Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program, 55636-55657 [2010-21820]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55636-55657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21820]



[[Page 55635]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61, et al.



Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 55636]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0531; FRL-9195-7]
RIN 2060-AP23


Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to promulgate amendments to the 
General Provisions to allow accredited providers to supply stationary 
source audit samples and to require sources to obtain and use these 
samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA, as is the 
current practice. All requirements pertaining to the audit samples have 
been moved to the General Provisions and have been removed from the 
test methods because the current language in the test methods regarding 
audit samples is inconsistent from method to method. Therefore, 
deleting all references to audit samples in the test methods eliminates 
any possible confusion and inconsistencies. Under this final rule, the 
requirement to use an audit sample during a compliance test will apply 
to all test methods for which a commercially available audit exists.

DATES: This final rule is effective 30 days after September 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0531. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Restructuring of the 
Stationary Source Audit Program Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2008-
0531, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. The docket 
telephone number is (202) 566-1742. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office 
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, 
Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1064; fax number: (919) 541-0516; e-
mail address: sorrell.candace@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action would apply to you if you operate a stationary source 
that is subject to applicable requirements to conduct compliance 
testing under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
    In addition, this action would apply to you if Federal, State, or 
local agencies take certain additional actions. For example, this 
action would apply if State or local agencies implement regulations 
using any of the stationary source compliance test methods in Appendix 
M of Part 51 by adopting these methods in rules or permits (either by 
incorporation by reference or by duplicating the method in its 
entirety).
    The source categories and entities potentially affected include, 
but are not limited to, the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category                 NAICS \a\            entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................     336111 336112  Surface Coating.
Industry......................            332410  Industrial,
                                                   Commercial,
                                                   Institutional Steam
                                                   Generating Units.
Industry......................            332410  Electric Generating
                                                   Units.
Industry......................            333611  Stationary Gas
                                                   Turbines.
Industry......................            324110  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry......................            562213  Municipal Waste
                                                   Combustors.
Industry......................            322110  Pulp and Paper Mills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action and other related 
information?

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

C. How is this document organized?

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. How is this document organized?
II. Background
III. This Action
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
    A. Accreditation Program vs. Audit Program
    B. Alternatives to Restructuring the Audit Program
    C. Test Method Bias With Respect to the Audit Program
    D. Terms Need Defining or Clarifying
    E. Audit Sample Failure and Non-Compliance
    F. Reporting Period
    G. Choosing Correct Concentration for an Audit Sample
    H. Cost Estimates
    I. Requiring the Same Analyst and Analytical System for Sample 
Analysis
    J. When are audit samples required?
    K. Audit Sample Availability
    L. Setting Acceptance Limits
    M. Audit Samples Should Not Apply to Instrumental Methods
    N. Notice and Comment Procedure
    O. Field Analysis of Audit Samples
    P. Audit Sample Matrix
    Q. Audit Results Reporting and Availability
    R. External QA Program
    S. No Justification for the Program
    T. Consistency
    U. Ordering Audit Samples
    V. EPA Maintained List of Audit Providers
    W. 2003 Study on Quality Gas Cylinder Samples
    X. Proposal Is Premature
    Y. Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) Standard Does Not 
Meet EPA's Needs
    Z. Gas Audit Samples Entry Point
V. Judicial Review

[[Page 55637]]

VI. 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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

II. Background

    The Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP) was 
proposed in the Federal Register on June 16, 2009, with a public 
comment period that ended July 16, 2009 (74 FR 28451). A public 
commenter asked that the comment period be extended. We extended the 
public comment period until August 5, 2009 (74 FR 31903). A total of 21 
comment letters were received on the proposed rule. We have compiled 
and responded to the public comments and made appropriate changes to 
the final rule based on the comments.

