the delegated regulatory 
agency. Procedure 3 requires you to perform periodic evaluations of 
a COMS performance and to develop and implement QA/QC programs to 
ensure that a COMS data quality is maintained. You must meet these 
minimum requirements if you are responsible for one or more COMS 
used for compliance monitoring.
    1.3 What is the intent of the QA/QC procedures found in 
Procedure 3? Procedure 3 is intended to establish the minimum 
requirements to verify and maintain an acceptable level of quality 
of the data produced by COMS. Its general terms are intended to 
allow you to develop a program that is most effective for your 
circumstances. You may adopt QA/QC procedures which go beyond these 
minimum requirements to ensure compliance with applicable 
regulations.
    1.4 When must I comply with Procedure 3? You must comply with 
Procedure 3

[[Page 24697]]

following successful completion of the field audit performance tests 
outlined in PS-1.
    2. What are the basic functions of Procedure 3? The basic 
functions of Procedure 3 are assessment of the quality of your COMS 
data, and control and improvement of the quality of the data by 
implementing QC requirements and corrective actions. Procedure 3 
provides requirements for:
    (1) Daily instrument zero and upscale drift checks, as well as 
daily status indicators check,
    (2) Quarterly performance audits, which includes the following 
assessments:
    (i) Optical alignment,
    (ii) Calibration error,
    (iii) Zero compensation, and
    (3) Zero alignment.
    3. What Special Definitions Apply to Procedure 3? The 
definitions of Procedure 3 include those provided in PS-1 and ASTM D 
6216-98 (incorporated by reference into PS-1), with the following 
additions:
    3.1 Out-of-Control Periods. ``Out of control'' means that one or 
more COMS parameters falls outside of the acceptable limits 
established by this rule.
    (1) Daily Assessments. Whenever the calibration drift (CD) 
exceeds twice the specification of PS-1, the COMS is out-of-control. 
The beginning of the out-of-control period is the time corresponding 
to the completion of the daily calibration drift check. The end of 
the out-of-control period is the time corresponding to the 
completion of appropriate adjustment and subsequent successful CD 
assessment.
    (2) Quarterly and Annual Assessment. Whenever a quarterly 
performance audit or annual zero alignment indicates unacceptable 
results, the COMS is out-of-control. The beginning of the out-of-
control period is the time corresponding to the completion of the 
performance audit indicating an unacceptable performance. The end of 
the out-of-control is the time corresponding to the completion of 
appropriate corrective actions and subsequent successful audit (or, 
if applicable, partial audit).
    4. What interferences must I avoid? Opacity cannot be measured 
accurately in the presence of water droplets. Thus, COMS opacity 
compliance determinations cannot be made when water droplets are 
present such as downstream of a wet scrubber without reheat or other 
saturated flue gas locations. Therefore, COMS must be located to 
avoid interferences with moisture or water droplets.
    5. What Do I Need to Know to Ensure the Safety of Persons Using 
Procedure 3? People using Procedure 3 may be exposed to hazardous 
materials, operations, and equipment. Procedure 3 does not purport 
to address all of the safety issues associated with its use. It is 
your responsibility to establish appropriate safety and health 
practices, and determine the applicable regulatory limitations 
before performing this procedure. You should consult the COMS user's 
manual for specific precautions to take.
    6. What Equipment and Supplies Do I Need? The equipment and 
supplies you need are those specified in PS-1.
    7. What Reagents and Standards Do I Need? The reagents and 
standards you need are those specified in PS-1.
    8. What Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport 
Are Relevant to This Procedure? [Reserved]
    9. What Quality Control Measures Are Required by This Procedure 
for My COMS? You must develop and implement a QC program for your 
COMS. Your QC program must, at a minimum, include written procedures 
which describe in detail complete step-by-step procedures and 
operations for the activities in paragraphs (1) through (4):
    (1) Procedures for performing drift checks, including both zero 
and upscale drift, and the status indicators check,
    (2) Procedures for performing the quarterly performance audits,
    (3) A means of checking the zero alignment of the COMS, and
    (4) A program of corrective action for a malfunctioning COMS. 
