[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12575-12591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6275]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0074; FRL-8785-4]
RIN 2060-AG21


Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emissions Monitoring 
Systems and Amendments to Testing and Monitoring Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to promulgate Performance 
Specification (PS) 16 for predictive emissions monitoring systems 
(PEMS). Performance Specification 16 provides testing requirements for 
assessing the acceptability of PEMS when they are initially installed. 
Currently, there are no Federal rules requiring the use of PEMS; 
however, some sources have obtained Administrator approval to use PEMS 
as alternatives to continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 
Other sources may desire to use PEMS in cases where initial and 
operational costs are less than CEMS and process optimization for 
emissions control may be desirable. Performance Specification 16 will 
apply to any PEMS required in future rules in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, or 
63, and in cases where a source petitions the Administrator and 
receives approval to use a PEMS in lieu of another emissions monitoring 
system required under the regulation. We are also finalizing minor 
technical amendments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0074. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Performance Specification 16 
for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-
OAR-2003-0074, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding legal 
holidays. The docket telephone number is (202) 566-1742. The 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 Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Foston Curtis, Air Quality 
Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-1063; fax number (919) 
541-0516; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action?
III. Background
IV. This Action
    A. PS-16
    B. Method 24 of Appendix A-7 of Part 60
    C. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60
    D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of Part 60
    E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63
V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
    A. Parameter Operating Level Terminology
    B. PS-16 Applicability to Market-Based Programs
    C. PS-16 and the Older Draft Performance Specifications on the 
EPA Web site
    D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency vs CEMS Stringency
    E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters
    F. Statistical Tests
    G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the Relative Accuracy Audit
    H. Potential Overlap Between PS-16 and PS-17
    I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit Frequency for Good 
Performance
VI. Judicial Review
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork 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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Predictive emission monitoring systems are not currently required 
in any Federal rule. However, they may be used under certain New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) to predict nitrogen oxides emissions from 
small industrial, commercial, and institutional steam generating units. 
In some cases, PEMS have been approved as alternatives to CEMS for the 
initial 30-day compliance test at these facilities. Various State and 
Local regulations are incorporating PEMS as an emissions monitoring 
tool. The major entities that are potentially affected by Performance 
Specification 16 and the amendments to the subparts are included in the 
following tables. Performance Specification 16 will neither apply to 
existing PEMS nor those covered under Subpart E of 40 CFR part 75.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected 
include the following:

[[Page 12576]]



            Table 1--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Performance Specification 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                     NAICS\a\               Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................     333611  Stationary Gas Turbines.
Industry....................................     332410  Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating
                                                          Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry classification system.


   Table 2--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Amendments to Performance Specification 11 and
                                     Procedures 1 and 2, Appendix F, part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                     NAICS\a\               Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................     333298  Portland Cement Manufacturing.
Industry....................................     562211  Hazardous Waste Incinerators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classsification System.


    Table 3--Major entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Amendments to Method 24, Appendix a, Part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                  NAICS\a\                 Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................     326211  Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
Industry...............................     323111  Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing.
Industry...............................     334613  Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities.
Industry...............................     326199  Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines.
Industry...............................     332812  Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities.
Industry...............................     337124  Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
Industry...............................     336111  Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating.
Industry...............................     323111  Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing.
Industry...............................     322222  Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
                                                     Operations.
Industry...............................     421620  Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances.
Industry...............................     335931  Metal Coil Surface Coating.
Industry...............................     332812  Beverage Can Surface Coating.
Industry...............................      33641  Aerospace.
Industry...............................  .........  Boat and Ship Manufacturing and Repair Surface Coating.
Industry...............................  .........  Fabric Printing, Coating, and Dyeing.
Industry...............................  .........  Leather Finishing.
Industry...............................  .........  Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.
Industry...............................  .........  Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products.
Industry...............................  .........  Paper and Other Web Surface Coating.
Industry...............................  .........  Plastic Parts Surface Coating.
Industry...............................  .........  Printing and Publishing Surface Coating.
Industry...............................  .........  Wood Building Products.
Industry...............................  .........  Wood Furniture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry classificatiion System.


    Table 4--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Amendment to Method 303, Appendix A, Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                     NAICS\a\               Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................   33111111  Coke Ovens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry classsification System.

    These tables are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by 
these actions. These tables list examples of the types of entities EPA 
is now aware could potentially be affected by these final actions. 
Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

[[Page 12577]]

II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (www) through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's 
signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy 
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

III. Background

    Performance Specification 16 and the amendments to PS-11, 
Procedures 1 and 2, Method 24, and Method 303 were proposed in the 
Federal Register on August 8, 2005 with a public comment period that 
ended October 7, 2005. A public commenter asked that the comment period 
be reopened to allow for additional time to prepare their response 
since they were a leading vendor of PEMS and were significantly 
impacted by the rule. We reopened the comment period for two weeks, 
from November 2-16, 2005. A total of 42 comment letters were received 
on the proposed rule. Most comment letters pertained to PS-16 and 
contained multiple comments. We have compiled and responded to the 
public comments and made appropriate changes to the rule based on the 
comments.

IV. This Action

A. PS-16

    This action finalizes PS-16 for PEMS. This performance 
specification was originally proposed by EPA on August 8, 2005 (70 FR 
45608). Performance Specification 16 establishes procedures that must 
be used to determine whether a PEMS is acceptable for use in 
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Predictive 
emission monitoring systems predict source emissions indirectly using 
process parameters instead of measuring them directly.
    Additionally, the following amendments are made to the noted 
testing and monitoring provisions.

B. Method 24 of Appendix A-7 of Part 60

    Method 24, part 60, Appendix A-7 is used to determine the contents 
and properties of surface coatings under NSPS applications. Method 24 
currently references ASTM D2369 as the method for determining volatiles 
content. The American Society for Testing and Materials has recommended 
that ASTM D6419 be allowed as an alternative to D2369 in this case. We 
have amended Method 24 to cite this optional method.

C. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60

    The publication on January 12, 2004 of PS-11 for Appendix B and 
Procedure 2 for part 60, Appendix F contained technical and 
typographical errors and unclear instructions. We have revised the 
definition of confidence interval half range to clarify the language, 
replacing the word ``pairs'' with ``sets'' to avoid possible confusion 
regarding the use of paired sampling trains, corrected errors in 
Equations 11-22, 11-27, and 11-37, corrected the procedures in 
paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 12.3 for determining confidence and 
tolerance interval half ranges for the exponential and power 
correlation models, and added a note following paragraph (5)(v) 
concerning the application of correlation equations to calculate 
particulate matter (PM) concentrations using the response data from an 
operating PM CEMS. We have also renumbered some equations and 
references for clarification, consistency, and accuracy.

D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of Part 60

    In Procedure 1 of Appendix F of part 60, we revised obsolete 
language that describes the standard reference material that is 
required, and in Procedure 2, we added a needed equation for 
calculating an absolute correlation audit based on the applicable 
standard.

E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 303 of Appendix A to part 63, a statement on varying the 
time of day runs are taken that was deleted by mistake in a recent 
amendment of the method has been added.

V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    A more detailed summary of the public comments and our responses 
can be found in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document, 
which is available from several sources (see ADDRESSES section). The 
major public comments are summarized by subject as follows:

A. Parameter Operating Level Terminology

    Several commenters suggested we revise the key parameter operating 
level used for the relative accuracy (RA) test from ``normal'' to 
``mid.'' It was noted that some units normally operate in the high or 
low levels and that a revised listing of mid level would ensure that 
the intended three levels would be evaluated. We agree with the 
commenters and changed the reference from ``normal'' to ``mid.''

B. PS-16 Applicability to Market-Based Programs

    Several commenters objected to applying PS-16 to PEMS that are used 
in a market-based program. They noted that market-based PEMS are 
already covered in Subpart E of 40 CFR part 75 and those requirements 
are different from proposed PS-16. This was deemed confusing from an 
applicability standpoint, especially for those PEMS that have already 
been approved under part 75. Other commenters stated that they did not 
understand why performance specifications for market-based monitoring 
were being added to 40 CFR part 60 since part 60 does not address 
marketing regulations. Some commenters asked whether PS-16 would apply 
to PEMS already in use.
    We have dropped the proposed applicability of PS-16 to market-based 
PEMS and agree that part 75 is the better place to address market-based 
PEMS. Requirements for PEMS used in the part 75 market-based program 
are already addressed in Subpart E of part 75, and we do not believe 
the more stringent requirements given there for market-based PEMS are 
warranted for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. 
We note in the final rule that PS-16 applies only to PEMS that are 
installed after the effective date of today's action and to those used 
to comply with requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63.