III. This Action

    This action finalizes revisions to the General Provisions of Parts 
51, 60, 61, and 63 to allow accredited audit sample providers to supply 
stationary source audit samples and to require sources to obtain and 
use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA, as 
was the practice. It also revises test methods 5I, 6, 6A-C, 7, 7A-D, 8, 
15A, 16A, 18, 23, 25, 25C, 25D, 26, 26A, 104, 106, 108, 108A-C, 204A-F, 
306, 306A, and 308 to delete any language pertaining to audit samples. 
By adding language to the General Provisions of Parts 51, 60, 61 and 
63, the requirement to obtain and use audits for stationary source 
compliance testing using EPA stationary source test methods is expanded 
and clarified. The previous General Provisions and EPA test methods 
were not consistent in their language concerning the use or 
availability of audit samples. This action will potentially increase 
the number of test methods required to use audit samples and clarify 
how the samples are to be obtained and used. By clarifying the 
requirement for audit samples and expanding their availability through 
multiple providers, EPA believes audit samples will be used during more 
compliance tests and, therefore, the overall quality of the data used 
for determining compliance will improve.
    This action finalizes the regulatory criteria which list the 
minimum requirements for the audit samples, the accredited audit sample 
providers (AASP), and the audit sample provider acceditor (ASPA). The 
AASP is the company that prepares and distributes the audit samples and 
the ASPA is a third-party organization that will accredit and monitor 
the performance of the AASPs. Both the AASP and the ASPA must work with 
a Voluntary Consensus Standard Body (VCSB) using the consensus process 
to develop criteria documents that describe how they will function and 
meet EPA regulatory criteria listed in this rule. The Federal Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-119 defines a VCSB as one having the 
following attributes: (i) Openness; (ii) balance of interest; (iii) due 
process; (iv) an appeals process; and (v) consensus, which is general 
agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for 
attempting to resolve objections by interested parties. As long as all 
comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the 
disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reason(s) why, and the 
consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes 
after reviewing the comments.
    AASPs must be accredited by an ASPA according to a technical 
criteria document developed by a VCSB. The technical criteria document 
must meet EPA regulations. There may be many AASPs and more than one 
ASPA and VCSB. We predict that initially there will only be one VCSB.
    This action finalizes language that outlines the responsibilities 
of the regulated source owner or operator to acquire and use an audit 
sample for all testing conducted to determine compliance with an air 
emission limit. The requirement applies only if there are commercially 
available audit samples for the test method used during the compliance 
testing. The source owner, operator or representative shall report the 
results for the audit sample along with a summary of the emission test 
results for the audited pollutant to the appropriate compliance 
authority.
    In addition to allowing private AASPs to provide audit samples for 
the stationary source audit program, this action shifts the burden of 
obtaining an audit sample from the compliance authority to the source. 
In the past, the EPA provided the samples to the compliance authorities 
at no cost, but this action requires the source to purchase the samples 
from an accredited provider. The samples will vary in cost depending on 
the type of audit sample required; however, the cost will be a very 
small portion of the cost of a compliance test (approximately one 
percent). Based on historical data, EPA estimates that the total cost 
to industry to purchase audit samples will be between $150,000 to 
$200,000 per year at the current usage rate.

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

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

A. Accreditation Program vs. Audit Program

    Comment: Several comments suggested that the audit program was not 
needed due to the existence of accreditation programs for laboratories 
or that EPA should conduct a proficiency testing program as part of an 
accreditation program.
    Response: An accreditation program or proficiency testing program 
serves a different purpose than an audit program. An accreditation 
program looks to see if the laboratory has the capabilities to conduct 
the analysis in question. The audit program is an event driven program 
that looks to see at a particular time that the combination of 
equipment and analyzer is able to analyze the sample within an 
acceptable range. Analyzing the audit samples at the same time as the 
field samples using the same equipment and analyst give the compliance 
authorities and the regulated community more confidence in the test 
results.

B. Alternatives to Restructuring the Audit Program

    Comment: A number of commenters suggested alternatives to our 
proposed restructuring of the audit program to allow for independent 
accredited audit sample providers. These alternatives included 
maintaining the audit program as it currently stands in order to 
maintain oversight/authority, charging for audit samples, or conducting 
an EPA accreditation program for audit sample providers.
    Response: We retain oversight authority over all parties who 
develop

[[Page 55638]]

information required by EPA to fully assess the proper implementation 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 114 of the Act gives EPA the 
authority to require the production of information, test results and 
answers to questions EPA may ask. We do not believe that it is 
necessary for EPA to directly provide or approve specific audit samples 
in order to ensure integrity in this program.
    We do not believe it is necessary to develop a program to certify 
audit providers when there are already Voluntary Consensus Bodies in 
existence that have the capabilities to develop such a program with the 
input from a wide variety of stakeholders. Also, EPA is not legally 
allowed to charge for the samples. It would be a violation of the 
Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, 331 U.S.C. Section 3302(b), in addition 
to being an unlawful augmentation of EPA's Congressional appropriation.

C. Test Method Bias With Respect to the Audit Program

    Comment: One commenter noted that by definition a performance audit 
is intended to provide a measure of test data bias. The commenter 
stated that this program is presumably intended as an audit of 
emissions sampling and analysis that would include the sampling 
technique, sample handling, sample preparation, and sample analysis 
accounting for the measurement biases relative to all steps of the 
process. However, this is not clear in the proposed rule. Please 
clarify the intent of the performance audit.
    Response: Most of the current audit samples only evaluate the 
analysis portion of the method; we believe that in the future 
restructured program more audits will assess the effect of sampling and 
handling because we defined blind audit sample as follows: ``A blind 
audit sample is a sample whose value is known only to the sample 
provider and is not revealed to the tested facility until after they 
report the measured value of the audit sample. For pollutants that 
exist in the gas phase at ambient temperature, the audit sample shall 
consist of an appropriate concentration of the pollutant in air or 
nitrogen that will be introduced into the sampling system of the test 
method at or near the same entry point as a sample from the emission 
source.''