The corrective action must include, at a minimum, the requirements 
specified in Section 10.5.
    9.1 What QA/QC documentation must I have? You are required to 
keep the QA/QC written procedures on record and available for 
inspection by us, the State and/or local enforcement agency for the 
life of your COMS or until you are no longer subject to the 
requirements of this procedure.
    9.2 What are the consequences of failing QC audits? Your QC 
procedures are deemed to be inadequate or your COMS incapable of 
providing quality data if you fail two consecutive QC audits (i.e., 
out-of-control conditions revealed by the annual audits or quarterly 
audits). Therefore, if you fail the same two consecutive quarterly 
audits or five consecutive daily checks, you must either revise your 
QC procedures or repair (or replace) your COMS to correct the 
deficiencies causing the excessive inaccuracies. If you determine 
your COMS requires extensive repair, you may use a substitute COMS 
provided the substitute meets the requirements specified in Section 
10.6.
    10. What Calibration and Standardization Procedures Must I 
Perform for My COMS? You must perform routine system checks to 
assure proper operation of system electronics and optics, light and 
radiation sources and detectors, electric or electro-mechanical 
systems, and general stability of the system calibration. You must 
subject your COMS to a performance audit, to include checks of the 
individual COMS components and factor affecting the accuracy of the 
monitoring data, at least once per calendar quarter. At least 
annually, you must compare the COMS simulated zero to the actual 
clear path zero.
    10.1 What routine system checks must I perform on my COMS? 
Necessary components of the routine system checks will depend upon 
design details of your COMS. At a minimum, you must verify the 
system operating parameters listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) on 
a daily basis. Some COMSs may perform one or more of these functions 
automatically, or as an integral portion of unit operations; other 
COMS may perform one or more of these functions manually.
    (1) You must check the zero drift to assure stability of your 
COMS response to the zero check value. The simulated zero device, an 
automated mechanism within the transmissometer that produces a 
simulated clear path condition or low-level opacity condition, is 
used to check zero drift. You must, at a minimum, take corrective 
action on your COMS whenever the daily zero drift exceeds twice the 
applicable drift specification given in appendix B.
    (2) You must check the upscale drift to assure stability of your 
COMS response to the upscale drift value. The upscale calibration 
device, an automated mechanism (employing a filter or reduced 
reflectance device) within the transmissometer that produces an 
upscale opacity value, is used to check the upscale drift. You must, 
at a minimum, take corrective action on your COMS whenever the daily 
upscale drift check exceeds twice the applicable drift specification 
given in appendix B.
    (3) You must, at a minimum, check the status indicators, data 
acquisition system error messages, and other system self-diagnostic 
indicators. You must take appropriate corrective actions based on 
manufacturer's recommendations when the COMS is operating outside 
preset limits. All COMS data recorded during periods in which the 
fault status indicators are illuminated are to be considered 
invalid.
    10.2 What are quarterly auditing requirements for my COMS? At a 
minimum, the parameters listed in paragraphs (1) through (3) are to 
be included in the quarterly performance audit.
    (1) For units with automatic zero compensation, you must 
determine the zero compensation for the COMS. The value of the zero 
compensation applied at the time of the audit must be calculated as 
equivalent opacity, corrected to stack exit conditions, according to 
the procedures specified by the manufacturer. The compensation 
applied to the effluent recorded by the monitor system must be 
recorded.
    (2) You must conduct a three-point calibration error test of the 
COMS. For either calibration error test methods identified below, 
three neutral density filters, meeting the requirements of PS-1, 
must be placed in the COMS light beam path for three nonconsecutive 
readings. The monitor responses must then be independently recorded 
from the COMS permanent data recorder. Additional guidance for 
conducting this test is included in section 8.1(3)(ii) of PS-1. The 
low-, mid-, and high-range calibration error results must be 
computed as the mean difference and 95 percent confidence interval 
for the difference between the expected and actual responses of the 
monitor as corrected to stack exit conditions. The equations 
necessary to perform the calculations are found in section 12.0 of 
PS-1. For the calibration error method, you must use the external 
audit device. You must confirm that the external audit device 
produces the proper zero value on the COMS data recorder.