C. PS-16 and the Older Draft Performance Specifications on the EPA Web 
Site

    A number of commenters asked that the draft ``Example 
Specifications and Test Procedures for Predictive Emission Monitoring 
Systems'' on the EPA Web site be adopted as PS-16 instead of the 
proposed provisions. They note that these specifications have been used 
in the past to approve prospective PEMS and felt the same guidelines 
should be used in the future. One commenter thought a departure from 
the draft requirements would result in a demise in PEMS use due to the 
increased costs of initial certification and ongoing maintenance.
    The ``Example Specifications and Test Procedures for Predictive 
Emission Monitoring Systems'' was a guidance document to give PEMS 
users and regulators a general idea of what could be expected of PEMS 
in light of the limited performance data available at

[[Page 12578]]

that time. It was primarily based on the existing requirements in PS-2 
for CEMS and not on extensive research. The document was offered on the 
EMC Web site until the Agency could develop and finalize PS-16. Since 
then, we have acquired relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data from a 
number of PEMS over time, and our understanding of their capabilities 
has increased. This data is presented in the docket and gives a better 
indication of PEMS performance than what is reflected in the guidance 
document (see EPA-OAR-2003-0074-0002, 0003, and 0004 docket entries). 
This data confirms that the performance levels set in PS-16 are 
achievable by the vast majority of PEMS in the data pool and are more 
reflective of the technology's capabilities. We disagree with the 
commenter that the new requirements in PS-16 will result in the demise 
of PEMS due to increased cost for initial certification and ongoing 
maintenance.

D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency vs. CEMS Stringency

    Some commenters objected to the 10 percent relative accuracy limit 
for PEMS in PS-16 considering that the corresponding performance 
specifications for CEMS that are used for the same purposes have a 20 
percent relative accuracy limit. They note that previous approvals of 
PEMS were based on the 20 percent criterion in the draft Web site 
performance specifications. They also argued that the added stringency 
of having to certify at a level twice as accurate as a CEMS under the 
same compliance conditions was not warranted.
    The 20 percent relative accuracy limit was set for CEMS in the 
1970's and reflects the performance capabilities of systems at that 
time. State-of-the-art CEMS are capable of much better performance as 
can be seen by their success under the tighter part 75 rules where a 10 
percent relative accuracy is required. We have obtained performance 
data on a number of installed PEMS currently in use (see EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0074-0002, 0003, and 0004 docket entries), and the data show an 
overwhelming majority of the PEMS are capable of meeting a 10 percent 
criterion on a repeated basis. We believe the quality of emissions data 
should parallel the increased capabilities of newer technologies, not 
the capabilities of older, outdated systems. Therefore, the 10 percent 
relative accuracy limit for PEMS is retained in this final rule.

E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters

    Several commenters asked that alternative relative accuracy limits 
be allowed for low-emitting sources. They were concerned that the 10 
percent relative accuracy limit would be problematic for low-emitters 
because the error in the reference method measurement plays a 
significant part in the accuracy determination at low concentrations. 
One commenter noted that many permits set emission limits just above 
the typical emission level of the source. This results in low-emitting 
sources running in the 75-95 percent of the emission standard range. 
The proposed alternative limits would only be of use when the unit is 
operating either below 25 or below 10 percent of the emission standard. 
They thought it would be more practical to base alternative criteria on 
the measured concentration ranges instead of the emission standard. Two 
commenters suggested scaling the relative accuracy requirement such 
that 10 percent would be the limit for measurements over 100 ppm, 20 
percent for measurements between 10 and 100 ppm, and within 2 ppm for 
measurements under 10 ppm.
    We understand the commenters' concerns and think their suggestion 
for alternative criteria for low emitters is a practical idea. We have 
added the suggested alternative criteria for concentrations between 10 
and 100 ppm (20 percent RA) and below 10 ppm ( 2 ppm 
difference between PEMS and reference method).

F. Statistical Tests

    One commenter thought the relative accuracy requirements are, in 
some cases, too severe and would prevent (1) even most CEMS from 
certifying using standard reference method testing and (2) all but the 
most sophisticated PEMS from passing certification. Two commenters 
proposed using daily zero and span calibration checks and quarterly 
linearity checks as alternatives to the statistical tests and quarterly 
relative accuracy audits (RAA). Others recommended longer sampling 
times to obtain the needed data for the relative accuracy statistical 
tests similar to the 40 CFR part 75, Subpart E requirements. Several 
commenters stated that they anticipated difficulty in meeting the 0.8 
r-correlation requirement in tests where process variations are small. 
One commenter recommended the proposed waiver of the correlation test 
be made permanent if the data are determined to be either auto-
correlated or if the signal-to-noise ratio of the data is less than 4.
    We do not believe the relative accuracy requirements are so severe 
as to prevent most CEMS or PEMS from certifying using standard 
reference method testing. Most PEMS are not amenable to daily zero and 
span checks or quarterly linearity checks of their sensors. The 
suggested long-term relative accuracy evaluation of PEMS similar to the 
requirements of Subpart E of part 75 would render PEMS use economically 
impractical under parts 60, 61, and 63. Evaluation times similar to 
those currently required of CEMS should be sufficient. We have taken 
the recommendation that the correlation test be permanently waived in 
cases where the data are auto-correlated or have a signal-to-noise 
ratio less than 4 and have made this change in PS-16.

G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the Relative Accuracy Audit

    Several commenters opposed the use of portable analyzers for the 
quarterly relative accuracy audits. They felt the analyzers lacked 
sufficient accuracy to evaluate PEMS. Two commenters cited the report 
``Evaluation of Portable Analyzers for Use in Quality Assuring 
Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems for NOX'' (a report 
prepared for EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, Washington, DC, 
September 8, 2004) as proof of this inadequacy. They note that in the 
report the only analyzer that achieved accuracy better than 10 percent 
was the more sophisticated analyzer using the reference method 
methodology. Additionally, a commenter suggested that sampling problems 
related to sampling point location, sample conditioning, high-moisture 
and volume, particulate, and high temperatures would render portable 
analyzers ineffective. Another commenter thought that portable 
analyzers, which were believed to be accurate to within 20 percent, 
would not be able to show that PEMS are accurate to within 10 percent.
    Three commenters asked that the quarterly audit requirements be 
removed altogether. One commenter stated that he/she did not see any 
added value in the audits because PEMS were thought to be inherently 
reliable, and two commenters urged a return to the Web site performance 
specification requirement to conduct biannual relative accuracy test 
audits instead of quarterly relative accuracy audits.
    We are not aware of and commenters did not present any data that 
supports the idea that PEMS are inherently accurate such that their 
performance is guaranteed over long periods of time. The performance of 
PEMS, like CEMS, depends on a number of criteria that are subject to 
change over time. The summary and findings of the noted

[[Page 12579]]

report on portable analyzers state that ``The portable analyzers 
produced results that were comparable to those of the CEMS and Method 
7E for the two natural gas-fired combustion sources and low 
concentrations tested.'' Portable analyzers are offered as a cheaper 
testing option to add flexibility to the relative accuracy audits. 
However, reference methods may also be used in place of portable 
analyzers for the relative accuracy audit. A relative accuracy audit 
for a validated PEMS would not be valueless but would confirm that such 
a PEMS is still functioning properly. Therefore, quarterly relative 
accuracy audits are retained and may be performed using a portable 
analyzer or a reference method.

H. Potential Overlap Between PS-16 and PS-17

    Three commenters asked that we specifically state that PS-16 will 
not apply to parametric monitoring systems. We were asked to clarify 
that PS-16 would not cover parametric systems that are already covered 
under PS-17.
    Performance Specification 17 applies to parametric monitoring 
systems (i.e., those that have associated parametric limits). 
Performance Specification 16 applies to predictive emission monitoring 
systems (i.e., those that have associated emission limits). This 
difference has been noted in PS-16.

I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit Frequency for Good Performance

    One commenter proposed that quarterly relative accuracy audit tests 
be required for the first year after initial certification. If all 
tests are passed through the second year relative accuracy test audit 
(without tuning or additional training), the second year of relative 
accuracy audits would be waived. In cases of failed relative accuracy 
audit or relative accuracy test audit attempts during the year or any 
PEMS retraining that triggers recertification would nullify this option 
until the subsequent year. The commenter felt this waiver option was 
important to the viability of PEMS use at remote sites.
    We believe the commenter's suggestion has merit but think that at 
least a semiannual test at a time approximately one-half year from the 
previous RATA is needed to prevent extended malfunctions. We have 
therefore revised PS-16 to allow a single RAA or RATA midway the second 
year if three prior quarters of RAA and a second annual RATA are passed 
without PEMS training or tuning.