D. Terms Need Defining or Clarifying

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the following terms be 
defined in the final rule: Commercially available and true value.
    Response: We agree that ``commercially available'' and ``true 
value'' need to be defined. The final rule has been revised to state 
that an audit sample is ``commercially available'' when there are two 
or more sources for obtaining the audit sample. ``True value'' is the 
spiked/expected value of the audit.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the term ``performance 
audit'' be revised to include the potential for field collection of 
audit samples.
    Response: Our intent was to include field collection and analysis 
in the definition of performance audit. We revised the definition in 
the final rule to state that if gaseous audits are available then they 
must be collected by the field sampling system during the compliance 
test just as the compliance samples are collected.

E. Audit Sample Failure and Non-Compliance

    Comment: Seven commenters oppose the use of audit samples as 
evidence of non-compliance and believe the audit sample results should 
only be used as a tool to assess the quality of the compliance testing 
results but not as the sole reason for finding a facility in non-
compliance when the emission test may demonstrate compliance.
    Response: We believe the audit sample results can and should be 
used to assess the quality of test results for compliance purposes, but 
those audit sample results can and should, as appropriate, also be used 
to assist in establishing non-compliance. Sources may present whatever 
credible evidence they have to compliance officials indicating whether 
or not the audit sample results have a significant bearing on the 
compliance test results.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the rule provide a means 
to appeal or question a retest or compliance action as the result of a 
failed audit. They believe that EPA should provide oversight authority 
to referee such situations, while one commenter suggested a procedure 
to require the audit sample be reanalyzed by the accredited audit 
sample provider.
    Response: Audit samples are not the only criterion used to evaluate 
the quality of the test data; therefore, we do not expect disputes to 
be common. We believe that disputes involving failed audits can be 
negotiated by the parties.

F. Reporting Period

    Comment: Three commenters requested that the final rule include 
additional time to submit a final report if audit results must be 
included in the report or delete the requirement to include the pass/
fail results in the final report.
    Response: Since the purpose of an audit sample is to support the 
credibility of a particular test result, it is important that the pass/
fail result of the audit sample be included in the final test report. 
By privatizing the audit program, facilities will be able to get audit 
results directly from the AASPs which will be much quicker then 
obtaining them from the compliance authorities as in the past. Since 
the procedure for obtaining audit results will now be quicker, the 
final rule does not include additional time to submit a final report.

G. Choosing Correct Concentration for an Audit Sample

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule did 
not provide for compliance authority input into the supplied audit 
concentration levels. This commenter pointed out that while the 
proposal specifies that the source provide an estimate of the pollutant 
concentration(s), there is no compliance authority confirmation, nor 
the option for the compliance authority to make specific requests based 
on the needs for the given test program.
    Response: We agree that the compliance authority should have the 
opportunity for input into the supplied audit sample concentration 
level. The final rule has been revised to require that an acceptable 
criteria document must provide the opportunity for the compliance 
authority to comment with the supplied audit sample concentration 
levels.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Section 60.8(g)(1), ``When 
ordering an audit sample, the source operator, or representative shall 
give the sample provider an estimate for the concentration of each 
pollutant that is emitted by the source and the name, address, and 
phone number of the compliance authority'' will cause confusion because 
a source may or may not know the concentration of the pollutant of 
concern. Because EPA's interest is in ensuring that the emission 
standards are being met, the commenter suggested that the requirement 
should be to provide information on the standard the facility has to 
meet and the concentration that would be expected if the emissions 
equaled the permitted level.
    Response: We agree that the facility could provide information 
based on the facility standard or permit level instead of exact 
emissions. The rule has been revised to allow this option.

H. Cost Estimates

    Comment: Four commenters stated that the cost estimates for audit 
samples

[[Page 55639]]

