Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems and Amendments to Testing and Monitoring Provisions, 45608-45625 [05-15330]

Download as PDF 45608 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Platt, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202–2466, (303) 312–6449, platt.amy@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 14, 2005. Max H. Dodson, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 05–15608 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 OAR–2003–0074 [FRL–7947–5] RIN 2060–AG21 Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems and Amendments to Testing and Monitoring Provisions Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AGENCY: ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing performance specifications (PS) that evaluate the acceptability of predictive emission monitoring systems (PEMS) when used on stationary sources. This PS is needed to provide sources and regulatory agencies with performance criteria for evaluating this new technology. The intended effect of this action is to establish standardized performance requirements that will be used to evaluate candidate PEMS uniformly. The affected industries and their Standard Industrial Classification codes are listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. In addition, we are proposing to make minor amendments to various testing provisions in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (MACT) to correct inadvertent errors, make needed updates, and add flexibility. DATES: Comments: Submit comments on or before October 7, 2005. Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a public hearing by August 23, 2005, we will hold a public hearing on September 7, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit IB of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. in the EPA Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate site nearby. Docket. Docket No. OAR–2003–0074, contains information relevant to this rule. You can read and copy it between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, (except for Federal holidays), at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 108, 1301 Constitution Ave., Washington, DC 20004; telephone (202) 566–1742. The docket office may charge a reasonable fee for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foston Curtis, Emission Measurement Center, Mail Code D205–02, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 541–1063; facsimile number (919) 541–0516; electronic mail address curtis.foston@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Information A. Affected Entities Predictive emission monitoring systems are not currently required in any Federal rule. However, they may be used under the 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 emission monitoring tool. The major entities that are potentially affected by Proposed Performance Specification 16 and amendments to the subparts are included in the following tables. TABLE 1.—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION FOR PROPOSED PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 16 AND FOR PETROLEUM REFINERY NSPS, KRAFT PULP MILLS NSPS, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL NSPS Examples of regulated entities SIC codes Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units ................................................................................. Stationary Gas Turbines .......................................................................................................................................... Petroleum Refineries ............................................................................................................................................... Kraft Pulp Mills ......................................................................................................................................................... Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ............................................................................................................................... Surface Coatings ..................................................................................................................................................... 3569 3511 2911 2621 4953 3479 Coke Ovens ............................................................................................................................................................. 3312 NAICS codes 332410 333611 324110 322110 562213 336111, 336112 33111111 TABLE 2.—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION FOR AMENDMENTS TO PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 11 AND PROCEDURE 2, APPENDIX F, PART 60 Examples of regulated entities SIC codes Portland Cement Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................. VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 3559 NAICS codes 333298 45609 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2.—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION FOR AMENDMENTS TO PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 11 AND PROCEDURE 2, APPENDIX F, PART 60—Continued Examples of regulated entities SIC codes Hazardous Waste Incinerators ................................................................................................................................ NAICS codes 4953 562211 TABLE 3.—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION FOR AMENDMENTS TO PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 2, APPENDIX B, PART 60 Examples of regulated entities SIC codes Fossil Fuel Steam Generators ................................................................................................................................. Electric Generating Units ......................................................................................................................................... Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Steam Generating Units ................................................................................... Small Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Steam Generating Units ......................................................................... Municipal Waste Combustors .................................................................................................................................. Nitric Acid Plants ..................................................................................................................................................... Sulfuric Acid Plants .................................................................................................................................................. Petroleum Refineries ............................................................................................................................................... Primary Copper Smelters ........................................................................................................................................ Primary Zinc Smelters ............................................................................................................................................. Primary Lead Smelters ............................................................................................................................................ 3569 3569 3569 3569 4953 2873 2819 2911 3331 3339 3339 NAICS codes 332410 332410 332410 332410 562213 525311 325188 324110 331411 331419 331419 TABLE 4.—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION FOR AMENDMENTS TO METHOD 24, APPENDIX A, PART 60 Examples of regulated entities SIC codes Rubber Tire Manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................... Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing .................................................................................................. Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities ............................................................................................................................ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines ........................................................................................ Polymetric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities .......................................................................................... Surface Coating of Metal Furniture ......................................................................................................................... Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating ................................................................................................. Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing ......................................................................................... Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations .......................................................................... Indusrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances .......................................................................................................... Metal Coil Surface Coating ...................................................................................................................................... Beverage Can Surface Coating ............................................................................................................................... Aerospace ................................................................................................................................................................ Boat and Ship Manufacturing and Repair Surface Coating .................................................................................... Fabric Printing, Coating and Dyeing ....................................................................................................................... Leather Finishing ..................................................................................................................................................... Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing ..................................................................................................................... Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ................................................................................................................ Paper and other Web Surface Coating ................................................................................................................... Plastic Parts Surface Coating .................................................................................................................................. Printing and Publishing Surface Coating ................................................................................................................. Wood Building Products .......................................................................................................................................... Wood Furniture ........................................................................................................................................................ These tables are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides an example of entities that may be affected by this action. 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. B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0074. The official public docket consists of the VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Documents in the official public docket are listed in the index list in EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, EDOCKET. Documents may be available either electronically or in hard copy. Electronic documents may be viewed through EDOCKET. Hard copy documents may be viewed at Docket PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3011 2754 3695 3479 2824 2514 5012 2754 2672 5064 3479 3411 3721 3731, 3732 2759 3111 3479 3479 2741 3479 2741 2499 2511, 2521 NAICS codes 326211 323111 334613 326199 332812 337124 336111 323111 322222 421620 335931 332812 33641 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ OAR–2003–0074, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 566–1742. The docket facility 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. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ or you can go to the federal wide eRulemaking site at http://www.regulations.gov. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 45610 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules An electronic version of the public docket is available through EDOCKET. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket. The EPA’s policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA’s electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA’s electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EDOCKET, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket. Publicly available docket materials that are not available electronically may be viewed at the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. The EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA’s electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA’s policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA’s electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA’s electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA’s electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 be placed in EPA’s electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA’s electronic public docket, visit EDOCKET online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ The EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. The EPA’s policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA’s electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EDOCKET. Your use of EPA’s electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA’s electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ‘‘Information Sources,’’ ‘‘Dockets,’’ and ‘‘EDOCKET.’’ Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ and then key in Docket ID No. OAR–2003– 0074. The system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic comments may also be sent through the federal wide eRulemaking web site at http://www.regulations.gov. iii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rdocket@epamail.gov, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0074. In contrast to EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s email system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA’s electronic public docket. iv. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send duplicate copies of your comments to: ‘‘Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems,’’ Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0074. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0074. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1. 4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: 202–566–1741, Attention: Docket ID. No. OAR–2003–0074. D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA’s electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the docket address to the attention of Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0074. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA’s electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA’s electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. Background II. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 16 A. What Is the Purpose of PS–16? B. Who Must Comply With PS–16? C. What Are the Basic Requirements of PS– 16? D. What Is the Rationale for the Performance Criteria in PS–16? III. Summary of Other Amendments A. Petroleum Refinery (Subpart J) NSPS B. Kraft Pulp Mill (Subpart BB) NSPS C. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Subpart WWW) NSPS D. Method 24 of Appendix A of Part 60 E. Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B of Part 60 VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 F. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60 G. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63 IV. 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: Action Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background Today we are proposing Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems to Appendix B, Part 60. Predictive emission monitoring systems are a new and innovative tool for monitoring pollutant emissions without the traditional hardware analyzers. The PEMS predicts a unit’s emissions indirectly using process parameters that have a known relationship to pollutant concentration. Their principle of operation can range from a relatively simple relationship based on combustion principles to the more complex computer models that are trained to predict emissions using neural networks technology. They have been used for monitoring purposes at industrial, commercial, and institutional steam-generating units, gas turbines, internal combustion engines, and other combustion processes where process parameters have a predictable relationship to emissions. We are also proposing to make amendments to the testing and monitoring provisions of various NSPS and MACT rules. 45611 also be required to comply with PS–16 at the discretion of the applicable regulatory agency or permit writer. C. What Are the Basic Requirements of PS–16? The PS–16 requires owners and operators of affected PEMS to: (1) Select a PEMS that satisfies basic design criteria; (2) verify and document their PEMS; (3) validate their PEMS against a reference method using prescribed statistical procedures prior to placing it into operation; and (4) periodically reassess their PEMS’s performance. The performance requirements for PS–16 follow the general performance requirements for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) in Appendix B of Part 60. A relative accuracy (RA) test of the PEMS against a reference method is the primary assessment of accuracy. The number of runs prescribed for the RA test will depend upon the underlying regulation. D. What Is the Rationale for the Performance Criteria in PS–16? The Agency is allowing, but not requiring, PEMS use in a number of recently-promulgated rules, and a number of facilities regulated by State and Local agencies are considering their use. Past EPA approvals of PEMS were based on criteria provided in the draft performance specifications on the Agency’s Emission Measurement Center website. In other cases, performance specifications developed by State or Local Agencies were used to evaluate the PEMS. We are proposing PS–16 to provide regulatory agencies a uniform procedure for assessing the capabilities of this new monitoring tool. III. Summary of Other Amendments II. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 16 A. Petroleum Refinery (Subpart J) NSPS In the petroleum refinery NSPS in § 60.106(b)(3) the equation for determining the coke burnoff rate is being corrected. A. What Is the Purpose of PS–16? The purpose of PS–16 is to establish the initial installation and performance procedures that candidate PEMS must meet to be acceptable for use. The specification stipulates equipment design and documentation, location, and addresses initial and periodic performance tests of the PEMS. B. Kraft Pulp Mill (Subpart BB) NSPS In the monitoring provisions of the kraft pulp mills NSPS in § 60.284, a paragraph requiring continuous emission monitors be subject to the quality assurance provisions of Appendix F that was added by mistake in an October 17, 2000 amendment is being deleted. B. Who Must Comply With PS–16? If adopted as a final rule, all PEMS that will be used to comply with 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 will be required to comply with PS–16. In addition to new PEMS that are installed after the effective date of PS–16, other PEMS may C. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Subpart WWW) NSPS Under the municipal solid waste landfill NSPS in § 60.752, the requirement to test open flares for heat content and flare exit velocity using Methods 18 and ASTM D1946 is being PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 45612 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules changed to require Method 3C. These open flares must comply with the general flare provisions of 40 CFR 60.18, which require that flare gas heat content and flare exit velocity be within prescribed limits. The heat content of flare gas is determined from an analysis of its organic compound and hydrogen content using Method 18 and ASTM D1946, respectively. Methane is the only significant organic compound in landfill gas and hydrogen is not likely to be present. Therefore, Method 18 and ASTM D1946 are not practical methods for landfill applications. Method 3C is less labor-intensive than Method 18 and has the preferred measuring range for methane levels encountered at landfills. In addition, Method 3C determines oxygen and nitrogen which are currently determined by an additional method and are needed to calculate the flare gas exit velocity. We are proposing that Method 3C be required as the test method for methane in place of Method 18 and ASTM D1946 for organics and hydrogen. D. Method 24 of Appendix A of Part 60 Method 24, Part 60, Appendix A 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 are proposing to amend Method 24 to allow this option. E. Performance Specification 2, Part 60, Appendix B In Performance Specification 2, Part 60, Appendix B, an inadvertent omission in an October 17, 2000 amendment removed an allowance for relative accuracy relief for low-emitters. We are proposing to reinstate the allowance. F. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix of Appendix B of Part 60 The publication on January 12, 2004 of Performance Specification 11 for Appendix B and Procedure 2 for Part 60, Appendix F contained technical and typographical errors and unclear instructions. We are revising 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, correcting errors in Equations 11–22, 11–27, and 11–37, correcting the procedures in paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 12.3 for determining confidence and tolerance interval half ranges for the exponential VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 and power correlation models, and adding a note following paragraph (5)(v) concerning the application of correlation equations to calculate PM concentrations using the response data from an operating PM CEMS. We are also renumbering some equations and references for clarification, consistency, and accuracy. G. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63 In Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63, we are proposing to add a statement on varying the time of day runs are taken that was deleted by mistake in a recent amendment of the method. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), we must determine whether this regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. We have determined that this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. We have determined that this regulation would result in none of the economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the Order because it does not impose emission measurement requirements beyond those specified in the current regulations, nor does it change any emission standard. 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. This actions provides performance criteria for a new PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 monitoring tool that may be used in some cases in place of current source monitoring requirements. These criteria do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulation. The additional amendments being made to the testing requirements in 40 CFR part 60 do no add information collection requirements but make minor corrections to existing testing methodology. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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. Entities potentially affected by this action E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules include those listed in Table 1 of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. After considering the economic impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are allowing, but not requiring, PEMS use in a number of recently-promulgated rules, and a number of facilities regulated by State and Local agencies are considering their use. The intended effect of this action is to facilitate the use of PEMS by establishing levels of acceptability for candidate PEMS. In addition, we are proposing to make minor amendments to various testing provisions in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (MACT) to correct inadvertent errors, make needed updates, and add flexibility. We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in expenditures to State, Local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today’s rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. In any event, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, Local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 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’’ are 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 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. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and Local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and Local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 45613 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.’’ This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. In this proposed rule, we are simply allowing an alternative emission monitoring tool that applicable facilities may use. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not based on health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 45614 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules I. NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs us to use voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) in our 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, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA requires us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable VCSs. We are not proposing new test methods in this rulemaking but are adding performance requirements for a new monitoring tool that can be used as an alternative to what has already been mandated. Therefore, NTTAA does not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, New sources, Test methods and procedures, Performance specifications, and Continuous emission monitors. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602. [Amended] 2. By revising the equation in § 60.106(b)(3) to read as follows: § 60.106 Test methods and procedures. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * RC = K1Qr (%CO2 + %CO) + (K2Qa ¥ K3Qr)((%CO / 2) + (%CO2 + %O2)) * * * * * § 60.284 [Amended] 3. By revising § 60.284(f) to read as follows: VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 * * * * * (f) The procedures under § 60.13 shall be followed for installation, evaluation, and operation of the continuous monitoring systems required under this section. All continuous monitoring systems shall be operated in accordance with the applicable procedures under Performance Specifications 1, 3, and 5 of appendix B of this part. * * * * * § 60.752 [Amended] 4. By revising § 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) to read as follows: § 60.752 Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste landfills * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (iii) * * * (A) An open flare designed and operated in accordance with § 60.18, except that the net heating value of the combusted landfill gas is calculated from the concentration of methane in the landfill gas as measured by Method 3C. Other organic components, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide are not measured; * * * * * Appendix A [Amended] 5. In Appendix A, by adding Section 6.7 to Method 24 to read as follows: Dated: July 26, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. § 60.106 § 60.284 Monitoring of emissions and operations. Jkt 205001 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. * * * * * Appendix B [Amended] 6. In Appendix B, by adding a sentence to Section 13.2 of Performance Specification 2 to read as follows: Performance Specification 2— Specifications and Test Procedures for SO2 and NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources * * * * * 13.2 * * * For SO2 emission standards of 130 to and including 86 ng/J (0.30 and 0.20 lb/million Btu), inclusive, use 15 percent of the applicable standard; below 86 ng/J (0.20 lb/million Btu), use 20 percent of the emission standard. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 7. In Appendix B, Performance Specification 11: A. By revising Sections 3.4 and 8.6; B. By revising paragraphs (1)(ii), (2), (4), and (5) of Section 12.3; C. By revising paragraph (3)(ii) of Section 12.4; D. By revising (2) and (3) of Section 13.2; E. By adding references 16.8 and 16.9 to Section 16.0; and F. By revising Table 1 in Section 17.0. The revisions and addition read as follows: 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 onehalf 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 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) How do I evaluate a linear correlation for my correlation test data? * * * * * (ii) Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) for the ˆ predicted PM concentration (y) at the mean value of x, using Equation 11–8: CI = t df , 1− a / 2 ⋅ S L 1 n ( Eq. 11-8) 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 E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 EP08AU05.045</MATH> not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 45615 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules S1 S2 S3 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: ˆ y = b 0 + b1x + b 2 x 2 Where: ˆ y = 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: S0  n n n n S 5  b 0  S3  , b =  b1  , B = S6  ⋅ S 1 = ∑ ( x i ) , S2 = ∑ x 2 , S3 = ∑ x 3 , S 4 = ∑ x i4 i i S 7  b 2  i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1 S4       ( ) n n n i =1 i =1 i =1 ( ( ) ) S5 = ∑ (y i ) , S6 = ∑ (x i y i ) , S 7 = ∑ x 2 y i ⋅ i 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: (S5 ⋅ S2 ⋅ S4 + S1 ⋅ S3 ⋅ S7 + S2 ⋅ S6 ⋅ S3 − S7 ⋅ S2 ⋅ S2 − S3 ⋅ S3 ⋅ S5 − S4 ⋅ S6 ⋅ S1 ) b1 = (n ⋅ S6 ⋅ S4 + S5 ⋅ S3 ⋅ S2 + S2 ⋅ S1 ⋅ S7 − S2 ⋅ S6 ⋅ S2 − S7 ⋅ S3 ⋅ n − S4 ⋅ S1 ⋅ S5 ) b2 = (n ⋅ S2 ⋅ S7 + S1 ⋅ S6 ⋅ S2 + S5 ⋅ S1 ⋅ S3 − S2 ⋅ S2 ⋅ S5 − S3 ⋅ S6 ⋅ n − S7 ⋅ S1 ⋅ S1 ) ( Eq. 11-19) det A det A det A (Eq. 11- 20) (Eq. 11- 21) Where: 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (Eq. 11-17) 17) ( Eq. 11-18) b0 = VerDate jul<14>2003 ( Eq. 11-16) E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 EP08AU05.056</MATH> ( Eq. 11-13) EP08AU05.055</MATH> Where: TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM ˆ concentration (y) 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? TI ⋅100% EL EP08AU05.054</MATH> TI% = Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM concentration (y) at the mean x value as a percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11–13: EP08AU05.053</MATH> Where: TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM ˆ concentration (y) at the mean x value, kT = as calculated using Equation 11– 12, and ( Eq. 11-10) Where: CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the n A =  S1 S2  ( Eq. 11-11) EP08AU05.052</MATH> CI ⋅ 100% EL TI = k T ⋅ SL 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). EP08AU05.051</MATH> CI% = Where: EP08AU05.050</MATH> Calculate the confidence interval half range for the predicted PM ˆ concentration (y) at the mean x value as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11–10: (iii) Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval (TI) for the predicted ˆ PM concentration (y) at the mean x value using Equation 11–11: ( Eq. 11-12) EP08AU05.049</MATH> ( Eq. 11-9) k T = u n ’ ⋅ v df EP08AU05.048</MATH> 1 2 ˆ ∑ (y i − y i ) n − 2 i =1 SL = SL = as calculated using Equation 11– 9: EP08AU05.047</MATH> n predicted PM concentration at the mean x value, and EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2. EP08AU05.046</MATH> ˆ SL = the scatter or deviation of y values about the correlation curve, which is determined using Equation 11–9: 45616 3 − S2 2 ) , C = (nS 3 D 4 − S2 2 ) , C = (S ⋅ S 1 4 D 2 − nS3 ) D , C5 = (nS 2 2 − S1 D ) (Eq. 11-23) ( ) ( 2 2 D = n S2 ⋅ S 4 − S3 + S1 (S3 ⋅ S2 − S1 ⋅ S 4 ) + S2 S1 ⋅ S3 − S2 ) EP08AU05.068</MATH> Where: (Eq. 11-24) Determine the x value that corresponds to the minimum value D (Dmin). Determine the scatter or deviation ˆ of y values about the polynomial correlation curve (SP) using Equation 11–26: SP = 1 n 2 ˆ ∑ (y i − y i ) n − 3 i =1 CI = t df ⋅ Sp ∆ min ( Eq. 11-27) 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 Dmin as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11–28: CI% = CI ⋅ 100% EL ( Eq. 11-28) Where: CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to Dmin, 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 Dmin, as indicated in VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 SP ( Eq. 11-29 Where: k T = u n ’ ⋅ v df ( Eq. 11-26) Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) for the ˆ predicted PM concentration (y) at the x value that corresponds to Dmin using Equation 11–27: (Eq. 11-25) Equation 11–29 for the polynomial correlation, using Equations 11–30 and 11–31: TI = k T n’= ( Eq. 11-30) 1 ( Eq. 11-31) ∆ min 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 Dmin as a percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11–32: TI% = TI ⋅100% EL ( Eq. 11-32) Where: TI = the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to Dmin, and EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2. (iv) Calculate the polynomial correlation coefficient (r) using Equation 11–33: r = 1− S2 P S2 y ( Eq. 11-33) Where: PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 EP08AU05.067</MATH> Calculate D using Equation 11–25 for each x value: ∆ = C 0 + 2 C1 x + ( 2 C 2 + C 3 )x 2 + 2 C 4 x 3 + C 5 x 3 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: x ˆ y = b 0 e b1 ( Eq. 11-37) (i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of each PM concentration measurement (y values) using Equation 11–38: y ’ = Ln( y i ) i ( Eq. 11-38) 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. ˆ y’= b ’ + b1x 0 ( Eq. 11-39) Where: ˆ y’ = 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. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 EP08AU05.070</MATH> 1 EP08AU05.069</MATH> (S ⋅ S EP08AU05.066</MATH> D , C2 = EP08AU05.065</MATH> 1 ⋅ S2 − S1 ⋅ S4 ) EP08AU05.064</MATH> 3 EP08AU05.063</MATH> D ) , C = (S EP08AU05.062</MATH> 2 ⋅ S4 − S3 EP08AU05.061</MATH> 2 EP08AU05.060</MATH> (S EP08AU05.059</MATH> C0 = first calculating the C coefficients (C0 to C5) using Equations 11–23 and 11–24: EP08AU05.058</MATH> (ii) Calculate the 95 percent confidence interval half range (CI) by (Eq.11-22) EP08AU05.057</MATH> det A = n ⋅ S2 ⋅ S 4 − S2 ⋅ S2 ⋅ S2 + S1 ⋅ S3 ⋅ S2 − S3 ⋅ S3 ⋅ n + S2 ⋅ S1 ⋅ S3 − S 4 ⋅ S1 ⋅ S1 EP08AU05.071</MATH> Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules (Eq. 11-42) 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: LTL’ = y’ − TI’ ( Eq. 11-43) 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. ˆ y = b 0 x b1 ( Eq. 11- 46) (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 maximum or minimum = - * * * * * 13.2 What performance criteria must my PM CEMS correlation satisfy? * * * * * VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 b1 2b 2 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 * * * * * 12.4 What correlation model should I use? * * * * * (3) * * * (ii) Calculate the minimum value using Equation 11–48. ( Eq. 11- 48) (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. PO 00000 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. (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 E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM EP08AU05.080</MATH> ( Eq. 11- 45) (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. EP08AU05.079</MATH> e UCL’ − e LCL’ 2 e UTL’ - e LTL’ 2 ˆ y’ = 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. EP08AU05.078</MATH> CI = TI = Where: EP08AU05.077</MATH> 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 logtransformed PM concentrations, and CI’ = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the ˆ predicted PM concentration (y’), 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: ( Eq. 11- 47) EP08AU05.076</MATH> (Eq. 11-41) ˆ y ’= b ’ + b1x ’ 0 EP08AU05.075</MATH> UCL’= y’+ CI’ 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 logtransformed PM concentrations, and TI’ = the half range of the 95 percent tolerance interval for the predicted ˆ PM concentration (y’), as calculated in Equation 11–11. Calculate the half range tolerance interval (TI) on the original PM concentration scale using Equation 11– 45: paragraph (1)(i) of this section. The resulting equation will have the form indicated by Equation 11–47: EP08AU05.074</MATH> (Eq. 11-40) ( Eq. 11- 44) 08AUP1 EP08AU05.073</MATH> LCL’= y’ − CI’ UTL’ = y’+ TI’ EP08AU05.072</MATH> (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: 45617 45618 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 D 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 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 D 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 What Reference Tables and Validation Data Are Relevant to PS–11? * * * * * TABLE 1.—FACTORS FOR CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE AND TOLERANCE INTERVAL HALF RANGES Student’s t, t df df Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95% confidence level V df (95%) 3 ....................................................................................................................... 4 ....................................................................................................................... 5 ....................................................................................................................... 6 ....................................................................................................................... 7 ....................................................................................................................... 8 ....................................................................................................................... 9 ....................................................................................................................... 10 ..................................................................................................................... 11 ..................................................................................................................... 12 ..................................................................................................................... 13 ..................................................................................................................... 14 ..................................................................................................................... 15 ..................................................................................................................... 16 ..................................................................................................................... 17 ..................................................................................................................... 18 ..................................................................................................................... 19 ..................................................................................................................... 20 ..................................................................................................................... 21 ..................................................................................................................... 22 ..................................................................................................................... 23 ..................................................................................................................... 24 ..................................................................................................................... 25 ..................................................................................................................... 26 ..................................................................................................................... 27 ..................................................................................................................... 28 ..................................................................................................................... 29 ..................................................................................................................... 30 ..................................................................................................................... 