VI. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available by filing a petition for review in the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 26, 
2009. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this 
final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. 
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by this action may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
requirements.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 
therefore, not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final rule does not add 
information collection requirements beyond those currently required 
under the applicable regulations. This final rule adds performance 
requirements and amends testing and monitoring requirements as 
necessary.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 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 this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent 
company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion 
kilowatt-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on the size 
definition for the affected North American Industry Classification 
System code; (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 this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does 
not impose any additional regulatory requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or 
tribal governments of the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This 
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA 
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. This action adds procedures that 
apply when applicable parties choose to use a different monitoring tool 
than what is currently required. Other amendments are made to correct 
various errors in testing provisions.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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.''
    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 rule will benefit State and 
local governments by

[[Page 12580]]

providing performance specifications they can use to evaluate PEMS. 
Other amendments being made will correct PS-11, Procedures 1 and 2, 
Method 24, and Method 303. No added responsibilities or increase in 
implementation efforts or costs for State and local governments are 
being added by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action adds 
an optional monitoring tool to the monitoring provisions that have 
already been mandated. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended 
to mitigate health or 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 (66 FR 28355 (May 
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 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. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This final rule does not relax the control measures on 
sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions 
increases from these sources.

K. 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 April 24, 2009.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out 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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
2. Section 6.7 is added to Method 24 of Appendix A-7 to read as 
follows:

Appendix A-7 to Part 60--Test Methods 19 through 25E

* * * * *

Method 24--Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, 
Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings

* * * * *
    6.7 ASTM D 6419-00, Test Method for Volatile Content of Sheet-
Fed and Coldset Web Offset Printing Inks.
* * * * *

0
3. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising Section 3.4.
0
b. By revising Section 8.6, introductory text.
0
c. By revising paragraphs (1)(ii), (1)(iii), (2), (4), and (5) of 
Section 12.3
0
d. By revising paragraph (3)(ii) of Section 12.4.
0
e. By revising paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 13.2.
0
f. By adding Sections 16.8 and 16.9.
0
g. By revising Table 1 of Section 17.0 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

Performance Specification 11--Specifications and Test Procedures for 
Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary 
Sources

* * * * *
    3.4 ``Confidence Interval Half Range (CI)'' is a statistical 
term and means one-half of the width of the 95 percent confidence 
interval around the predicted mean PM concentration (y value) 
calculated at the PM CEMS response value (x value) where the 
confidence interval is narrowest. Procedures for calculating CI are 
specified in section 12.3. The CI as a percent of the emission limit 
value (CI%) is calculated at the appropriate PM CEMS response value 
and

[[Page 12581]]

must satisfy the criteria specified in Section 13.2 (2).
* * * * *
    8.6 How do I conduct my PM CEMS correlation test? You must 
conduct the correlation test according to the procedure given in 
paragraphs (1) through (5) of this section. If you need multiple 
correlations, you must conduct testing and collect at least 15 sets 
of reference method and PM CEMS data for calculating each separate 
correlation.
* * * * *
    12.3 How do I determine my PM CEMS correlation?
    * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence 
interval (CI) for the predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the 
mean value of x, using Equation 11-8: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.063

Where:

CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the 
predicted PM concentration at the mean x value,
tdf,1-a/2 = the value for the t statistic provided in 
Table 1 for df = (n - 2), and
SL = the scatter or deviation of [ycirc] values about the 
correlation curve, which is determined using Equation 11-9:

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.064

Calculate the confidence interval half range for the predicted PM 
concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value as a percentage of the 
emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.065

Where:

CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the 
predicted PM concentration at the mean x value, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.

    (iii) Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval (TI) 
for the predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value 
using Equation 11-11: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.066

Where:

TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM 
concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value,
kT = as calculated using Equation 11-12, and
SL = as calculated using Equation 11-9:

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.067

Where:

n' = the number of test runs (n),
un' = the tolerance factor for 75 percent coverage at 95 
percent confidence provided in Table 1 for df = (n-2), and
vdf = the value from Table 1 for df = (n-2).

    Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval for the 
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value as a 
percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-13: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.068

Where:

TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM 
concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.

* * * * *
    (2) How do I evaluate a polynomial correlation for my 
correlation test data? To evaluate a polynomial correlation, follow 
the procedures described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Calculate the polynomial correlation equation, which is 
indicated by Equation 11-16, using Equations 11-17 through 11-22: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.069

Where:

[ycirc] = the PM CEMS concentration predicted by the polynomial 
correlation equation, and
b0, b1, b2 = the coefficients 
determined from the solution to the matrix equation Ab=B

Where: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.070

Where:

Xi = the PM CEMS response for run i,
Yi = the reference method PM concentration for run i, and
n = the number of test runs.

    Calculate the polynomial correlation curve coefficients (b0, b1, 
and b2) using Equations 11-19 through 11-21, respectively: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.071


[[Page 12582]]


Where: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.072

    (ii) Calculate the 95 percent confidence interval half range 
(CI) by first calculating the C coefficients (Co to C5) using 
Equations 11-23 and 11-24: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.073

Where: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.074

Calculate [Delta] using Equation 11-25 for each x value: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.075

Determine the x value that corresponds to the minimum value of 
[Delta] ([Delta]min). Determine the scatter or deviation 
of [ycirc] values about the polynomial correlation curve 
(SP) using Equation 11-26: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.076

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 
for the predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the x value that 
corresponds to [Delta]min using Equation 11-27: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.077

Where:

df = (n-3), and
tdf = as listed in Table 1 (see section 17).

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for 
the predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to 
[Delta]min as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) 
using Equation 11-28: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.078

Where:

CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the 
predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to 
[Delta]min, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.

    (iii) Calculate the tolerance interval half range (TI) for the 
predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to 
[Delta]min, as indicated in Equation 11-29 for the 
polynomial correlation, using Equations 11-30 and 11-31: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.079

Where: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.080

un' = the value indicated in Table 1 for df = (n'-3), and
vdf = the value indicated in Table 1 for df = (n'--3).

Calculate the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM 
concentration at the x value that corresponds to 
[Delta]min as a percentage of the emission limit (TI%) 
using Equation 11-32: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.081

Where:

TI = the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM 
concentration at the x value that corresponds to 
[Delta]min, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.

    (iv) Calculate the polynomial correlation coefficient (r) using 
Equation 11-33: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.082

Where:

SP = as calculated using Equation 11-26, and
Sy = as calculated using Equation 11-15.

* * * * *
    (4) How do I evaluate an exponential correlation for my 
correlation test data? To evaluate an exponential correlation, which 
has the form indicated by Equation 11-37, follow the procedures 
described in paragraphs (4)(i) through (v) of this section:

[[Page 12583]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.083

    (i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of each PM 
concentration measurement (y values) using Equation 11-38: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.084

Where:

y'i = is the transformed value of yi, and
Ln(yi) = the natural logarithm of the PM concentration 
measurement for run i.

    (ii) Using the values for y'i in place of the values 
for yi, perform the same procedures used to develop the 
linear correlation equation described in paragraph (1)(i) of this 
section. The resulting equation will have the form indicated by 
Equation 11-39. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.085

Where:

[ycirc]' = the predicted log PM concentration value,
b'0 = the natural logarithm of b0, and the 
variables b0, b1, and x are as defined in 
paragraph (1)(i) of this section.

    (iii) Using the values for y 'i in place of the values for yi, 
calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval 
(CI'), as described in paragraph (1)(ii) of this section for CI. 
Note that CI' is on the log scale. Next, calculate the upper and 
lower 95 percent confidence limits for the mean value y' using 
Equations 11-40 and 11-41: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.086

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.087

Where:

LCL' = the lower 95 percent confidence limit for the mean value y',
UCL' = the upper 95 percent confidence limit for the mean value y',
y' = the mean value of the log-transformed PM concentrations, and
CI' = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the 
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]'), as calculated in Equation 11-
8.

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 
on the original PM concentration scale using Equation 11-42: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.088

Where:

CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval on the 
original PM concentration scale, and UCL' and LCL' are as defined 
previously.