are low. The commenters also asserted that the cost will be more than 
the EPA's estimate of approximately 1 percent of a source test. One 
commenter cited an example where a NELAC Performance Test (PT) sample 
initially cost $150 and quickly increased to over $900 for just a 
standard SO2 gas audit sample.
    Response: The commenter did not present any evidence to support 
this cost, and we were not able to substantiate the claim. According to 
discussions with the Executive Director of The NELAC Institute, the 
current cost range of SO2 PT samples is approximately $95 to 
$108, and we expect the cost for the SO2 audit samples to be 
about the same because they are made exactly the same and only used for 
different purposes. The cost estimates discussed in the proposed 
rulemaking are based on the last ten years that EPA has operated the 
program.
    Comment: Seven commenters stated that EPA significantly 
underestimated the cost of the audit program because EPA did not 
include the analytical fees associated with the audit.
    Response: Analytical fees are not a new cost. Facilities have 
always been required to pay for the analysis of the audit samples even 
under the current program where we have provided the audit samples free 
of charge. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to add 
analytical fees to the estimated cost for the program.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the cost estimates 
and the Information Collection Request (ICR) are woefully incomplete. 
This commenter stated that EPA's estimate should include the total 
costs and burdens imposed on sources by the proposed new SSAP such as 
the cost to sources for purchasing audit samples, analyzing (and in 
some cases reanalyzing) audit samples, reporting audit sample results 
and other information, developing and implementing the other aspects of 
the proposed ``external QA program,'' and participating initially and 
every two years thereafter in the proposed VCSB ``public process'' to 
ensure that criteria developed by those organizations are reasonable, 
and not just the cost incurred by the AASP to report the true value of 
the audit sample. This commenter believes that the burden estimate 
should also include the cost to EPA of reviewing and approving proposed 
``written technical criteria documents'' and otherwise participating in 
the VCSB process. This commenter believes that EPA could limit the ICR 
to the cost incurred by the AASP to report the true value of the audit 
sample only if the other burdens already were covered under an approved 
ICR for the period in question.
    Response: The ICR estimate of burden includes the estimated cost 
for the AASP to report the results of the audit to the compliance 
authority. In addition, the ICR has been revised to include the cost of 
the audit sample since in the past the audit samples were free. The 
cost of the requirement to analyze (and in some cases reanalyze) audit 
samples and reporting audit sample results has already been taken into 
account in past ICRs for each emission limit under the New Source 
Performance Standards which contained a burden estimate for reporting 
emission testing results to demonstrate compliance with emission 
limits. We believe that not all compliance tests that should be audited 
are being audited under the current program. We believe under the 
restructured program the rate of compliance with the audit requirement 
will be higher; therefore, we have revised the ICR to reflect the fact 
that more audit samples will be purchased. The final rule does not 
require anyone to participate in the VCSB ``public process'' and, 
therefore, the cost of participating was not included in the ICR.

I. Requiring the Same Analyst and Analytical System for Sample Analysis

    Comment: Two commenters are concerned about the requirement that 
the audit sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same 
analytical reagents and analytical system as the compliance samples. 
These commenters pointed out that there may be several gas 
chromatograph/mass spectrometers in a particular lab, and all of these 
instruments are calibrated and certified, so that it does not matter 
which of these instruments are used to analyze an individual sample.
    Response: While EPA agrees that identical instruments calibrated by 
the same reagents should give the same answer within repeatability 
limits, EPA also believes that it is important to limit all sources of 
imprecision and, therefore, the audits should be analyzed using the 
same analyst and the same analytical system as the compliance test 
samples.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement that the ``audit 
sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same analytical 
reagents and analytical system as the compliance samples'' should be 
expanded to specify analyzing them in the same batch as the compliance 
samples and, if they are collected in the field, to collect them with 
the same person(s), using the same reagents and collection system. This 
commenter suggested that if field testers use different sampling trains 
to collect compliance samples during different test runs, from then the 
tester should collect audit samples with all the trains and analyze the 
samples from the different trains separately or as a composite.
    Response: We have revised the final rule to clarify how field 
audits should be collected when the audit sample is designed to check 
the sampling system. The final rule requires that field audits must be 
collected using the same field testing person who collected the field 
samples using one of the field sampling systems that was used to 
collect the compliance samples. If multiple sampling systems were used, 
the rule will not require that each sampling train used during the 
field test be used to collect an audit sample. The revised rule also 
requires that the audit samples must be analyzed at the same time as 
the test samples unless the compliance authority waives this 
requirement.

J. When are audit samples required?

    Comment: Two commenters believe it makes more sense for the source 
and the compliance authority to discuss the need for an audit sample on 
a case-by-case basis instead of EPA making it mandatory for each 
individual test.
    Response: The requirement for an audit sample is nothing new. 
Current regulations require audit samples if they are available and we 
do not see a need to change the requirement. We believe that the 
program should be administered consistently across the Nation and the 
only way to do that is to require the tester to include an audit sample 
with all compliance tests using methods for which audits are available. 
The compliance authority can always waive the requirement to include an 
audit sample for a specific compliance test if they believe the audit 
sample is not necessary.
    Comment: Four commenters stated that the proposed rule was unclear 
with respect to how many audit samples may be required during a given 
performance test. They stated that if the same method is used and the 
same pollutant is sampled, then only one audit sample should be 
necessary for the entire set of samples collected during a test 
program.
    Response: We agree that only one audit sample per method used 
during a performance test is needed so long as all pollutants measured 
using that method are covered by the audit sample. The final rule has 
been revised to clarify this.