    (3) You must check the optical alignment of the COMS. The 
optical alignment must be checked when the stack temperature is +/- 
20 percent of the typical operating temperature as measured in 
degrees Farenheit.
    10.3 What are the annual auditing requirements for my COMS?

[[Page 24698]]

    (1) You must perform the primary zero alignment method under 
clear path conditions. The COMS may be removed from its installation 
and setup under clear path conditions or, if the process is not 
operating and the monitor path is free of particulate matter, the 
zero alignment may be conducted at the installed site. Determining 
if the monitor path is free of particulate matter can be 
accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following procedure: (1) 
Observe the instantaneous or one minute average opacity for at least 
two hours prior to the clear path adjustment; (2) open the reflector 
or detector housing and observe the projected light beam and look 
for the presence of forward scattered light (halo-effect); (3) if 
the beam observation reveals no perceptible particulate and the 2-
hour readings do not vary more than +/- 3 percent opacity, adjust 
the clear path zero based on the lowest opacity reading recorded 
during the 2-hour period. There must be no adjustments to the 
monitor other than the establishment of the proper monitor path 
length and correct optical alignment of the COMS components. You 
must record the COMS response to a clear condition and to the COMS's 
simulated zero condition as percent opacity corrected to stack exit 
conditions. For a COMS with automatic zero compensation, you must 
disconnect or disable the zero compensation mechanism or record the 
amount of correction applied to the COMS's simulated zero condition. 
The response difference in percent opacity to the clear path and 
simulated zero conditions must be recorded as the zero alignment 
error. You must adjust the COMS's simulated zero device to provide 
the same response as the clear path condition. You must perform the 
zero alignment audits with the COMS off the stack at least every 
three (3) years.
    (2) As an alternative, monitors capable of allowing the 
installation of an external zero device (commonly referred to as a 
zero-jig) may use the device for the zero alignment, provided: (1) 
the zero-jig setting has been established for the monitor path 
length and recorded for the specific COMS by comparison of the COMS 
responses to the installed zero-jig and to the clear path condition; 
and (2) the zero-jig is demonstrated to be capable of producing a 
consistent zero response when it is repeatedly (i.e., three 
consecutive installations and removals prior to conducting the final 
zero alignment check) installed on the COMS. The zero-jig setting 
must be permanently set at the time of initial zeroing to the clear 
path zero value and protected when not in use to ensure that the 
setting equivalent to zero opacity does not change. The zero-jig 
setting must be checked and recorded prior to initiating the zero 
alignment. If the zero-jig setting has changed, you must remove the 
COMS from the stack in order to reset the zero-jig. If you employ a 
zero-jig, you must perform the zero alignment audits with the COMS 
off the stack every three (3) years. If the zero-jig is adjusted 
within the three-year period, you must perform the zero alignment 
with the COMS off the stack three years from the date of adjustment.
    10.4 What are my limits for excessive audit inaccuracy? Unless 
specified otherwise in the applicable subpart, the criteria for 
excessive inaccuracy are listed in paragraphs (1) through (4).
    (1) What is the criterion for excessive zero or upscale drift? 
Your COMS is out-of-control if either the zero drift check or 
upscale drift check exceeds twice the applicable drift specification 
in appendix B for any one day.
    (2) What is the criterion for excessive zero alignment? Your 
COMS is out-of-control if the zero alignment exceeds 2 percent 
opacity.
    (3) What is the criterion to pass the quarterly performance 
audit? Your COMS is out-of-control if the results of a quarterly 
performance audit indicate noncompliance with the following 
criteria:
    (i) The optical alignment misalignment error exceeds 3 percent 
opacity,
    (ii) The zero compensation exceeds 4 percent opacity, or
    (iii)The calibration error exceeds 3 percent opacity.