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for 
the predicted PM concentration corresponding to the mean value of x 
as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10.
    (iv) Using the values for y' i in place of the values for yi, 
calculate the half range tolerance interval (TI'), as described in 
paragraph (1)(iii) of this section for TI. Note that TI' is on the 
log scale. Next, calculate the half range tolerance limits for the 
mean value y' using Equations 11-43 and 11-44: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.089

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.090

Where:

LTL' = the lower 95 percent tolerance limit for the mean value y',
UTL' = the upper 95 percent tolerance limit for the mean value y',
y', = the mean value of the log-transformed PM concentrations, and
TI' = the half range of the 95 percent tolerance interval for the 
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]'), as calculated in Equation 11-
11.

Calculate the half range tolerance interval (TI) on the original PM 
concentration scale using Equation 11-45: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.091

TI = the half range of the 95 percent tolerance interval on the 
original PM scale, and UTL' and LTL' are as defined previously.

Calculate the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM 
concentration corresponding to the mean value of x as a percentage 
of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-13.
    (v) Using the values for y ' i in place of the values for yi, 
calculate the correlation coefficient (r) using the procedure 
described in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section.
    (5) How do I evaluate a power correlation for my correlation 
test data? To evaluate a power correlation, which has the form 
indicated by Equation 11-46, follow the procedures described in 
paragraphs (5)(i) through (v) of this section. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.092

    (i) Perform logarithmic transformations of each PM CEMS response 
(x values) and each PM concentration measurement (y values) using 
Equations 11-35 and 11-38, respectively.
    (ii) Using the values for x 'i in place of the values for xi, 
and the values for y 'i in place of the values for yi, perform the 
same procedures used to develop the linear correlation equation 
described in paragraph (1)(i) of this section. The resulting 
equation will have the form indicated by Equation 11-47: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.093

Where:

[ycirc]' = the predicted log PM concentration value, and
x' = the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS response values,
b'0 = the natural logarithm of b0, and the 
variables b0, b1, and x are as defined in 
paragraph (1)(i) of this section.

    (iii) Using the same procedure described for exponential models 
in paragraph (4)(iii) of this section, calculate the half range of 
the 95 percent confidence interval for the predicted PM 
concentration corresponding to the mean value of x' as a percentage 
of the emission limit.
    (iv) Using the same procedure described for exponential models 
in paragraph (4)(iv) of this section, calculate the tolerance 
interval half range for the predicted PM concentration corresponding 
to the mean value of x' as a percentage of the emission limit.
    (v) Using the values for y 'i in place of the values for yi, 
calculate the correlation coefficient (r) using the procedure 
described in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section.
    Note: PS-11 does not address the application of correlation 
equations to calculate PM emission concentrations using PM CEMS 
response data during normal operations of a PM CEMS. However, we 
will provide guidance on the use of specific correlation models 
(i.e., logarithmic, exponential, and power models) to calculate PM 
concentrations in an operating PM CEMS in situations when the PM 
CEMS response values are equal to or less than zero, and the 
correlation model is undefined.
    12.4 What correlation model should I use?
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Calculate the minimum value using Equation 11-48. 
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.106
    
* * * * *
    13.2 What performance criteria must my PM CEMS correlation 
satisfy?
* * * * *
    (2) The confidence interval half range must satisfy the 
applicable criterion specified in paragraph (2)(i), (ii), or (iii) 
of this section, based on the type of correlation model.
    (i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, the 95 percent 
confidence interval half range at the mean PM CEMS response value 
from the correlation test must be within 10 percent of the PM 
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation. 
Therefore, the CI% calculated using Equation 11-10 must be less than 
or equal to 10 percent.
    (ii) For polynomial correlations, the 95 percent confidence 
interval half range at the PM CEMS response value from the 
correlation test that corresponds to the minimum value for [Delta] 
must be within 10 percent of the PM emission limit value specified 
in the applicable regulation. Therefore, the CI% calculated using 
Equation 11-28 must be less than or equal to 10 percent.
    (iii) For exponential or power correlations, the 95 percent 
confidence interval half range at the mean of the logarithm of the 
PM CEMS response values from the correlation test must be within 10 
percent of the PM emission limit value specified in the applicable 
regulation. Therefore, the CI% calculated using Equation 11-10 must 
be less than or equal to 10 percent.
    (3) The tolerance interval half range must satisfy the 
applicable criterion specified in

[[Page 12584]]

paragraph (3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, based on the type 
of correlation model.
    (i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, the half range 
tolerance interval with 95 percent confidence and 75 percent 
coverage at the mean PM CEMS response value from the correlation 
test must be within 25 percent of the PM emission limit value 
specified in the applicable regulation. Therefore, the TI% 
calculated using Equation 11-13 must be less than or equal to 25 
percent.
    (ii) For polynomial correlations, the half range tolerance 
interval with 95 percent confidence and 75 percent coverage at the 
PM CEMS response value from the correlation test that corresponds to 
the minimum value for [Delta] must be within 25 percent of the PM 
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation. 
Therefore, the TI% calculated using Equation 11-32 must be less than 
or equal to 25 percent.
    (iii) For exponential or power correlations, the half range 
tolerance interval with 95 percent confidence and 75 percent 
coverage at the mean of the logarithm of the PM CEMS response values 
from the correlation test must be within 25 percent of the PM 
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation. 
Therefore, the TI% calculated using Equation 11-13 must be less than 
or equal to 25 percent.
* * * * *
    16.0 Which references are relevant to this performance 
specification?
* * * * *
    16.8 Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G. (1989), 
Statistical Methods, Eighth Edition, Iowa State University Press.
    16.9 Wallis, W. A. (1951) ``Tolerance Intervals for Linear 
Regression,'' in Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical 
Statistics and Probability, ed. J. Neyman, Berkeley: University of 
California Press, pp. 43-51.
    17.0 * * *

                Table 1--Factors for Calculation of Confidence and Tolerance Interval Half Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95%
                                                   Student's t,                  confidence level
                       df                               tdf      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                     vdf (95%)       un' (75%)          kT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................................           3.182           2.920           1.266           3.697
4...............................................           2.776           2.372           1.247           2.958
5...............................................           2.571           2.089           1.233           2.576
6...............................................           2.447           1.915           1.223           2.342
7...............................................           2.365           1.797           1.214           2.183
8...............................................           2.306           1.711           1.208           2.067
9...............................................           2.262           1.645           1.203           1.979
10..............................................           2.228           1.593           1.198           1.909
11..............................................           2.201           1.551           1.195           1.853
12..............................................           2.179           1.515           1.192           1.806
13..............................................           2.160           1.485           1.189           1.766
14..............................................           2.145           1.460           1.186           1.732
15..............................................           2.131           1.437           1.184           1.702
16..............................................           2.120           1.418           1.182           1.676
17..............................................           2.110           1.400           1.181           1.653
18..............................................           2.101           1.384           1.179           1.633
19..............................................           2.093           1.370           1.178           1.614
20..............................................           2.086           1.358           1.177           1.597
21..............................................           2.080           1.346           1.175           1.582
22..............................................           2.074           1.335           1.174           1.568
23..............................................           2.069           1.326           1.173           1.555
24..............................................           2.064           1.316           1.172           1.544
25..............................................           2.060           1.308           1.172           1.533
26..............................................           2.056           1.300           1.171           1.522
27..............................................           2.052           1.293           1.170           1.513
28..............................................           2.048           1.286           1.170           1.504
29..............................................           2.045           1.280           1.169           1.496
30..............................................           2.042           1.274           1.168           1.488
31..............................................           2.040           1.268           1.168           1.481
32..............................................           2.037           1.263           1.167           1.474
33..............................................           2.035           1.258           1.167           1.467
34..............................................           2.032           1.253           1.166           1.461
35..............................................           2.030           1.248           1.166           1.455
36..............................................           2.028           1.244           1.165           1.450
37..............................................           2.026           1.240           1.165           1.444
38..............................................           2.024           1.236           1.165           1.439
39..............................................           2.023           1.232           1.164           1.435
40..............................................           2.021           1.228           1.164           1.430
41..............................................           2.020           1.225           1.164           1.425
42..............................................           2.018           1.222           1.163           1.421
43..............................................           2.017           1.218           1.163           1.417
44..............................................           2.015           1.215           1.163           1.413
45..............................................           2.014           1.212           1.163           1.410
46..............................................           2.013           1.210           1.162           1.406
47..............................................           2.012           1.207           1.162           1.403
48..............................................           2.011           1.204           1.162           1.399
49..............................................           2.010           1.202           1.162           1.396
50..............................................           2.009           1.199           1.161           1.393
51..............................................           2.008           1.197           1.161           1.390
52..............................................           2.007           1.195           1.161           1.387
53..............................................           2.006           1.192           1.161           1.384
54..............................................           2.005           1.190           1.161           1.381

[[Page 12585]]

 
55..............................................           2.004           1.188           1.160           1.379
56..............................................           2.003           1.186           1.160           1.376
57..............................................           2.002           1.184           1.160           1.374
58..............................................           2.002           1.182           1.160           1.371
59..............................................           2.001           1.180           1.160           1.369
60..............................................           2.000           1.179           1.160          1.367
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References 16.8 (t values) and 16.9 (vdf and un' values).