[[Page 55640]]

K. Audit Sample Availability

    Comment: Two commenters are concerned that the timing for checking 
on availability of a specific pollutant audit sample does not mesh with 
the 60-day requirement to submit a test protocol for approval by the 
permitting authority. The commenters suggested that the cut-off date 
for sources to locate and incorporate audit sample requirements into a 
performance test plan must be at least three months prior to submitting 
the test protocol to their permitting authority.
    Response: There is no requirement under the amended SSAP program to 
submit a test protocol for approval by the compliance authority. If a 
source chooses to voluntarily prepare and submit a test protocol, the 
protocol could incorporate audit sample requirements that would have to 
be met only if an audit sample became available 60 days prior to the 
scheduled test date.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA presumes that there will be 
Accredited Audit Sample Providers or Accredited Proficiency Test Sample 
Providers willing to get in the business of supplying the necessary 
audits for all applicable methods. The commenters suggested that EPA 
should plan for a transition period if there is a delay in getting 
providers accredited.
    Response: We anticipate that audit samples will be available for 
most if not all the methods for which EPA currently provides audit 
samples. We know that The NELAC Institute is currently developing 
criteria documents and accreditation standards to produce audit 
standards (https://www.nelac-institute.org/standards.php) so we know 
there is interest in the private sector. We believe there will be an 
accredited audit program in the future. Therefore, we do not believe 
that there is a need for a transition period during which EPA would 
continue to provide audit samples until an accredited audit sample 
provider is approved. Again, if an audit sample is not available, there 
is no requirement for use of an audit sample.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that PT samples should not be used 
in place of audit samples, unless PT providers follow the provider 
requirements and be accepted as an audit sample provider by a provider 
accreditor, as set forth in the Standards defined by the VCSB they are 
using.
    Response: We agree with this comment. The rule has been revised to 
remove the option of using PT samples in place of audit samples if 
audit samples are not available.
    Comment: One commenter believes EPA should not allow sources to 
forgo using an audit sample if the EPA fails to identify a provider on 
its Web site 60 days before a scheduled test. This commenter contends 
that EPA should leave the job of identifying providers and which 
samples are available to the sources that are required to demonstrate 
compliance.
    Response: It takes time to plan and prepare for a source test. We 
do not want a source to be cited for a violation because an audit 
sample becomes available a short time before the compliance test. We 
also do not want sources and testing firms to spend time every day 
looking for available audit samples. Therefore, we believe the final 
rule needs to provide a 60-day time frame so that sources can properly 
plan a compliance test. In addition, listing the available audits on 
our Web site not only benefits the sources but also the compliance 
authorities. The list provides one location for them to see what is 
available; otherwise they too would have to constantly contact 
providers for information on available audits.

L. Setting Acceptance Limits

    Comment: Two commenters are concerned about allowing the VCSBs to 
determine the audit acceptance criteria. The commenters contend that 
EPA needs to define its minimum requirements to define the acceptable 
level of performance for compliance purposes and not leave it up to 
voluntary consensus organizations.
    Response: We agree that EPA needs to define minimum requirements 
for how the acceptance criteria should be determined in the final rule. 
The final rule has been revised to specify that acceptance criteria 
must be based on results from the analysis of audit test samples 
analyzed by qualified laboratories using the method that is being 
audited. The final rule requires that acceptance limits must be set so 
that 90 percent of qualified laboratories would produce results within 
the acceptance limits for 95 percent of all future audits. This 
acceptance criterion is consistent with the general goal that EPA 
established for the program it operated in the past.

M. Audit Samples Should Not Apply to Instrumental Methods

    Comment: Three commenters expressed confusion and concern over how 
audit samples would be applied to instrumental methods and other test 
methods involving human observers (i.e., Method 9 and 22).
    Response: We agree that it is not necessary to require audit 
samples for those test methods that use instruments to measure 
pollutants in stack gas samples taken directly from an emission source. 
These methods include Method 3C, 6C, 7E, 10, 20, 25A, 318, 320, and 
321. These methods already have sufficient calibration and quality 
assurance requirements that would make an additional audit sample 
redundant. We believe that Method 18 also has sufficient quality 
assurance measures that make an audit sample unnecessary. This method 
requires that the tester perform a recovery study through the entire 
sampling system to demonstrate that the combined sampling and 
analytical system is capable of measuring the target pollutant within 
specified limits. The measured results are then corrected to account 
for the empirically determined recovery. We believe that for this 
method an audit sample would not add significant additional information 
about the quality of the measured results. We have revised the final 
rule to specifically exempt Methods 3C, 6C, 7E, 9, 10, 18, 20, 22, 25A, 
303, 318, 320, and 321 from the requirement to have an audit sample. We 
also agree that Methods 9, 22, and 303 do not need audit samples. These 
are all methods for determining visible emissions by observation and, 
therefore, there is no practical way to audit them. The final rule has 
been revised to exempt these methods from the audit sample requirement.