    (4) What is the criterion for data capture? The data capture 
will be considered insufficient if your COMS fails to obtain valid 
opacity data for at least 95 percent of your operating hours per 
calendar quarter, considering COMS downtime for all causes (e.g., 
monitor malfunctions, data system failures, preventative 
maintenance, unknown causes, etc.) except for downtime associated 
with routine zero and upscale checks and QA/QC activities required 
by this procedure. Whenever less than 95 percent of the valid data 
averages are obtained, you must either:
    (i) Perform additional QA/QC activities as deemed necessary to 
assure acceptable data capture, or
    (ii) Determine if the COMS is functioning properly. If your COMS 
is malfunctioning, you may use a substitute COMS until repairs are 
made, provided the substitute meets the requirements specified in 
Section 10.6.
    10.5 What corrective action must I take if my COMS is 
malfunctioning? You must have a corrective action program in place 
to address the repair and/or maintenance of your COMS. There are 
four classes of maintenance and repair procedures to be considered; 
the classes are described in paragraphs (1) through (4). They may be 
performed either at the manufacturer's facility, a service 
provider's facility, the user's instrument laboratory, or at the 
stack/duct at the discretion of the owner/operator and within the 
recommendations of the manufacturer. They must be performed by 
persons either skilled and/or trained in the operation and 
maintenance of the analyzer. After the repair/maintenance of your 
COMS, you must ensure the COMS is still in compliance with PS-1. 
Table 17-1 outlines the tests required to maintain PS-1 
certification.
    (1) Routine/preventative maintenance. Includes the routine 
replacement of consumables, cleaning of optical surfaces, and 
adjustment of monitor operating parameters as needed to maintain 
normal operation. Replacement of consumables which have the 
possibility of adversely affecting the performance of an analyzer 
may cause the nature of the maintenance procedure to fall within one 
of the classifications described below.
    (2) Measurement Non-Critical Repairs. Includes repair and/or 
replacement of standard non-critical components, the unique 
characteristics of which do not materially affect the performance of 
the monitor. These components include, but are not limited to, 
resistors, capacitors, inductors, transformers, semiconductors such 
as discrete components and integrated circuits, brackets and 
machined parts (not associated with internal optical components), 
cabling and connectors, electro mechanical components such as 
relays, solenoids, motors, switches, blowers, air filters, pressure/
flow indicators, tubing, indicator lights, fuses, software with the 
same version and/or revision level, glass windows (uncoated or anti-
reflection coated, but with no curvature), lenses with mounts where 
such mounts are not adjustable as installed, circuit boards where 
such boards are interchangeable and without unique adjustments 
(except offset and gain adjustments) for the specific analyzer of 
the same model, with such repairs to include the maintenance 
procedures required to ensure that the analyzer is appropriately 
setup.
    (3) Replace or repair the primary measurement light source.
    (4) Measurement Critical Repairs. Includes repair and/or 
replacement of measurement sensitive components, the unique 
characteristics of which may materially affect the performance of 
the monitor. These components include, but are not limited to, 
optical detectors associated with the opacity measurement/reference 
beam(s), spectrally selective optical filters, beam splitters, 
internal zero and/or upscale reference reflective or transmissive 
materials, electro-optical light switches, retro reflectors, 
adjustable apertures used on external zero devices or reflectors, 
lenses which have an adjustable mount, circuit boards which are not 
completely interchangeable and/or require unique adjustments for the 
specific analyzer, with such repairs to include the maintenance 
procedures required to ensure that the analyzer is appropriately 
setup.
    (5) Rebuilt or Refurbished analyzers. Includes analyzers for 
which a major sub-assembly(ies) has/have been replaced or multiple 
lesser sub-assemblies with different revision levels from the 
original have been replaced and/or modified. Also, to be defined as 
a major change in the analyzer measurement detection and processing 
hardware or software.
    (6) For other repairs or replacements not specifically described 
above, you must consult the manufacturer for the appropriate 
classification of that procedure. Manufacturers must use the above 
guidelines in determining the appropriate classification and provide 
a written recommendation. The final determination as to which 
category a given repair falls within will be made by the 
Administrator.