0
4. In Appendix B, Performance Specification 16 is added to read as 
follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 16--SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR 
PREDICTIVE EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS IN STATIONARY SOURCES

1.0 Scope and Application

    1.1 Does this performance specification apply to me? If you, the 
source owner or operator, intend to use (with any necessary 
approvals) a predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS) to show 
compliance with your emission limitation under 40 CFR 60, 61, or 63, 
you must use the procedures in this performance specification (PS) 
to determine whether your PEMS is acceptable for use in 
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Use these 
procedures to certify your PEMS after initial installation and 
periodically thereafter to ensure the PEMS is operating properly. If 
your PEMS contains a diluent (O2 or CO2) 
measuring component and your emissions limitation is in units that 
require a diluent measurement (e.g. lbs/mm Btu), the diluent 
component must be tested as well. These specifications apply to PEMS 
that are installed under 40 CFR 60, 61, and 63 after the effective 
date of this performance specification. These specifications do not 
apply to parametric monitoring systems, these are covered under PS-
17.
    1.1.1 How do I certify my PEMS after it is installed? PEMS must 
pass a relative accuracy (RA) test and accompanying statistical 
tests in the initial certification test to be acceptable for use in 
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Ongoing 
quality assurance tests also must be conducted to ensure the PEMS is 
operating properly. An ongoing sensor evaluation procedure must be 
in place before the PEMS certification is complete. The amount of 
testing and data validation that is required depends upon the 
regulatory needs, i.e., whether precise quantification of emissions 
will be needed or whether indication of exceedances of some 
regulatory threshold will suffice. Performance criteria are more 
rigorous for PEMS used in determining continual compliance with an 
emission limit than those used to measure excess emissions. You must 
perform the initial certification test on your PEMS before reporting 
any PEMS data as quality-assured.
    1.1.2 Is other testing required after certification? After you 
initially certify your PEMS, you must pass additional periodic 
performance checks to ensure the long-term quality of data. These 
periodic checks are listed in the table in Section 9. You are always 
responsible for properly maintaining and operating your PEMS.

2.0 Summary of Performance Specification

    The following performance tests are required in addition to 
other equipment and measurement location requirements.
    2.1 Initial PEMS Certification.
    2.1.1 Excess Emissions PEMS. For a PEMS that is used for excess 
emission reporting, the owner or operator must perform a minimum 9-
run, 3-level (3 runs at each level) RA test (see Section 8.2).
    2.1.2 Compliance PEMS. For a PEMS that is used for continual 
compliance standards, the owner or operator must perform a minimum 
27-run, 3-level (9 runs at each level) RA test (see Section 8.2). 
Additionally, the data must be evaluated for bias and by F-test and 
correlation analysis.
    2.2 Periodic Quality Assurance (QA) Assessments. Owners and 
operators of all PEMS are required to conduct quarterly relative 
accuracy audits (RAA) and yearly relative accuracy test audits 
(RATA) to assess ongoing PEMS operation. The frequency of these 
periodic assessments may be shortened by successful operation during 
a prior year.

3.0 Definitions

    The following definitions apply:
    3.1 Centroidal Area means that area in the center of the stack 
(or duct) comprising no more than 1 percent of the stack cross-
sectional area and having the same geometric shape as the stack.
    3.2 Data Recorder means the equipment that provides a permanent 
record of the PEMS output. The data recorder may include automatic 
data reduction capabilities and may include electronic data records, 
paper records, or a combination of electronic data and paper 
records.
    3.3 Defective sensor means a sensor that is responsible for PEMS 
malfunction or that operates outside the approved operating 
envelope. A defective sensor may be functioning properly, but 
because it is operating outside the approved operating envelope, the 
resulting predicted emission is not validated.
    3.4 Diluent PEMS means the total equipment required to predict a 
diluent gas concentration or emission rate.
    3.5 Operating envelope means the defined range of a parameter 
input that is established during PEMS development. Emission data 
generated from parameter inputs that are beyond the operating 
envelope are not considered quality assured and are therefore 
unacceptable.
    3.6 PEMS means all of the equipment required to predict an 
emission concentration or emission rate. The system may consist of 
any of the following major subsystems: sensors and sensor 
interfaces, emission model, algorithm, or equation that uses process 
data to generate an output that is proportional to the emission 
concentration or emission rate, diluent emission model, data 
recorder, and sensor evaluation system. Systems that use fewer than 
3 variables do not qualify as PEMS unless the system has been 
specifically approved by the Administrator for use as a PEMS. A PEMS 
may predict emissions data that are corrected for diluent if the 
relative accuracy and relevant QA tests are passed in the emission 
units corrected for diluent. Parametric monitoring systems that 
serve as indicators of compliance and have parametric limits but do 
not predict emissions to comply with an emissions limit are not 
included in this definition.
    3.7 PEMS training means the process of developing or confirming 
the operation of the PEMS against a reference method under specified 
conditions.
    3.8 Quarter means a quarter of a calendar year in which there 
are at least 168 unit operating hours.
    3.9 Reconciled Process Data means substitute data that are 
generated by a sensor evaluation system to replace that of a failed 
sensor. Reconciled process data may not be used without approval 
from the Administrator.
    3.10 Relative Accuracy means the accuracy of the PEMS when 
compared to a reference method (RM) at the source. The RA is the 
average difference between the pollutant PEMS and RM data for a 
specified number of comparison runs plus a 2.5 percent confidence 
coefficient, divided by the average of the RM tests. For a diluent 
PEMS, the RA may be expressed as a percentage of absolute difference 
between the PEMS and RM. Alternative specifications are given for 
units that have very low emissions.
    3.11 Relative Accuracy Audit means a quarterly audit of the PEMS 
against a

[[Page 12586]]

portable analyzer meeting the requirements of ASTM D6522-00 or a RM 
for a specified number of runs. A RM may be used in place of the 
portable analyzer for the RAA.
    3.12 Relative Accuracy Test Audit means a RA test that is 
performed at least once every four calendar quarters after the 
initial certification test while the PEMS is operating at the normal 
operating level.
    3.13 Reference Value means a PEMS baseline value that may be 
established by RM testing under conditions when all sensors are 
functioning properly. This reference value may then be used in the 
sensor evaluation system or in adjusting new sensors.
    3.14 Sensor Evaluation System means the equipment or procedure 
used to periodically assess the quality of sensor input data. This 
system may be a sub-model that periodically cross-checks sensor 
inputs among themselves or any other procedure that checks sensor 
integrity at least daily (when operated for more than one hour in 
any calendar day).
    3.15 Sensors and Sensor Interface means the equipment that 
measures the process input signals and transports them to the 
emission prediction system.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 Safety [Reserved]