N. Notice and Comment Procedure

    Comment: One commenter believes this proposal turns the 
requirements of the ``National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 (NTTAA)'' (Pub. L. 104-113) ``on its head'' because the NTTAA 
requires EPA (and other Federal agencies) to use standards already 
adopted by VCSBs, where appropriate, rather than developing their own 
government-unique standards. In addition NTTAA requires EPA to 
participate in the development of such standards to help ensure their 
usefulness in government applications but does not authorize EPA to 
adopt VCSB standards that do not currently exist, to adopt rules that 
condition sources' compliance with Federal regulations on a VCSB's 
adoption of standards, or to require regulated sources to participate 
in future VCSB proceedings in order to protect their interests.
    The commenter also contends that EPA's own regulations do not allow 
EPA to approve and incorporate by reference future VCSB standards

[[Page 55641]]

because it would be an unlawful circumvention of notice and comment 
procedures, and of limitations on incorporation by reference.
    Response: The NTTAA only requires agencies to use VCS in regulatory 
actions when VCSs are available. There are no current standards adopted 
by VCSBs for audit samples. We are allowing VCSBs to develop standards 
for audit samples and allowing these standards to be used for 
government applications. These audit samples are not used to determine 
compliance. They are quality assurance tools used during compliance 
testing to assist in determining the accuracy of the compliance 
testing. The final rule does not condition a sources's compliance with 
Federal regulations on a VCSBs adoption of standards. If audit samples 
do not exist for a particular compliance test, an audit sample is not 
required. Although some may choose to participate, there is also no 
requirement that sources participate in future VCSB proceedings.
    On the second point, we did not circumvent notice and comment 
procedures. The final rule establishes minimum requirements for the 
audit samples, the accredited audit sample providers and the audit 
sample provider accreditor. We have proposed these criteria for notice 
and comment. Although audit samples may be produced in the future, the 
only audit samples that we will accept are those that meet the 
substantive requirements of this rule. Accordingly, all commenters have 
had a full opportunity to discuss their concerns with the requirements 
set for audit samples by this rule.

O. Field Analysis of Audit Samples

    Comment: Five commenters requested that the final rule be revised 
to allow the owner/operator to obtain a waiver from the requirement to 
have the compliance authority present at the testing site on a case-by-
case basis when the method being audited is a method that allows the 
samples to be analyzed in the field and tester plans to analyze the 
samples in the field because it may not be practical for a 
representative from the compliance authority to be on-site for every 
one of these audit analyses.
    Response: We agree that it may not be practical in all cases for a 
representative of the compliance authority to be present when an audit 
sample is analyzed in the field, so we revised the final rule to allow 
the owner/operator to obtain a waiver from the compliance authority for 
the requirement to have the compliance authority present at the testing 
site.

P. Audit Sample Matrix

    Comment: Three commenters discussed the issue of the audit sample 
matrix. One commenter felt we needed to be clear about what 
interferents can and cannot be added to the samples to ensure 
consistency among the audit providers. Another commenter stated that 
EPA must specifically require that audit samples include realistic 
interferents while the third commenter found the use of interferents 
troubling since the audit providers would not necessarily know what to 
mimic.
    Response: The term sample matrix was not intended to imply that the 
audit samples were to be prepared in a manner that would duplicate an 
emission gas stream. The term matrix is only used in conjunction with 
those samples that do not consist of the pollutant in the gas phase in 
air or nitrogen. The term matrix was used to indicate that if a method 
collected the pollutant in a similar aqueous solution, then the audit 
sample should consist of the pollutant in an aqueous solution. The EPA 
believes that preparing audit samples in a matrix that would include 
interferents that might or might not be present in the stack is too 
complex to be workable. EPA is not requiring that interferents be 
included in the audit samples.

Q. Audit Results Reporting and Availability

    Comment: One commenter believes the compliance authority should be 
provided a copy of the audit results at the time of shipment from the 
sample provider because having the results prior to sample analysis 
helps generate more accurate data and minimizes problems.
    Response: We believe that this would be beneficial but should not 
be mandatory. Since we did not provide the compliance authorities with 
the actual concentrations under the current audit program, it is hard 
to justify making it mandatory.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that if the audit is conducted in 
the field and the results of the audit are available prior to 
conducting the emission tests, the facility should be provided with 
information on the pass/fail status of the audit test results prior to 
carrying out the source test. The commenter points out that this would 
avoid unnecessary testing and waste of resources when the ability of 
the source tester is in question because of failure to produce 
acceptable results for the audit sample.
    Response: We agree with the commenter, and there is nothing in the 
final rule to prevent this scenario.
    Comment: One commenter stated that audit sample providers should 
report only pass or fail for the audit sample result and not the true 
value of the audit sample because audit samples are to be unknowns. 
This commenter was concerned that if the audit samples are supplied in 
a limited number of concentrations, then over time this might reveal 
the true values and would compromise the unknown status of the audit 
sample.
    Response: We agree that the sample's true value needs to remain 
blind to the sources and laboratories at least until the values are 
reported. The final rule has been revised to state that only pass or 
fail results shall be reported unless the accredited audit sample 
provider ensures that no laboratory will receive the same sample twice.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the audit sample provider would 
be under no compliance (or contractual) obligation to provide a quick 
turnaround on the audit results, so significant delay could occur 
during this step, depending on the audit sample provider's 
availability. This commenter asked EPA to add a regulatory provision 
requiring the audit sample provider to send out the results of the 
audit within 7 calendar days.
    Response: We agree that it is important that the AASPs provide a 
quick turnaround of the audit results. The final rule includes a 
requirement that AASPs submit the results in a timely manner. The AASPs 
and the sources may decide a more specific time frame.