    10.6 What requirements must I meet if I use a substitute opacity 
monitor? In the event your certified opacity monitor has to be 
removed for extended service, you may install a temporary 
replacement monitor to obtain required opacity emissions data, 
provided that:
    (1) The temporary monitor is a like-kind replacement, where 
like-kind is defined as made by the same manufacturer; carries the 
same model number; uses the same reflector

[[Page 24699]]

configuration as the original (and may use the actual original 
reflector unit) for double pass monitors, or uses the same source or 
detector configuration as the original for single pass monitors (and 
may use the actual original source or detector unit--whichever one 
that did not fail); uses the same of later revision of software/
firmware; setup with the same selection of configuration parameters; 
provides the same input/output signals; and uses the same peripheral 
equipment. Same in this context means the same as the original 
certified monitor which is being temporarily replaced,
    (2) The temporary monitor has been certified according to ASTM D 
6216-98 for which a manufacturer's certificate of conformance (MCOC) 
has been provided,
    (3) The temporary monitor has not been used for more than 720 
hours (30 days) of operation per year as a replacement for a fully 
certified opacity monitor on one location. After that time, the 
analyzer must complete a full certification according to PS-1 prior 
to further use as a temporary replacement monitor. Once a temporary 
replacement monitor has been installed and required testing and 
adjustments have been successfully completed, it can not be replaced 
by another temporary replacement monitor to avoid the full PS-1 
certification testing required after 720 hours (30 days) of use,
    (4) The temporary monitor has been installed and successfully 
completed an optical alignment assessment and status indicator 
assessment,
    (5) The temporary monitor has successfully completed an off-
stack clear path zero assessment and zero calibration value 
adjustment procedure,
    (6) The temporary monitor has successfully completed an 
abbreviated zero and upscale drift check consisting of seven zero 
and upscale calibration value drift checks which may be conducted 
within a 24-hour period with not more than one calibration drift 
check every three hours, and not less than one calibration drift 
check every 25 hours. Calculated zero and upscale drift requirements 
are the same as specified for the normal PS-1 certification,
    (7) The temporary monitor has successfully completed a three 
point calibration error test,
    (8) The upscale reference calibration check value of the new 
monitor has been updated in the associated data recording equipment,
    (9) The overall calibration of the monitor and data recording 
equipment has been verified, and
    (10) The user has documented all of the above in the maintenance 
log, or in other appropriate permanent maintained records.
    10.7 When do the out-of-control periods begin and end? The out-
of-control periods are as specified in Section 3.1.
    10.8 What are the limitations on use of my COMS data collected 
during out-of-control periods? During the period your COMS is out-
of-control, you may not use your COMS data to calculate emission 
compliance or to meet minimum data availability requirements in this 
procedure or the applicable regulation.
    10.9 What are the QA/QC reporting requirements for my COMS? You 
must report the accuracy results from Section 10 for your COMS at 
the interval specified in this procedure or the applicable 
regulation. Report the drift and accuracy information as a Data 
Assessment Report (DAR), and include one copy of this DAR for each 
quarterly audit with the report of emissions required under the 
applicable regulation. An example DAR is provided in Procedure 1, 
appendix F of this part.
    10.10 What minimum information must I include in my DAR? As a 
minimum, you must include the information listed in paragraphs (1) 
through (5) in the DAR.
    (1) Your name and address,
    (2) Identification and location of your COMS(s),
    (3) Manufacturer, model and serial number of your COMS(s),
    (4) Assessment of COMS data accuracy/acceptability, and date of 
assessment, as determined by a performance audit described in 
section 10. If the accuracy audit results show your COMS to be out-
of-control, you must report both the audit results showing your COMS 
to be out-of-control and the results of the audit following 
corrective action showing your COMS to be operating within 
specifications, and
    (5) Summary of all corrective actions you took when you 
determined your COMS to be out-of-control.
    10.11 Where and how long must I retain the QA data that this 
procedure requires me to record for my COMS? You must keep the 
records required by this procedure for your COMS onsite and 
available for inspection by us, the State and/or local enforcement 
agency for a period of 5 years.