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1 PEMS Design. You must detail the design of your PEMS and 
make this available in reports and for on-site inspection. You must 
also establish the following, as applicable:
    6.1.1 Number of Input Parameters. An acceptable PEMS will 
normally use three or more input parameters. You must obtain the 
Administrator's permission on a case-by-case basis if you desire to 
use a PEMS having fewer than three input parameters.
    6.1.2 Parameter Operating Envelopes. Before you evaluate your 
PEMS through the certification test, you must specify the input 
parameters your PEMS uses, define their range of minimum and maximum 
values (operating envelope), and demonstrate the integrity of the 
parameter operating envelope using graphs and data from the PEMS 
development process, vendor information, or engineering 
calculations, as appropriate. If you operate the PEMS beyond these 
envelopes at any time after the certification test, the data 
generated during this condition will not be acceptable for use in 
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. If these 
parameter operating envelopes are not clearly defined and supported 
by development data, the PEMS operation will be limited to the range 
of parameter inputs encountered during the certification test until 
the PEMS has a new operating envelope established.
    6.1.3 Source-Specific Operating Conditions. Identify any source-
specific operating conditions, such as fuel type, that affect the 
output of your PEMS. You may only use the PEMS under the source-
specific operating conditions it was certified for.
    6.1.4 Ambient Conditions. You must explain whether and how 
ambient conditions and seasonal changes affect your PEMS. Some 
parameters such as absolute ambient humidity cannot be manipulated 
during a test. The effect of ambient conditions such as humidity on 
the pollutant concentration must be determined and this effect 
extrapolated to include future anticipated conditions. Seasonal 
changes and their effects on the PEMS must be evaluated unless you 
can show that such effects are negligible.
    6.1.5 PEMS Principle of Operation. If your PEMS is developed on 
the basis of known physical principles, you must identify the 
specific physical assumptions or mathematical manipulations that 
support its operation. If your PEMS is developed on the basis of 
linear or nonlinear regression analysis, you must make available the 
paired data (preferably in graphic form) used to develop or train 
the model.
    6.1.6 Data Recorder Scale. If you are not using a digital 
recorder, you must choose a recorder scale that accurately captures 
the desired range of potential emissions. The lower limit of your 
data recorder's range must be no eater than 20 percent of the 
applicable emission standard (if subject to an emission standard). 
The upper limit of your data recorder's range must be determined 
using the following table. If you obtain approval first, you may use 
other lower and upper recorder limits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Then your upper
  If PEMS is measuring. . .        And if. . .           limit. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled emissions, such  No other regulation   Must be 1.25 to 2
 as NOX at the stack of a      sets an upper limit   times the average
 natural gas-fired boiler.     for the data          potential emission
                               recorder's range.     level
Uncontrolled emissions, such  Another regulation    Must follow the
 as NOX at the stack of a      sets an upper limit   other regulation
 natural gas-fired boiler.     for the data
                               recorder's range.
Controlled emissions........  ....................  Must be 1.5 to 2.0
                                                     times concentration
                                                     of the emission
                                                     standard that
                                                     applies to your
                                                     emission unit
Continual compliance          ....................  Must be 1.1 to 1.5
 emissions for an applicable                         times the
 regulation.                                         concentration of
                                                     the emission
                                                     standard that
                                                     applies to your
                                                     emission unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6.1.7 Sensor Location and Repair. We recommend you install 
sensors in an accessible location in order to perform repairs and 
replacements. Permanently installed platforms or ladders may not be 
needed. If you install sensors in an area that is not accessible, 
you may be required to shut down the emissions unit to repair or 
replace a sensor. Conduct a new RATA after replacing a sensor. All 
sensors must be calibrated as often as needed but at least as often 
as recommended by the manufacturers.
    6.1.8 Sensor Evaluation System. Your PEMS must be designed to 
perform automatic or manual determination of defective sensors on at 
least a daily basis. This sensor evaluation system may consist of a 
sensor validation sub-model, a comparison of redundant sensors, a 
spot check of sensor input readings at a reference value, operation, 
or emission level, or other procedure that detects faulty or failed 
sensors. Some sensor evaluation systems generate substitute values 
(reconciled data) that are used when a sensor is perceived to have 
failed. You must obtain prior approval before using reconciled data.
    6.1.9 Parameter Envelope Exceedances. Your PEMS must include a 
plan to detect and notify the operator of parameter envelope 
exceedances. Emission data collected outside the ranges of the 
sensor envelopes will not be considered quality assured.
    6.2 Recordkeeping. All valid data recorded by the PEMS must be 
used to calculate the emission value.

7.0 Reagents and Standards [Reserved]

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport

    8.1 Initial Certification. Use the following procedure to 
certify your PEMS. Complete all PEMS training before the 
certification begins.
    8.2 Relative Accuracy Test.
    8.2.1 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise specified in the 
applicable regulations, you must use the test methods in Appendix A 
of this part for the RM test. Conduct the RM tests at three 
operating levels of the key parameter that most affects emissions 
(e.g., load level). Conduct the specified number of RM tests at the 
low (minimum to 50 percent of maximum), mid (an intermediary level 
between the low and high levels), and high (80 percent to maximum) 
key parameter operating levels, as practicable. If these levels are 
not practicable, vary the key parameter range as much as possible 
over three levels.
    8.2.2 Number of RM Tests for Excess Emission PEMS. For PEMS used 
for excess emission reporting, conduct at least the following number 
of RM tests at the following key parameter operating levels:
    (1) Three at a low level.
    (2) Three at a mid level.
    (3) Three at a high level.
    You may choose to perform more than nine total RM tests. If you 
perform more than nine tests, you may reject a maximum of three 
tests as long as the total number of test results used to determine 
the RA is nine or greater and each operating level has at least 
three tests. You must report all data, including the rejected data.

[[Page 12587]]

    8.2.3 Number of RM Tests for Continual Compliance PEMS. For PEMS 
used to determine compliance, conduct at least the following number 
of RM tests at the following key parameter operating levels:
    (1) Nine at a low level.
    (2) Nine at a mid level.
    (3) Nine at a high level.
    You may choose to perform more than 9 RM runs at each operating 
level. If you perform more than 9 runs, you may reject a maximum of 
three runs per level as long as the total number of runs used to 
determine the RA at each operating level is 9 or greater.
    8.2.4 Reference Method Measurement Location. Select an 
accessible measurement point for the RM that will ensure you measure 
emissions representatively. Ensure the location is at least two 
equivalent stack diameters downstream and half an equivalent 
diameter upstream from the nearest flow disturbance such as the 
control device, point of pollutant generation, or other place where 
the pollutant concentration or emission rate can change. You may use 
a half diameter downstream instead of the two diameters if you meet 
both of the following conditions:
    (1) Changes in the pollutant concentration are caused solely by 
diluent leakage, such as leaks from air heaters.
    (2) You measure pollutants and diluents simultaneously at the 
same locations.
    8.2.5 Traverse Points. Select traverse points that ensure 
representative samples. Conduct all RM tests within 3 cm of each 
selected traverse point but no closer than 3 cm to the stack or duct 
wall. The minimum requirement for traverse points are as follows:
    (1) Establish a measurement line across the stack that passes 
through the center and in the direction of any expected 
stratification.
    (2) Locate a minimum of three traverse points on the line at 
16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the stack inside diameter.
    (3) Alternatively, if the stack inside diameter is greater than 
2.4 meters, you may locate the three traverse points on the line at 
0.4, 1.2, and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct wall. You may not 
use this alternative option after wet scrubbers or at points where 
two streams with different pollutant concentrations are combined. 
You may select different traverse points if you demonstrate and 
provide verification that it provides a representative sample. You 
may also use the traverse point specifications given the RM.
    8.2.6 Relative Accuracy Procedure. Perform the number of RA 
tests at the levels required in Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3. For 
integrated samples (e.g., Method 3A or 7E), make a sample traverse 
of at least 21 minutes, sampling for 7 minutes at each traverse 
point. For grab samples (e.g., Method 3 or 7), take one sample at 
each traverse point, scheduling the grab samples so that they are 
taken simultaneously (within a 3-minute period) or at an equal 
interval of time apart over a 21-minute period. A test run for grab 
samples must be made up of at least three separate measurements. 
Where multiple fuels are used in the monitored unit and the fuel 
type affects the predicted emissions, determine a RA for each fuel 
unless the effects of the alternative fuel on predicted emissions or 
diluent were addressed in the model training process. The unit may 
only use fuels that have been evaluated this way.
    8.2.7 Correlation of RM and PEMS Data. Mark the beginning and 
end of each RM test run (including the exact time of day) on the 
permanent record of PEMS output. Correlate the PEMS and the RM test 
data by the time and duration using the following steps:
    A. Determine the integrated pollutant concentration for the PEMS 
for each corresponding RM test period.
    B. Consider system response time, if important, and confirm that 
the pair of results is on a consistent moisture, temperature, and 
diluent concentration basis.
    C. Compare each average PEMS value to the corresponding average 
RM value. Use the following guidelines to make these comparisons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          If . . .                 Then . . .          And then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The RM has an instrumental   Directly compare RM
 or integrated non-            and PEMS results.
 instrumental sampling
 technique.
 The RM has a grab sampling   Average the results   Compare this average
 technique.                    from all grab         RM result with the
                               samples taken         PEMS result
                               during the test       obtained during the
                               run. The test run     run.
                               must include >=3
                               separate grab
                               measurements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use the paired PEMS and RM data and the equations in Section 
12.2 to calculate the RA in the units of the applicable emission 
standard. For this 3-level RA test, calculate the RA at each 
operation level.
    8.3 Statistical Tests for PEMS that are Used for Continual 
Compliance. In addition to the RA determination, evaluate the paired 
RA and PEMS data using the following statistical tests.
    8.3.1 Bias Test. From the RA data taken at the mid-level, 
determine if a bias exists between the RM and PEMS. Use the 
equations in Section 12.3.1.
    8.3.2 F-test. Perform a separate F-test for the RA paired data 
from each operating level to determine if the RM and PEMS variances 
differ by more than might be expected from chance. Use the equations 
in Section 12.3.2.
    8.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Perform a correlation analysis using 
the RA paired data from all operating levels combined to determine 
how well the RM and PEMS correlate. Use the equations in Section 
12.3.3. The correlation is waived if the process cannot be varied to 
produce a concentration change sufficient for a successful 
correlation test because of its technical design. In such cases, 
should a subsequent RATA identify a variation in the RM measured 
values by more than 30 percent, the waiver will not apply, and a 
correlation analysis test must be performed at the next RATA.
    8.4 Reporting. Summarize in tabular form the results of the RA 
and statistical tests. Include all data sheets, calculations, and 
charts (records of PEMS responses) necessary to verify that your 
PEMS meets the performance specifications. Include in the report the 
documentation used to establish your PEMS parameter envelopes.
    8.5 Reevaluating Your PEMS After a Failed Test, Change in 
Operations, or Change in Critical PEMS Parameter. After initial 
certification, if your PEMS fails to pass a quarterly RAA or yearly 
RATA, or if changes occur or are made that could result in a 
significant change in the emission rate (e.g., turbine aging, 
process modification, new process operating modes, or changes to 
emission controls), your PEMS must be recertified using the tests 
and procedures in Section 8.1. For example, if you initially 
developed your PEMS for the emissions unit operating at 80-100 
percent of its range, you would have performed the initial test 
under these conditions. Later, if you wanted to operate the emission 
unit at 50-100 percent of its range, you must conduct another RA 
test and statistical tests, as applicable, to verify that the new 
conditions of 50-100 percent of range are functional. These tests 
must demonstrate that your PEMS provides acceptable data when 
operating in the new range or with the new critical PEMS 
parameter(s). The requirements of Section 8.1 must be completed by 
the earlier of 60 unit operating days or 180 calendar days after the 
failed RATA or after the change that caused a significant change in 
emission rate.