31 ..................................................................................................................... 32 ..................................................................................................................... 33 ..................................................................................................................... 34 ..................................................................................................................... 35 ..................................................................................................................... 36 ..................................................................................................................... 37 ..................................................................................................................... 38 ..................................................................................................................... 39 ..................................................................................................................... 40 ..................................................................................................................... VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 3.182 2.776 2.571 2.447 2.365 2.306 2.262 2.228 2.201 2.179 2.160 2.145 2.131 2.120 2.110 2.101 2.093 2.086 2.080 2.074 2.069 2.064 2.060 2.056 2.052 2.048 2.045 2.042 2.040 2.037 2.035 2.032 2.030 2.028 2.026 2.024 2.023 2.021 E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 2.920 2.372 2.089 1.915 1.797 1.711 1.645 1.593 1.551 1.515 1.485 1.460 1.437 1.418 1.400 1.384 1.370 1.358 1.346 1.335 1.326 1.316 1.308 1.300 1.293 1.286 1.280 1.274 1.268 1.263 1.258 1.253 1.248 1.244 1.240 1.236 1.232 1.228 08AUP1 u n, (75%) 1.266 1.247 1.233 1.223 1.214 1.208 1.203 1.198 1.195 1.192 1.189 1.186 1.184 1.182 1.181 1.179 1.178 1.177 1.175 1.174 1.173 1.172 1.172 1.171 1.170 1.170 1.169 1.168 1.168 1.167 1.167 1.166 1.166 1.165 1.165 1.165 1.164 1.164 kT 3.697 2.958 2.576 2.342 2.183 2.067 1.979 1.909 1.853 1.806 1.766 1.732 1.702 1.676 1.653 1.633 1.614 1.597 1.582 1.568 1.555 1.544 1.533 1.522 1.513 1.504 1.496 1.488 1.481 1.474 1.467 1.461 1.455 1.450 1.444 1.439 1.435 1.430 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 45619 TABLE 1.—FACTORS FOR CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE AND TOLERANCE INTERVAL HALF RANGES—Continued Student’s t, t df df Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95% confidence level V df (95%) 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... 2.020 2.018 2.017 2.015 2.014 2.013 2.012 2.011 2.010 2.009 2.008 2.007 2.006 2.005 2.004 2.003 2.002 2.002 2.001 2.000 u n, (75%) 1.225 1.222 1.218 1.215 1.212 1.210 1.207 1.204 1.202 1.199 1.197 1.195 1.192 1.190 1.188 1.186 1.184 1.182 1.180 1.179 1.164 1.163 1.163 1.163 1.163 1.162 1.162 1.162 1.162 1.161 1.161 1.161 1.161 1.161 1.160 1.160 1.160 1.160 1.160 1.160 kT 1.425 1.421 1.417 1.413 1.410 1.406 1.403 1.399 1.396 1.393 1.390 1.387 1.384 1.381 1.379 1.376 1.374 1.371 1.369 1.367 References 16.8 (t values) and 16.9 (v df and u n, (values). * * * * * 8. In Appendix B, by adding Performance Specification 16 to read as follows: Appendix B—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 a predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS) to show compliance with your emission limitation(s), you must use the procedures in this performance specification (PS) to determine whether your PEMS has acceptable performance. Use these procedures to certify your PEMS after initial installation and periodically thereafter to ensure the PEMS is operating properly. Additional tests may be required by an applicable regulation or by us, the reviewing authority. If your PEMS contains a diluent (O2 or CO2) measuring component, this must be tested as well. 1.1.1 How do I certify my PEMS after it is installed? We require that a relative accuracy (RA) test and accompanying statistical tests be passed in the initial certification test before your PEMS is acceptable for use in demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Ongoing quality assurance tests must be VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 we require 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 PEMSs that are used in market-based programs and for determining continual compliance with an emission limit than those used to measure excess emissions or indicate control device operation and maintenance (O&M). 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 maintaining and operating your PEMS properly. 2.0 Summary of Performance Specification The following performance tests are required in addition to equipment and measurement location requirements. 2.1 Initial PEMS Certification. 2.1.1 Operation and Maintenance PEMS. PEMS that are used for excess emission reporting and as indicators of control device operation and PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 maintenance must perform a minimum 9-run, 3-level (3 runs at each level) RA test (see Section 8.2). 2.1.2 Compliance and Market Trading PEMS. PEMS that are used for continual compliance standards or in a market trading program must perform a minimum 27-run, 3-level (9 runs at each level) comparison test against the reference method (RM) (see Section 8.1.6). The data are evaluated for bias and by F-test and correlation analysis. 2.2 Periodic Quality Assurance (QA) Assessments. All PEMSs are required to conduct quarterly relative accuracy audits (RAA) and yearly relative accuracy test audits (RATA) to assess ongoing PEMS operation. 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. 3.4 Diluent PEMS means the total equipment required to predict a diluent gas concentration. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 45620 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 outside 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. Simple relationships that use fewer than 3 variables may not be acceptable as PEMS, and such systems must have the Administrator’s approval before use. A PEMS may or may not predict emissions data that are corrected for diluent. 3.7 Reconciled Process Data means substitute data that are generated by a sensor evaluation system to replace that of a failed sensor. 3.8 Relative Accuracy means the accuracy of the PEMS when compared to a RM at the source. The RA is the average difference between the pollutant PEMS and RM data for a specified number of runs plus a 2.5 percent confidence coefficient, divided by the average of the RM tests or the emission standard. For diluent PEMS, the RA may be expressed as a percentage absolute difference between the PEMS and RM. Alternative specifications may be given for low-emitting units. 3.9 Relative Accuracy Audit means a quarterly audit of the PEMS against a portable analyzer meeting the requirements of ASTM D6522–00 or RM for a specified number of runs. 3.10 Relative Accuracy Test Audit means a RA test that is performed at least once every four calendar quarters while the PEMS is operating at the normal operating level. The RATA must not be conducted in consecutive quarters. 3.11 Reference Value means a PEMS baseline value established by RM testing under conditions when all sensors are functioning properly. 3.12 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 crosschecks sensor inputs against other inputs or any other procedure that checks sensor integrity at least daily. 3.13 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 define and make available details on the design of your PEMS. 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 our permission on a caseby-case basis 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 envelopes using graphs and data from the PEMS development process. After the certification test, the PEMS must be operated within these envelopes at all times for the system to be acceptable. If these operating envelopes are not clearly defined, 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 will affect the output of your PEMS. You may only use your 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 greater 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. If PEMS is measuring . . . And if . . . Then your upper limit . . . Uncontrolled emissions, such as NOX at the stack of a natural gas-fired boiler. Uncontrolled emissions, such as NOX at the stack of a natural gas-fired boiler. Controlled emissions .......................................... No regulation says otherwise .......................... Must be 1.25 to 2 times the average potential emission level. Must follow the other regulation. Continual compliance emissions for an applicable regulation. .......................................................................... 6.1.7 Sensor Location and Repair. We recommend you install sensors in an accessible location in order to perform VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 A regulation says otherwise ............................. .......................................................................... repairs and replacements. Permanently installed platforms or ladders may not be needed. If you install sensors in an PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Must be 1.5 to 2.0 times the emission standard emission unit. Must be 1.1 to 1.5 times the emission standard emission unit. the concentration of that applies to your the concentration of that applies to your area which is not accessible, you may be required to shut down the emissions unit to repair or replace a sensor. If E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules necessary after repairing or replacing a sensor, correct the process data to match the data obtained from the originally tested sensor, or conduct another RA test. All sensors must be calibrated as often as needed but in no event less often than recommended by the manufacturers be exceeded. 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 have our prior approval before you use 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 any of the operating ranges will not be considered quality assured. 6.2 Recordkeeping. All valid data recorded by the PEMS must be used to calculate the emission value. For a valid hourly average emission value, each 15minute quadrant of the hour in which the unit combusts any fuel must contain at least one valid 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. 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 affects emissions, e.g., load level. Conduct the specified number of RM tests at the low (minimum to 50 percent of maximum), normal, and high (80 percent to maximum) operating levels as practicable. 8.2.2 Number of RM Tests for O&M PEMS. Conduct at least nine RM tests at the following key parameter operating levels: • Three at a low level. • Three at the normal level. • Three at a high level. VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 You may choose to perform more than nine 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 greater than or equal to nine and each operating level has at least three tests. You must report all data, including the rejected data. 8.2.3 Number of RM Tests for Continual Compliance and MarketTrading PEMS. Conduct at least 27 RM tests at the following key parameter operating levels: • Nine at a low level. • Nine at the normal operating level. • 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 as long as the total number of runs used to determine the RA at each operating level is greater than or equal to 9. 8.2.4 Reference Method Measurement Location. Select an accessible measurement point for the RM that will ensure that you measure emissions representatively. Ensure the location is at least two equivalent stack diameters downstream and a half 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: • Changes in the pollutant concentration are caused solely by diluent leakage, such as leaks from air heaters. • You measure pollutants and diluents simultaneously at the same location. 8.2.5 Traverse Points. Select traverse points that ensure you obtain 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 requirements for selecting 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. 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 cannot use this option after wet scrubbers or at points where PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 45621 two streams with different pollutant concentrations are combined. 4. You may select a different traverse point if you demonstrate and provide verification that it provides a representative sample. If you desire to test at only one traverse point, use the following procedure, or provide supporting information for alternative procedures, to show that the single point yields representative results. 1. Use Method 1 to establish the number and location of traverse points that are normally used to sample the stack or duct. 2. Following the RM procedures, measure emissions at each traverse point for a period of two minutes plus twice the response time of the RM. 3. Determine the average of the emissions from all traverse points. 4. Choose the traverse point with emissions closest to the average emissions from all points as the sampling location for the RM tests. 5. You may select a different traverse point if you can show that it provides a representative sample. 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 3minute period) or at an equal interval of time apart over a 21-minute (or less) 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. You may only use fuels in your unit that have been evaluated this way. 8.2.4 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 as to 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 are on a consistent moisture, temperature, and diluent concentration basis. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 45622 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules C. Compare each average PEMS value to the corresponding average RM value. Use the following guidelines to make these comparisons. If . . . Then . . . The RM has an instrumental or integrated noninstrumental sampling technique. The RM has a grab sampling technique ............ 8.2.5 Relative Accuracy for O&M PEMS. 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 or Market-Trading. 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 normal operating 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 on all 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. If the process cannot be varied to produce a concentration change sufficient for a successful correlation test because of its technical design, the correlation analysis may be temporarily And then . . . Directly compare RM and PEMS results.. Average the results from all grab samples taken during the test run. The test run must include ≥ 3 separate grab measurements. waived by the Administrator if the emission concentration is less than 50 percent of the applicable emission standard. Requests for waiver must be accompanied by RM documentation of the emission concentration. The waiver will be based on the measured value at the time of the waiver. Should a subsequent RATA identify a change in the RM measured value by more than 30 percent, the correlation analysis test must be repeated at the next RATA. 8.3.4 Additional Statistical Tests. Consult the reviewing authority with jurisdiction over your emissions unit for additional requirements. 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 your PEMS’s meeting the performance specifications. Include in the report the documentation used to establish your PEMS parameter envelopes. Consult the EPA regional office or permitting authority with jurisdiction over your emissions unit for additional requirements. 8.5 Reevaluating Your PEMS After a Failed Test, Change in Operations, or Change in Critical PEMS Parameter. After initial certification, if a quarterly RAA or yearly RATA is failed due to a problem with the PEMS, or if changes Compare this average RM result with the PEMS result obtained during the run. occur that 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 operated the emissions unit 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, under the new conditions of 50–100 percent of range. 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 Check ........................ RAA ......................................................... All ....................... Compliance ........ RATA ....................................................... All ....................... ................................................................ 3-test average ≤ 10% of simultaneous PEMS average. Same as for RA in Sec. 13.1 ................ Bias Correction ........................................ PEMS Training ........................................ Sensor Evaluation Alert Test .................. All ....................... All ....................... All ....................... If davg > |cc| ............................................ If Fcritical ≥ F r ≥ 0.8 ................................ See Section 6.1.8 .................................. Daily. Each quarter except quarter when RATA performed. Yearly in quarter when RAA not performed. Determine factor after each RATA. After initial and subsequent RATAs. After each PEMS training. 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 Audit. Perform a RAA consisting of at VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 least three 30-minute portable analyzer determinations each quarter a RATA is not performed. 9.4 Yearly Relative Accuracy Test Audit. Perform a minimum 9-run RATA at the normal operating level on a yearly PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 basis in the quarter that the RAA is not preformed. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 45623 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules r= VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 Eq. 16-2 Sd n Eq. 16-3 12.2.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA of your data using Equation 16– 4. RA = d + cc RM ×100 Eq. 16-4 12.3 Compliance and MarketTrading PEMS Statistical Tests. If your PEMS will be used for continual compliance or market-trading 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 arithmetic mean of the differences determined in Equation 16–1. If the arithmetic mean of the ∑ e p e v − ( ∑ e p )( ∑ e v ) / n  2  ∑ e p −  PO 00000 ( ∑ e p )2 / n   ∑ e 2 − ( ∑ e v )2 / n   v    Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4725 d Eq. 16-6a PEMS 12.3.2 F-test. Conduct an F-test for each of the three RA data sets collected at different parameter operating levels. Calculate the variances of the PEMS and the RM using Equation 16–6. n 12.2.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate the confidence coefficient using Equation 16–3 and Table 16–1. cc = t 0.025 Where: B = 1+           Eq. 16-5 S2 = ∑ (e i − e m ) i =1 n −1 2 Eq. 16-6 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. F= S2 PEMS S2 RM Eq. 16- 7 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 Fdistribution. 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. ( Eq. 16-8) E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM EP08AU05.089</GPH> 2   n   n ∑ di   i =1    ∑ di − n s d =  i =1 n −1      PEMSiAdjusted = PEMSi × B EP08AU05.088</GPH> 12.2.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation of the differences using Equation 16–2 (positive square root). EP08AU05.087</GPH> Eq. 16-1 EP08AU05.086</GPH> 1 n ∑ di n i =1 EP08AU05.085</GPH> d= EP08AU05.084</GPH> 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. ¯ ¯ RM = Average RM 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 and market-trading PEMS, calculate the RA at each operating level. The PEMS must pass the RA criterion at each operating level. 12.2.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences EP08AU05.083</GPH> Analytical Procedure [Reserved] EP08AU05.082</GPH> 11.0 ¯ 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. between paired RM and PEMS observations using Equation 16–1. 08AUP1 EP08AU05.081</GPH> 10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved] 45624 13.0 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules 13.3 PEMS Variance. Your calculated F-value must not be greater than the critical F-value at the 95percent 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. Method Performance. 13.1 PEMS Relative Accuracy. See the relevant regulation for the applicable RA criterion. For PEMS installed to meet New Source Performance Standards, the RA of your PEMS must be no greater than 10 percent when based upon the average RM data (which must be measured in the units of your emission standard). For emissions below 25 percent of the emission standard, 20 percent RA based upon the emission standard may be used. For emissions below 10 percent of the emission standard, average PEMS measurements within 2 ppm of the RM mean value constitutes an acceptable RA test. 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. 14.0 Pollution Prevention. [Reserved] 15.0 Waste Management. [Reserved] 16.0 References. [Reserved] 17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data TABLE 16–1.—T-VALUES FOR ONESIDED, 97.5 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR SELECTED SAMPLE SIZES† n-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t0.025 ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ 12.706 4.303 3.182 2.776 2.571 2.447 TABLE 16–1.—T-VALUES FOR ONESIDED, 97.5 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR SELECTED SAMPLE SIZES†—Continued n-1 t0.025 8 ................................................ 9 ................................................ 10 .............................................. 11 .............................................. 12 .............................................. 13 .............................................. 14 .............................................. 15 .............................................. 16 .............................................. 17 .............................................. 18 .............................................. 19 .............................................. 20 .............................................. 21 .............................................. 22 .............................................. 23 .............................................. 24 .............................................. 25 .............................................. 26 .............................................. 27 .............................................. 28 .............................................. >29 ............................................ 2.365 2.306 2.262 2.228 2.201 2.179 2.160 2.145 2.131 2.120 2.110 2.101 2.093 2.086 2.080 2.074 2.069 2.064 2.060 2.056 2.052 t-Table †(Use n equal to the number of data points (n-1 equals the degrees of freedom). 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 * * * * 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 161.4 18.51 10.13 7.709 6.608 5.987 5.591 5.318 5.117 4.965 4.844 4.747 1 ............................................................... 2 ............................................................... 3 ............................................................... 4 ............................................................... 5 ............................................................... 6 ............................................................... 7 ............................................................... 8 ............................................................... 9 ............................................................... 10 ............................................................. 11 ............................................................. 12 ............................................................. 2 199.5 19.00 9.552 6.944 5.786 5.143 4.734 4.459 4.257 4.103 3.982 3.885 215.7 19.16 9.277 6.591 5.410 4.757 4.347 4.066 3.863 3.709 3.587 3.490 224.6 19.25 9.117 6.388 5.192 4.534 4.120 3.838 3.633 3.478 3.357 3.259 230.2 19.30 9.014 6.256 5.050 4.387 3.971 3.688 3.482 3.326 3.204 3.106 234.0 19.33 8.941 6.163 4.950 4.284 3.866 3.581 3.374 3.217 3.095 2.996 236.8 19.35 8.887 6.094 4.876 4.207 3.787 3.501 3.293 3.136 3.012 2.913 238.9 19.37 8.845 6.041 4.818 4.147 3.726 3.438 3.230 3.072 2.948 2.849 240.5 19.38 8.812 5.999 4.773 4.099 3.677 3.388 3.197 3.020 2.896 2.796 241.8 19.50 8.786 5.964 4.735 4.060 3.637 3.347 3.137 2.978 2.854 2.753 243.0 19.40 8.763 5.935 4.703 4.027 3.603 3.312 3.102 2.942 2.817 2.717 243.9 19.41 8.745 5.912 4.678 4.000 3.575 3.284 3.073 2.913 2.788 2.687 * Appendix F—[Amended] 9. In Procedure 1 of Appendix F, by revising paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 and Section 8 as follows: 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 VerDate jul<14>2003 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 www.epa.gov/ttn/emc. 3. Method 205, ‘‘Verification of Gas Dilution Systems for Field Instrument Calibrations,’’ 40 CFR 51, Appendix M. * * * * * 10. In Procedure 2, by revising Section 10.1, paragraph (3) of Section E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 151 / Monday, August 8, 2005 / Proposed Rules * * * * * 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 ACA Accuracy = Where: 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. * * * * * 11. The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 12. In Method 303 of Appendix A, by adding the following sentence to Section 1.1: Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods * * * * Method 303—Determination of Visible Emissions From By-Product Coke Oven Batteries * * VerDate jul<14>2003 RV × 100% ( Eq. 2-1a) ACA Accuracy=The ACA accuracy at each audit point, in percent, ACA Accuracy = * R CEM − R V * * * 20:26 Aug 05, 2005 Jkt 205001 1.0 C CEM − C RV Cs × 100% 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. * * * * *Q P=’03’≤ [FR Doc. 05–15330 Filed 8–5–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [OPP–2005–0069; FRL–7729–4] Inert Ingredients; Proposal to Revoke 34 Pesticide Tolerance Exemptions for 31 Chemicals; Reopening of Comment Period Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period. AGENCY: This document reopens the public comment periodof EPA’s proposal to revoke 34 exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance that are associated with 31 inert ingredients because, according to Agency records, these substances are no longer contained in active Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 RCEM = Your PM CEMS response to the reference standard, and RV = The reference standard value. ( Eq. 2-1b) Scope and Application SUMMARY: 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. pesticide product registrations (70 FR 31401, June 1, 2005). Comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPP– 2005–0069, must be received on or before August 31, 2005. DATES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of June 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Angulo, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 306–0404; fax number: (703) 305– 0599; e-mail address: angulo.karen@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? The Agency included in the proposed rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM 08AUP1 EP08AU05.091</GPH> Procedure 2—Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources 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. * * * * * EP08AU05.090</GPH> 10.4, paragraph (2) of Section 12.0 as follows: 45625