    11. What Analytical Procedures Apply to This Procedure? 
[Reserved]
    12. What Calculations and Data Analysis Must I Perform for My 
COMS? The calcalations required for the performance audit are 
contained in Section 12 of PS-1.
    13. Method Performance. [Reserved]
    14. Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]
    15. Waste Management. [Reserved]
    16. Which References Are Relevant to This Procedure?
    16.1 Performance Specification 1--Specifications and Test 
Procedures for Continuous Opacity Monitor Systems in Stationary 
Sources, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, August 10, 2000.
    16.2 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. What Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data Are 
Relevant to This Procedure?
    17.1 Table 17.1--Diagnostic Tests Required to Maintain PS-1 
Certification Status for COMS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Clear path                                                      7-day
                                                    Optical                   (off-                                Fault     Averaging   zero and             New MCOC
                                        Optical    alignment      Zero       stack)      Upscale    Calibration    status      peirod     upscale  Recertify  per ASTM
         Description of event          alignment   indicator  calibration     zero     calibration  error check  indicator  calculation    drift    per PS-1   D 6216-          Comments
                                                  assessment     check     assessment     check                    check        and        check                 98
                                                   (Note 1)                 (Note 3)                                         recording   (Note 2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Replace or repair components              X   ..........          X    ..........          X    ...........         X   ...........  ........  .........  ........  Includes replacement of
 described as routine and/or                                                                                                                                             blowers, cleaning
 preventative maintenance.                                                                                                                                               optical surfaces,
                                                                                                                                                                         resetting adjustable
                                                                                                                                                                         parameters to maintain
                                                                                                                                                                         normal performance,
                                                                                                                                                                         etc.
(2) Replace or repair primary                 X          X            X           X            X    ...........         X   ...........  ........  .........  ........  Light source uniformity
 measurement light.                                                                                                                                                      and position are key
                                                                                                                                                                         source to many
                                                                                                                                                                         performance parameters
(3) Replace or repair components              X   ..........          X    ..........          X            X           X   ...........  ........  .........  ........  See text description,
 which are Measurement Non-Critical.                                                                                                                                     sec. 10.5(2)
(4) Replace or repair components              X          X            X           X            X            X           X   ...........        X   .........  ........  See text description,
 which are Measurement Critical.                                                                                                                                         sec. 10.5(3)

[[Page 24700]]

 
(5) Replace or repair components       .........  ..........          X    ..........          X            X           X           X    ........  .........  ........  Includes change of
 which are Measurement Critical, but                                                                                                                                     components involving
 not involving optical or electro-                                                                                                                                       data acquisition and
 optical components.                                                                                                                                                     recording
(6) Rebuild or Substantially           .........  ..........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........  .........  ...........  ........        XX   ........  See text description,
 Refurbish the analyzer.                                                                                                                                                 sec. 10.5(4)
(7) Change to, or addition of,         .........  ..........  ...........  ..........  ...........  ...........  .........  ...........  ........         X         X   Significant changes
 analyzer components which may affect                                                                                                                                    which are not part of
 MCOC-specified performance                                                                                                                                              the MCOC-designated
 parameters.                                                                                                                                                             configuration
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Notes: (1) Optical alignment indicator assessment requires the 
operator to verify during an off the stack clear path zero 
assessment that the beam is centered on the reflector/retro 
reflector when the alignment indicator indicates on-axis centered 
alignment. If not, the analyzer optical train must be adjusted until 
this condition is met.
    (2) 7-day zero and upscale drift assessment. Opacity measurement 
data recorded prior to completion of the 7-day drift test will be 
considered as valid provided that the first 7-day drift test is 
successful, that it is completed within 14 days of completion of the 
repair, and that other QA requirements are met during this time 
period.
    (3) Requires verification of the external zero jig response, or 
re-calibration of the same, after the off-stack clear path zero has 
been re-established.

[FR Doc. 03-11472 Filed 5-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P