9.0 Quality Control

    You must incorporate a QA plan beyond the initial PEMS 
certification test to verify that your system is generating quality-
assured data. The QA plan must include the components of this 
section.
    9.1 QA/QC Summary. Conduct the applicable ongoing tests listed 
below.

                                         Ongoing Quality Assurance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Test                  PEMS regulatory purpose       Acceptability               Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sensor Evaluation..................  All....................  .......................  Daily

[[Page 12588]]

 
 RAA................................  Compliance.............  3-test average <=10% of  Each quarter except
                                                                simultaneous PEMS        quarter when RATA
                                                                average.                 performed
 RATA...............................  All....................  Same as for RA in Sec.   Yearly in quarter when
                                                                13.1.                    RAA not performed
 Bias Correction....................  All....................  If davg <=               Bias test passed (no
                                                                [bond]cc[bond].          correction factor
                                                                                         needed)
 PEMS Training......................  All....................  If Fcritical [gteqt]F r  Optional after initial
                                                                [gteqt]0.8.              and subsequent RATAs
 Sensor Evaluation Alert Test         All....................  See Section 6.1.8......  After each PEMS training
 (optional).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9.2 Daily Sensor Evaluation Check. Your sensor evaluation system 
must check the integrity of each PEMS input at least daily.
    9.3 Quarterly Relative Accuracy Audits. In the first year of 
operation after the initial certification, perform a RAA consisting 
of at least three 30-minute portable analyzer or RM determinations 
each quarter a RATA is not performed. The average of the 3 portable 
analyzer or RM determinations must not differ from the simultaneous 
PEMS average value by more than 10 percent of the analyzer or RM 
value or the test is failed. If a PEMS passes all quarterly RAAs in 
the first year and also passes the subsequent yearly RATA in the 
second year, you may elect to perform a single mid-year RAA in the 
second year in place of the quarterly RAAs. This option may be 
repeated, but only until the PEMS fails either a mid-year RAA or a 
yearly RATA. When such a failure occurs, you must resume quarterly 
RAAs in the quarter following the failure and continue conducting 
quarterly RAAs until the PEMS successfully passes both a year of 
quarterly RAAs and a subsequent RATA.
    9.4 Yearly Relative Accuracy Test Audit. Perform a minimum 9-run 
RATA at the normal operating level on a yearly basis in the quarter 
that the RAA is not performed.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]

11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

12.1 Nomenclature

B = PEMS bias adjustment factor.
cc = Confidence coefficient.
di = Difference between each RM and PEMS run.
d = Arithmetic mean of differences for all runs.
ei = Individual measurement provided by the PEMS or RM at 
a particular level.
em = Mean of the PEMS or RM measurements at a particular 
level.
ep = Individual measurement provided by the PEMS.
ev = Individual measurement provided by the RM.
F = Calculated F-value.
n = Number of RM runs.
PEMSi = Individual measurement provided by the PEMS.
PEMSiAdjusted = Individual measurement provided by the 
PEMS adjusted for bias.
PEMS = Mean of the values provided by the PEMS at the normal 
operating range during the bias test.
r = Coefficient of correlation.
RA = Relative accuracy.
RAA = Relative accuracy audit.
RM = Average RM value (or in the case of the RAA, the average 
portable analyzer value). In cases where the average emissions for 
the test are less than 50 percent of the applicable standard, 
substitute the emission standard value here in place of the average 
RM value.
Sd = Standard deviation of differences.
S2 = Variance of your PEMS or RM.
t0.025 = t-value for a one-sided, 97.5 percent confidence 
interval (see Table 16-1).

    12.2 Relative Accuracy Calculations. Calculate the mean of the 
RM values. Calculate the differences between the pairs of 
observations for the RM and the PEMS output sets. Finally, calculate 
the mean of the differences, standard deviation, confidence 
coefficient, and PEMS RA, using Equations 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, and 16-
4, respectively. For compliance PEMS, calculate the RA at each test 
level. The PEMS must pass the RA criterion at each test level.
    12.2.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the 
differences between paired RM and PEMS observations using Equation 
16-1. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.094

    12.2.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation of 
the differences using Equation 16-2 (positive square root). 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.095

    12.2.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate the confidence 
coefficient using Equation 16-3 and Table 16-1. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.096

    12.2.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA of your data using 
Equation 16-4. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.097

    12.3 Compliance PEMS Statistical Tests. If your PEMS will be 
used for continual compliance purposes, conduct the following tests 
using the information obtained during the RA tests. For the 
pollutant measurements at any one test level, if the mean value of 
the RM is less than either 10 ppm or 5 percent of the emission 
standard, all statistical tests are waived at that specific test 
level. For diluent measurements at any one test level, if the mean 
value of the RM is less than 3 percent of span, all statistical 
tests are waived for that specific test level.
    12.3.1 Bias Test. Conduct a bias test to determine if your PEMS 
is biased relative to the RM. Determine the PEMS bias by comparing 
the confidence coefficient obtained from Equation 16-3 to the

[[Page 12589]]

arithmetic mean of the differences determined in Equation 16-1. If 
the arithmetic mean of the differences (d) is greater than the 
absolute value of the confidence coefficient (cc), your PEMS must 
incorporate a bias factor to adjust future PEMS values as in 
Equation 16-5. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.098

Where: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.099

    12.3.2 F-test. Conduct an F-test for each of the three RA data 
sets collected at different test levels. Calculate the variances of 
the PEMS and the RM using Equation 16-6. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.100

Determine if the variance of the PEMS data is significantly 
different from that of the RM data at each level by calculating the 
F-value using Equation 16-7. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.101

Compare the calculated F-value with the critical value of F at the 
95 percent confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom. The 
critical value is obtained from Table 16-2 or a similar table for F-
distribution. If the calculated F-value is greater than the critical 
value at any level, your proposed PEMS is unacceptable. For 
pollutant PEMS measurements, if the standard deviation of the RM is 
less than either 3 percent of the span or 5 ppm, use a RM standard 
deviation of either 5 ppm or 3 percent of span. For diluent PEMS 
measurements, if the standard deviation of the reference method is 
less than 3 percent of span, use a RM standard deviation of 3 
percent of span.
    12.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Calculate the correlation 
coefficient either manually using Eq. 16-8, on a graph, or by 
computer using all of the paired data points from all operating 
levels. Your PEMS correlation must be 0.8 or greater to be 
acceptable. If during the initial certification test, your PEMS data 
are determined to be auto-correlated according to the procedures in 
40 CFR 75.41(b)(2), or if the signal-to-noise ratio of the data is 
less than 4, then the correlation analysis is permanently waived. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.102