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 151 (Monday, August 8, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45608-45625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15330]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

OAR-2003-0074

[FRL-7947-5]
RIN 2060-AG21


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing performance 
specifications (PS) that evaluate the acceptability of predictive 
emission monitoring systems (PEMS) when used on stationary sources. 
This PS is needed to provide sources and regulatory agencies with 
performance criteria for evaluating this new technology. The intended 
effect of this action is to establish standardized performance 
requirements that will be used to evaluate candidate PEMS uniformly. 
The affected industries and their Standard Industrial Classification 
codes are listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. In addition, we are 
proposing to make minor amendments to various testing provisions in the 
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (MACT) to correct 
inadvertent errors, make needed updates, and add flexibility.

DATES: Comments: Submit comments on or before October 7, 2005.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 23, 2005, we will hold a public hearing on 
September 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in Unit IB of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 
a.m. in the EPA Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or 
at an alternate site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. OAR-2003-0074, contains information relevant to 
this rule. You can read and copy it between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, (except for Federal holidays), at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 108, 
1301 Constitution Ave., Washington, DC 20004; telephone (202) 566-1742. 
The docket office may charge a reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foston Curtis, Emission Measurement 
Center, Mail Code D205-02, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 541-1063; facsimile number (919) 
541-0516; electronic mail address curtis.foston@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Affected Entities

    Predictive emission monitoring systems are not currently required 
in any Federal rule. However, they may be used under the 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 emission monitoring tool. The major entities 
that are potentially affected by Proposed Performance Specification 16 
and amendments to the subparts are included in the following tables.