R. External QA Program

    Comment: One commenter expressed confusion and concern about the 
proposed rule's use of the terminology ``External QA program'' and that 
an additional requirement might be added to the external QA program.
    Response: The only mandatory requirement under the restructured 
audit program would be to include an audit sample with each compliance 
test. EPA has revised the final rule to make this clear.

S. No Justification for the Program

    Comment: Five commenters believe that EPA did not provide a 
justification for continuing the current program or expanding the 
program. Three commenters felt that the emergence of private providers 
is an insufficient rationale for the rulemaking.
    Response: We disagree. The emergence of private providers is one 
reason for changing the audit program. We discussed other reasons for 
privatizing the audit program in the

[[Page 55642]]

Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Also, we believe allowing private 
companies to provide audit samples will: (1) Ensure a wider range of 
audit sample concentrations that will better match the working range of 
the methods, (2) provide a more efficient and responsive system for 
supplying the required samples, (3) ensure greater transparency in the 
operation of the audit program, (4) produce higher quality audit 
samples, and (5) ensure a more stable supply of samples.

T. Consistency

    Comment: One commenter noted that there was an inconsistency in the 
proposed rules between the language in Part 51 and that in Part 60. 
According to this commenter, the language in Part 51 could be 
interpreted to mean that the results for an audit sample could be 
reported to the AASP or Accredited PT Sample Providers (APTSP) at some 
later time after reporting to the compliance authority, whereas the 
language in Part 60 could be interpreted to mean that the audit sample 
results should be reported to the compliance authority and to the AASP 
or APTSP at the same time. The commenter suggested that the statement 
in Part 51 should be amended to correspond with the statement in Part 
60.
    Response: We agree that the two statements should be consistent. 
The final rule has been revised so all parts require that the audit 
sample results be reported to the compliance authority and the audit 
sample provider at the same time.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) General 
Provisions for consistency with the proposed audit restructuring 
program. The commenter pointed out that provisions in 63.7(4)(i) state 
that ``audit materials may be obtained by contacting the appropriate 
EPA Regional Office or responsible enforcement authority,'' and this 
language conflicts with the proposed rule.
    Response: We agree and the final rule has been revised to correct 
the inconsistency.

U. Ordering Audit Samples

    Comment: Two commenters stated that it is not clear who is 
responsible for obtaining the audit samples because the proposed rule 
allows the source or an agent for the source to request the audit 
sample for a source test. The commenters requested that EPA clarify the 
type of documentation that would be needed by the agent to demonstrate 
to the AASP that it is indeed an agent for the source.
    Response: This provision was intended to allow the source owner or 
someone designated by the owner such as a member of a source testing 
firm to request the audit sample. The agent would need to work with the 
AASP to provide any documentation necessary to satisfy the AASP that 
they were an agent acting for the source.
    Comment: One commenter believes there should be a time-frame for 
the source to order audit samples and the compliance authority should 
be notified when an audit sample was ordered.
    Response: The final rule has been revised to provide the compliance 
authority input into the audit sample concentration range which in 
itself provides the compliance authority notification of an audit 
sample order. We believe the time frame for ordering audit samples is 
an issue that should be considered by the source owner, compliance 
authority and the AASP. It is not an issue that is covered by this 
rule.

V. EPA Maintained List of Audit Providers

    Comment: One commenter is concerned that if source owners seek the 
lowest cost AASPs, then there could be audit sample shortages, 
unforeseeable variations in costs, audit quality issues, and last 
minute failures in AASPs supplying audit samples. The commenter also 
asked that EPA flag or remove any AASP that fails to deliver audit 
material as offered or promised.
    Response: We intend to monitor the progress of this new system of 
supplying audit samples to ensure that it works as anticipated. We 
anticipate that most AASPs will deliver on their contracts, as most 
businesses want repeat customers.

W. 2003 Study on Quality Gas Cylinder Samples

    Comment: One commenter believes reliance on voluntary consensus 
requirements for accreditation of audit samples does little to improve 
the reliability of compliance testing, and may threaten the quality of 
the testing itself without additional procedures for qualifying and 
auditing private entities. The commenter believes this makes the EPA 
proposal arbitrary and unreasonable. As proof of this contention, the 
commenter points to a 2003 study where EPA performed an audit of 42 
source-level, tri-blend, EPA Protocol calibration gas cylinders from a 
total of 14 major gas vendors nationwide. The commenter points out that 
the overall failure rate from this study was 11 percent on a gas 
component basis, and 57 percent on a vendor basis, and that no 
additional evidence of the availability or the quality or calibration 
of private vendor audit samples has been offered to refute EPA's own 
study.
    Response: This study is not relevant to the restructuring of the 
audit program. The gas vendors surveyed in this study were not 
accredited to produce EPA Protocol calibration gases because the 
protocol gas program does not require accreditation and were not 
subject to any third party verification. The restructured audit program 
requires that providers be accredited and provide recurring third party 
verification of the quality of the audit samples being produced.