    12.4 Relative Accuracy Audit. Calculate the quarterly RAA using 
Equation 16-4. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.103

13.0 Method Performance

    13.1 PEMS Relative Accuracy. The RA must not exceed 10 percent 
if the PEMS measurements are greater than 100 ppm or 0.2 lbs/mm Btu. 
The RA must not exceed 20 percent if the PEMS measurements are 
between 100 ppm (or 0.2 lb/mm Btu) and 10 ppm (or 0.05 lb/mm Btu). 
For measurements below 10 ppm, the absolute mean difference between 
the PEMS measurements and the RM measurements must not exceed 2 
pppm. For diluent PEMS, an alternative criterion of  1 
percent absolute difference between the PEMS and RM may be used if 
less stringent.
    13.2 PEMS Bias. Your PEMS data is considered biased and must be 
adjusted if the arithmetic mean (d) is greater than the absolute 
value of the confidence coefficient (cc) in Equations 16.1 and 16.3. 
In such cases, a bias factor must be used to correct your PEMS data.
    13.3 PEMS Variance. Your calculated F-value must not be greater 
than the critical F-value at the 95-percent confidence level for 
your PEMS to be acceptable.
    13.4 PEMS Correlation. Your calculated r-value must be greater 
than or equal to 0.8 for your PEMS to be acceptable.
    13.5 Relative Accuracy Audits. The average of the 3 portable 
analyzer or RM determinations must not differ from the simultaneous 
PEMS average value by more than 10 percent of the analyzer or RM 
value.

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.070 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 References [Reserved]

17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data

        Table 16-1--t-Values for One-sided, 97.5 Percent Confidence Intervals for Selected Sample Sizes*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               n-1                                    t0.025            n-1           t0.025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................................................          12.706              16           2.131
3...............................................................           4.303              17           2.120
4...............................................................           3.182              18           2.110
5...............................................................           2.776              19           2.101
6...............................................................           2.571              20           2.093
7...............................................................           2.447              21           2.086
8...............................................................           2.365              22           2.080
9...............................................................           2.306              23           2.074
10..............................................................           2.262              24           2.069
11..............................................................           2.228              25           2.064
12..............................................................           2.201              26           2.060
13..............................................................           2.179              27           2.056
14..............................................................           2.160              28           2.052
15..............................................................           2.145            > 29        t-Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Use n equal to the number of data points (n-1 equals the degrees of freedom).


[[Page 12590]]


                 Table 16-2. F-Values for Critical Value of F at the 95 Percent Confidence Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              d.f. for S2PEMS
  d.f. for S2RM      1       2       3       4       5       6       7       8       9   -----------------------
                                                                                            10      11      12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............   161     199     215     224     230     234     236     238     240     241     243     243
                      .4      .5      .7      .6      .2      .0      .8      .9      .5      .8      .0      .9
2...............    18      19      19      19      19      19      19      19      19      19      19      19
                    51      00      16      25      30      33      35      37      38      50      40      41
                  3.10.......9.5..   9.2     9.1     9.0     8.9     8.8     8.8     8.8     8.7     8.7     8.7
                    13      52      77      17      14      41      87      45      12      86      63      45
4...............     7.7     6.9     6.5     6.3     6.2     6.1     6.0     6.0     5.9     5.9     5.9     5.9
                    09      44      91      88      56      63      94      41      99      64      35      12
5...............     6.6     5.7     5.4     5.1     5.0     4.9     4.8     4.8     4.7     4.7     4.7     4.6
                    08      86      10      92      50      50      76      18      73      35      03      78
6...............     5.9     5.1     4.7     4.5     4.3     4.2     4.2     4.1     4.0     4.0     4.0     4.0
                    87      43      57      34      87      84      07      47      99      60      27      00
7...............     5.5     4.7     4.3     4.1     3.9     3.8     3.7     3.7     3.6     3.6     3.6     3.5
                    91      34      47      20      71      66      87      26      77      37      03      75
8...............     5.3     4.4     4.0     3.8     3.6     3.5     3.5     3.4     3.3     3.3     3.3     3.2
                    18      59      66      38      88      81      01      38      88      47      12      84
9...............     5.1     4.2     3.8     3.6     3.4     3.3     3.2     3.2     3.1     3.1     3.1     3.0
                    17      57      63      33      82      74      93      30      97      37      02      73
10..............     4.9     4.1     3.7     3.4     3.3     3.2     3.1     3.0     3.0     2.9     2.9     2.9
                    65      03      09      78      26      17      36      72      20      78      42      13
11..............     4.8     3.9     3.5     3.3     3.2     3.0     3.0     2.9     2.8     2.8     2.8     2.7
                    44      82      87      57      04      95      12      48      96      54      17      88
12..............     4.7     3.8     3.4     3.2     3.1     2.9     2.9     2.8     2.7     2.7     2.7     2.6
                    47      85      90      59      06      96      13      49      96      53      17      87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
5. In Procedure 1 of Appendix F, paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 and 
Section 8 is revised as follows:

Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures

    Procedure 1. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas Continuous 
Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination
* * * * *
    5.1.2 Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA).
    * * *
    (3) Use Certified Reference Materials (CRM's) (See Citation 1) 
audit gases that have been certified by comparison to National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or EPA Traceability 
Protocol Materials (ETPM's) following the most recent edition of 
EPA's Traceability Protocol No. 1 (See Citation 2). Procedures for 
preparation of CRM's are described in Citation 1. Procedures for 
preparation of ETPM's are described in Citation 2. As an alternative 
to CRM's or ETPM gases, Method 205 (See Citation 3) may be used. The 
difference between the actual concentration of the audit gas and the 
concentration indicated by the monitor is used to assess the 
accuracy of the CEMS.
* * * * *

8. Bibliography

    1. ``A Procedure for Establishing Traceability of Gas Mixtures 
to Certain National Bureau of Standards Standard Reference 
Materials.'' Joint publication by NBS and EPA-600/7-81-010, Revised 
1989. Available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Quality Assurance Division (MD-77). Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711.
    2. ``EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay And Certification Of 
Gaseous Calibration Standards.'' EPA-600/R-97/121, September 1997. 
Available from EPA's Emission Measurement Center at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
    3. Method 205, ``Verification of Gas Dilution Systems for Field 
Instrument Calibrations,'' 40 CFR 51, Appendix M.
* * * * *

0
6. In Procedure 2 of Appendix F, Section 10.1, paragraph (3) of Section 
10.4, and paragraph (2) of Section 12.0 are revised as follows:
    Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter 
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources
* * * * *
    10.1 When should I use paired trains for reference method testing? 
Although not required, we recommend that you should use paired-train 
reference method testing to generate data used to develop your PM CEMS 
correlation and for RCA testing. Guidance on the use of paired sampling 
trains can be found in the PM CEMS Knowledge Document (see section 16.5 
of PS-11).
* * * * *
    10.4 What are my limits for excessive audit inaccuracy?
* * * * *
    (3) What are the criteria for excessive ACA error? Your PM CEMS is 
out of control if the results of any ACA exceed  10 percent 
of the average audit value, as calculated using Equation 2-1a, or 7.5 
percent of the applicable standard, as calculated using Equation 2-1b, 
whichever is greater.
* * * * *
    12.0 What calculations and data analysis must I perform for my PM 
CEMS?
* * * * *
    (2) How do I calculate ACA accuracy? You must use either Equation 
2-1a or 2-1b to calculate ACA accuracy for each of the three audit 
points. However, when calculating ACA accuracy for the first audit 
point (0 to 20 percent of measurement range), you must use Equation 2-
1b to calculate ACA accuracy if the reference standard value 
(Rv) equals zero. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.104


[[Page 12591]]


Where:

ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at each audit point, in percent,
RCEM = Your PM CEMS response to the reference standard, and
RV = The reference standard value.

 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.105

Where:

ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at each audit point, in percent,
CCEM = The PM concentration that corresponds to your PM CEMS 
response to the reference standard, as calculated using the correlation 
equation for your PM CEMS,
CRV = The PM concentration that corresponds to the reference 
standard value in units consistent with CCEM, and
Cs = The PM concentration that corresponds to the applicable 
emission limit in units consistent with CCEM.
* * * * *

Part 63--[Amended]

0
7. The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
8. In Method 303 of Appendix A, add a sentence to the end of Section 
1.1 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

    Method 303--Determination of Visible Emissions From By-Product 
Coke Oven Batteries
    1.1 Applicability. * * * In order for the test method results to 
be indicative of plant performance, the time of day of the run 
should vary.

 [FR Doc. E9-6275 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P