    Table 1.--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action for
 Proposed Performance Specification 16 and for Petroleum Refinery NSPS,
       Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Examples of regulated entities          SIC codes      NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial, Commercial, Institutional               3569          332410
 Steam Generating Units.................
Stationary Gas Turbines.................            3511          333611
Petroleum Refineries....................            2911          324110
Kraft Pulp Mills........................            2621          322110
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.........            4953          562213
Surface Coatings........................            3479  336111, 336112
Coke Ovens..............................            3312        33111111
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 2.--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action for
 Amendments to Performance Specification 11 and Procedure 2, Appendix F,
                                 Part 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Examples of regulated entities          SIC codes      NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Cement Manufacturing...........            3559          333298

[[Page 45609]]

 
Hazardous Waste Incinerators............            4953          562211
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 3.--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action for
     Amendments to Performance Specification 2, Appendix B, Part 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Examples of regulated entities          SIC codes      NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel Steam Generators............            3569          332410
Electric Generating Units...............            3569          332410
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional                 3569          332410
 Steam Generating Units.................
Small Industrial/Commercial/                        3569          332410
 Institutional Steam Generating Units...
Municipal Waste Combustors..............            4953          562213
Nitric Acid Plants......................            2873          525311
Sulfuric Acid Plants....................            2819          325188
Petroleum Refineries....................            2911          324110
Primary Copper Smelters.................            3331          331411
Primary Zinc Smelters...................            3339          331419
Primary Lead Smelters...................            3339          331419
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4.--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action for
              Amendments to Method 24, Appendix A, Part 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Examples of regulated entities          SIC codes      NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubber Tire Manufacturing...............            3011          326211
Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and             2754          323111
 Printing...............................
Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities........            3695          334613
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for                3479          326199
 Business Machines......................
Polymetric Coating of Supporting                    2824          332812
 Substrates Facilities..................
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture......            2514          337124
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface             5012          336111
 Coating................................
Graphic Arts Industry: Publication                  2754          323111
 Rotogravure Printing...................
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label                   2672          322222
 Surface Coating Operations.............
Indusrial Surface Coating: Large                    5064          421620
 Appliances.............................
Metal Coil Surface Coating..............            3479          335931
Beverage Can Surface Coating............            3411          332812
Aerospace...............................            3721           33641
Boat and Ship Manufacturing and Repair        3731, 3732  ..............
 Surface Coating........................
Fabric Printing, Coating and Dyeing.....            2759  ..............
Leather Finishing.......................            3111  ..............
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.....            3479  ..............
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products..            3479  ..............
Paper and other Web Surface Coating.....            2741
Plastic Parts Surface Coating...........            3479
Printing and Publishing Surface Coating.            2741  ..............
Wood Building Products..................            2499  ..............
Wood Furniture..........................      2511, 2521  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These tables are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
an example of entities that may be affected by this action. 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.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0074. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Documents in the official 
public docket are listed in the index list in EPA's electronic public 
docket and comment system, EDOCKET. Documents may be available either 
electronically or in hard copy. Electronic documents may be viewed 
through EDOCKET. Hard copy documents may be viewed at Docket OAR-2003-
0074, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 566-1742. 
The docket facility 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.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ or you can go to the federal 
wide eRulemaking site at http://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 45610]]

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EDOCKET. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the 
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents 
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the 
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket 
identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not 
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only 
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EDOCKET, the system will identify whether the document is 
available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Publicly 
available docket materials that are not available electronically may be 
viewed at the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. The EPA intends 
to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly 
available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the 
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket, 
visit EDOCKET online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject 
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
The EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late 
comments may be considered if time permits.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that 
EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact 
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made 
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EDOCKET. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit 
comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving 
comments. Go directly to EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's 
electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select 
``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EDOCKET.'' Once in the 
system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0074. 
The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not 
know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless 
you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic comments may also be 
sent through the federal wide eRulemaking web site at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    iii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-
and-r-docket@epamail.gov, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0074. In 
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not 
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly 
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, 
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iv. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send duplicate copies of your comments to: 
``Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring 
Systems,'' Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2003-0074.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA 
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0074. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.
    4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: 202-566-1741, Attention: 
Docket ID. No. OAR-2003-0074.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the docket 
address to the attention of Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0074. You may claim 
information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of 
that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). 
Information so

[[Page 45611]]

marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket 
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your 
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and 
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 16
    A. What Is the Purpose of PS-16?
    B. Who Must Comply With PS-16?
    C. What Are the Basic Requirements of PS-16?
    D. What Is the Rationale for the Performance Criteria in PS-16?
III. Summary of Other Amendments
    A. Petroleum Refinery (Subpart J) NSPS
    B. Kraft Pulp Mill (Subpart BB) NSPS
    C. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Subpart WWW) NSPS
    D. Method 24 of Appendix A of Part 60
    E. Performance Specification 2 of Appendix B of Part 60
    F. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60
    G. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63
IV. 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: Action Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

    Today we are proposing Performance Specification 16 for Predictive 
Emission Monitoring Systems to Appendix B, Part 60. Predictive emission 
monitoring systems are a new and innovative tool for monitoring 
pollutant emissions without the traditional hardware analyzers. The 
PEMS predicts a unit's emissions indirectly using process parameters 
that have a known relationship to pollutant concentration. Their 
principle of operation can range from a relatively simple relationship 
based on combustion principles to the more complex computer models that 
are trained to predict emissions using neural networks technology. They 
have been used for monitoring purposes at industrial, commercial, and 
institutional steam-generating units, gas turbines, internal combustion 
engines, and other combustion processes where process parameters have a 
predictable relationship to emissions. We are also proposing to make 
amendments to the testing and monitoring provisions of various NSPS and 
MACT rules.

II. Summary of Proposed Performance Specification 16

A. What Is the Purpose of PS-16?

    The purpose of PS-16 is to establish the initial installation and 
performance procedures that candidate PEMS must meet to be acceptable 
for use. The specification stipulates equipment design and 
documentation, location, and addresses initial and periodic performance 
tests of the PEMS.

B. Who Must Comply With PS-16?

    If adopted as a final rule, all PEMS that will be used to comply 
with 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 will be required to comply with PS-16. 
In addition to new PEMS that are installed after the effective date of 
PS-16, other PEMS may also be required to comply with PS-16 at the 
discretion of the applicable regulatory agency or permit writer.

C. What Are the Basic Requirements of PS-16?

    The PS-16 requires owners and operators of affected PEMS to: (1) 
Select a PEMS that satisfies basic design criteria; (2) verify and 
document their PEMS; (3) validate their PEMS against a reference method 
using prescribed statistical procedures prior to placing it into 
operation; and (4) periodically reassess their PEMS's performance. The 
performance requirements for PS-16 follow the general performance 
requirements for continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) in 
Appendix B of Part 60. A relative accuracy (RA) test of the PEMS 
against a reference method is the primary assessment of accuracy. The 
number of runs prescribed for the RA test will depend upon the 
underlying regulation.

D. What Is the Rationale for the Performance Criteria in PS-16?

    The Agency is allowing, but not requiring, PEMS use in a number of 
recently-promulgated rules, and a number of facilities regulated by 
State and Local agencies are considering their use. Past EPA approvals 
of PEMS were based on criteria provided in the draft performance 
specifications on the Agency's Emission Measurement Center website. In 
other cases, performance specifications developed by State or Local 
Agencies were used to evaluate the PEMS. We are proposing PS-16 to 
provide regulatory agencies a uniform procedure for assessing the 
capabilities of this new monitoring tool.

III. Summary of Other Amendments

A. Petroleum Refinery (Subpart J) NSPS

    In the petroleum refinery NSPS in Sec.  60.106(b)(3) the equation 
for determining the coke burnoff rate is being corrected.

B. Kraft Pulp Mill (Subpart BB) NSPS

    In the monitoring provisions of the kraft pulp mills NSPS in Sec.  
60.284, a paragraph requiring continuous emission monitors be subject 
to the quality assurance provisions of Appendix F that was added by 
mistake in an October 17, 2000 amendment is being deleted.

C. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (Subpart WWW) NSPS

    Under the municipal solid waste landfill NSPS in Sec.  60.752, the 
requirement to test open flares for heat content and flare exit 
velocity using Methods 18 and ASTM D1946 is being

[[Page 45612]]

changed to require Method 3C. These open flares must comply with the 
general flare provisions of 40 CFR 60.18, which require that flare gas 
heat content and flare exit velocity be within prescribed limits. The 
heat content of flare gas is determined from an analysis of its organic 
compound and hydrogen content using Method 18 and ASTM D1946, 
respectively. Methane is the only significant organic compound in 
landfill gas and hydrogen is not likely to be present. Therefore, 
Method 18 and ASTM D1946 are not practical methods for landfill 
applications. Method 3C is less labor-intensive than Method 18 and has 
the preferred measuring range for methane levels encountered at 
landfills. In addition, Method 3C determines oxygen and nitrogen which 
are currently determined by an additional method and are needed to 
calculate the flare gas exit velocity. We are proposing that Method 3C 
be required as the test method for methane in place of Method 18 and 
ASTM D1946 for organics and hydrogen.

D. Method 24 of Appendix A of Part 60

    Method 24, Part 60, Appendix A 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 
are proposing to amend Method 24 to allow this option.

E. Performance Specification 2, Part 60, Appendix B

    In Performance Specification 2, Part 60, Appendix B, an inadvertent 
omission in an October 17, 2000 amendment removed an allowance for 
relative accuracy relief for low-emitters. We are proposing to 
reinstate the allowance.

F. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix of Appendix B of Part 60

    The publication on January 12, 2004 of Performance Specification 11 
for Appendix B and Procedure 2 for Part 60, Appendix F contained 
technical and typographical errors and unclear instructions. We are 
revising 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, 
correcting errors in Equations 11-22, 11-27, and 11-37, correcting 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 adding a note following paragraph (5)(v) 
concerning the application of correlation equations to calculate PM 
concentrations using the response data from an operating PM CEMS. We 
are also renumbering some equations and references for clarification, 
consistency, and accuracy.

G. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63

    In Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63, we are proposing to add a 
statement on varying the time of day runs are taken that was deleted by 
mistake in a recent amendment of the method.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of 
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or 
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    We have determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review. We have determined that this regulation would 
result in none of the economic effects set forth in Section 1 of the 
Order because it does not impose emission measurement requirements 
beyond those specified in the current regulations, nor does it change 
any emission standard.

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. 
This actions provides performance criteria for a new monitoring tool 
that may be used in some cases in place of current source monitoring 
requirements. These criteria do not add information collection 
requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable 
regulation. The additional amendments being made to the testing 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60 do no add information collection 
requirements but make minor corrections to existing testing 
methodology.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(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. Entities potentially affected by this action

[[Page 45613]]

include those listed in Table 1 of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We are 
allowing, but not requiring, PEMS use in a number of recently-
promulgated rules, and a number of facilities regulated by State and 
Local agencies are considering their use. The intended effect of this 
action is to facilitate the use of PEMS by establishing levels of 
acceptability for candidate PEMS. In addition, we are proposing to make 
minor amendments to various testing provisions in the New Source 
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (MACT) to correct 
inadvertent errors, make needed updates, and add flexibility. We invite 
comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, Local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, or Tribal 
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty 
on any State, Local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. In 
any event, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, Local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

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'' are 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 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. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and Local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule 
from State and Local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Tribal 
Governments

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

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) 
is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not based on health or 
safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is

[[Page 45614]]

not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. NTTAA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272), directs us to 
use voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) in our 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, 
business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. 
The NTTAA requires us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
when we decide not to use available and applicable VCSs. We are not 
proposing new test methods in this rulemaking but are adding 
performance requirements for a new monitoring tool that can be used as 
an alternative to what has already been mandated. Therefore, NTTAA does 
not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, New sources, Test 
methods and procedures, Performance specifications, and Continuous 
emission monitors.

    Dated: July 26, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

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


Sec.  60.106  [Amended]

    2. By revising the equation in Sec.  60.106(b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  60.106  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *

RC = K1Qr (%CO2 + %CO) + 
(K2Qa - K3Qr)((%CO / 2) + 
(%CO2 + %O2))
* * * * *


Sec.  60.284  [Amended]

    3. By revising Sec.  60.284(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.284  Monitoring of emissions and operations.

* * * * *
    (f) The procedures under Sec.  60.13 shall be followed for 
installation, evaluation, and operation of the continuous monitoring 
systems required under this section. All continuous monitoring systems 
shall be operated in accordance with the applicable procedures under 
Performance Specifications 1, 3, and 5 of appendix B of this part.
* * * * *


Sec.  60.752  [Amended]

    4. By revising Sec.  60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) to read as follows:


Sec.  60.752  Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste 
landfills

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) An open flare designed and operated in accordance with Sec.  
60.18, except that the net heating value of the combusted landfill gas 
is calculated from the concentration of methane in the landfill gas as 
measured by Method 3C. Other organic components, hydrogen, and carbon 
monoxide are not measured;
* * * * *

Appendix A [Amended]

    5. In Appendix A, by adding Section 6.7 to Method 24 to read as 
follows:

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.
* * * * *

Appendix B [Amended]

    6. In Appendix B, by adding a sentence to Section 13.2 of 
Performance Specification 2 to read as follows:

Performance Specification 2--Specifications and Test Procedures for 
SO2 and NOX Continuous Emission Monitoring 
Systems in Stationary Sources

* * * * *
    13.2 * * * For SO2 emission standards of 130 to and 
including 86 ng/J (0.30 and 0.20 lb/million Btu), inclusive, use 15 
percent of the applicable standard; below 86 ng/J (0.20 lb/million 
Btu), use 20 percent of the emission standard.
* * * * *
    7. In Appendix B, Performance Specification 11:
    A. By revising Sections 3.4 and 8.6;
    B. By revising paragraphs (1)(ii), (2), (4), and (5) of Section 
12.3;
    C. By revising paragraph (3)(ii) of Section 12.4;
    D. By revising (2) and (3) of Section 13.2;
    E. By adding references 16.8 and 16.9 to Section 16.0; and
    F. By revising Table 1 in Section 17.0.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

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 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) How do I evaluate a linear correlation for my correlation test 
data?
* * * * *
    (ii) Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval 
(CI) for the predicted PM concentration (y) at the mean value of x, 
using Equation 11-8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.045

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

[[Page 45615]]

SL = the scatter or deviation of y values about the 
correlation curve, which is determined using Equation 11-9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.046

    Calculate the confidence interval half range for the predicted PM 
concentration (y) at the mean x value as a percentage of the emission 
limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.047

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 (y) at the mean x value using Equation 
11-11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.048

Where:

TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM 
concentration (y) at the mean x value,
kT = as calculated using Equation 11-12, and
SL = as calculated using Equation 11-9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.049

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 (y) at the mean x value as a percentage of 
the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.050

Where:

TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM 
concentration (y) 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] TP08AU05.051

Where:

y = 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] TP08AU05.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.053

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] TP08AU05.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.056

Where:

[[Page 45616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.057

    (ii) Calculate the 95 percent confidence interval half range (CI) 
by first calculating the C coefficients (C0 to 
C5) using Equations 11-23 and 11-24:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.058

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.059

    Calculate [Delta] using Equation 11-25 for each x value:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.060
    
    Determine the x value that corresponds to the minimum value [Delta] 
([Delta]min). Determine the scatter or deviation of y values 
about the polynomial correlation curve (SP) using Equation 
11-26:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.061

    Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI) 
for the predicted PM concentration (y) at the x value that corresponds 
to [Delta]min using Equation 11-27:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.062

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] TP08AU05.063

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] TP08AU05.064

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.066

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] TP08AU05.067

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] TP08AU05.068

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.069

    (i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of each PM concentration 
measurement (y values) using Equation 11-38:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.070

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] TP08AU05.071

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.


[[Page 45617]]


    (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] TP08AU05.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.073

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] TP08AU05.074

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] TP08AU05.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AU05.076

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] TP08AU05.077

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] TP08AU05.078

    (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] TP08AU05.079

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] TP08AU05.080
    
* * * * *
    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

[[Page 45618]]

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 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 What Reference Tables and Validation Data Are Relevant to PS-11?
* * * * *

               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                              t df      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    V df (95%)      u n, (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           1.4