X. Proposal Is Premature

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that there were no 
existing third party accrediting bodies for audit sample providers and, 
therefore, there are no AASPs from which to obtain audit samples under 
this proposed rule. This commenter contends that it is not sufficient 
for EPA to simply propose a framework and then to develop the details 
of the program after the opportunity for notice and comment has passed.
    Response: As stated previously, an audit sample is required with 
compliance testing only when a sample is available, except where 
exempted in the regulations. EPA is permitted to develop regulatory 
criteria for approval of criteria documents from audit sample providers 
and did this in the proposed rule which provided an opportunity for 
notice and comment. These are not ``details of the program'' to be 
determined at a later date. If an audit sample provider's criteria 
document meets the regulatory criteria, it will be approved and the 
sample provider may provide samples for sources conducting compliance 
tests.

Y. Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) Standard Does Not Meet 
EPA's Needs

    Comment: One commenter believes the entire proposal is short on 
detail and hopes this will be addressed through EPA's approval of 
accrediting bodies, where EPA would specify additional details. The 
commenter also expressed concern the VCSB may be able to agree to 
standards, but those standards might not serve the needs of EPA or 
other compliance authorities.
    Response: We believe that any program that meets the minimum 
criteria specified in the final rule will meet the needs of the EPA and 
other

[[Page 55643]]

compliance agencies. The criteria in the final rule ensure that any 
program that is developed by the private sector and approved by EPA 
will be equivalent to EPA's current audit program.

Z. Gas Audit Samples Entry Point

    Comment: One commenter recommended changing Section 60.8(g) to read 
as follows: ``For pollutants that exist in the gas phase at ambient 
temperature, the audit sample shall consist of an appropriate 
concentration of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that can be 
introduced into the sampling system of the test method at or near the 
same entry point as a sample from the emission source.'' The commenter 
points out that in source gas sampling, calibration gases as well as 
audit gases are introduced in the probe such that they pass through 
most of the probe tube and all filters and other components of the 
sampling system, but it is not always practical to introduce the 
calibration gas at the same entry point as the source gas.
    Response: We agree that it may not always be practical to introduce 
the calibration gas at the same entry point as the source gas. EPA has 
revised the rule to allow introduction of the audit sample ``at or 
near'' the entry point for the sample from the emission source.

V. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
rule is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 12, 2010. 
Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final 
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under 
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this 
action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    A regulated emission source conducting a compliance test would 
purchase an audit sample from an AASP. The AASP would report the true 
value of the audit sample to the compliance authority (State, local or 
EPA Regional Office). This is a new reporting requirement. The AASP 
would in most cases make the report by electronic mail. A report would 
be made for each audit sample that the AASP sold to a regulated 
emission source that was conducting an emissions test to determine 
compliance with an emission limit.
    Based on historic data, EPA estimates that there will be about 
1,000 audit samples sold each year generating the need for about 1,000 
reports which corresponds to 80 hours burden or 0.08 hour per response 
for reporting and recordkeeping. The estimated cost burden is $5.05 per 
response or an annual burden of $5,050. 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. When this ICR is 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities directly regulated by this final rule are small businesses. We 
have determined that annually as many as 70 or 0.001 percent of small 
businesses will experience an impact of 0.013 to 0.2 percent of 
revenues.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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. 
The incremental costs associated with purchasing the audit samples 
(expected to be less than $1,000 per test) do not impose a significant 
burden on sources. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements 
of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In fact, this rule 
removes the responsibility of acquiring the audit samples to the 
regulated facility from the government agency.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action adds language to the 
general provisions to

[[Page 55644]]

allow accredited providers to supply stationary source audit samples 
and to require sources to obtain and use these samples from the 
accredited providers instead of from EPA, as is the current practice. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action adds 
language to the general provisions to allow accredited providers to 
supply stationary source audit samples and to require sources to obtain 
and use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from 
EPA, as is the current practice. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency 
conducted a search to identify potential applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none were 
brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to 
establish minimum requirements for the audit samples, the accredited 
audit sample providers and the audit sample provider accreditor.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main 
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. The amendments would add language to the general 
provisions to allow accredited providers to supply stationary source 
audit samples and to require sources to obtain and use these samples 
from the accredited providers instead of from EPA, as is the current 
practice.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective October 13, 2010.
Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxide, 
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur compounds, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors.

40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and Procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.


0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Appendix M to part 51 as follows:
0
a. Designate the three introductory paragraphs as Sections 1.0 through 
3.0.
0
b. Add new Section 4.0.
0
c. In Method 204A by removing Sections 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, and 7.2.3.
0
d. In Method 204B by removing Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
0
e. In Method 204C by removing Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
0
f. In Method 204D b