Federal Register, Volume 65 Issue 155 (Thursday, August 10, 2000)

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 48915]]

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

I. Background

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

II. Regulatory History of This Rulemaking

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

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

A. Comments and Responses on the Proposed PS-1

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

[[Page 48916]]

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

B. Comments and Responses on the Supplemental Proposal

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

C. Applicability

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

[[Page 48917]]

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

D. Definitions

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

E. Changes in Design Specifications

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

[[Page 48918]]

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

F. Other Revisions

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

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

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

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is,
therefore, not subject to OMB review.

C. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule is a revision to
an existing rule already being used by State and local governments. The
revisions have no impact on how State and local governments apply the
rule. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

[[Page 48919]]

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

E. Regulatory Flexibility

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule does not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because no additional cost will be incurred by
such entities because of the changes specified by the rule. The
requirements of the final rule reaffirm the existing design
specifications for a COMS to demonstrate conformance with PS-1. The
final rule clarifies the verification procedures for the design
specifications, as well as clarifies the responsibilities of
manufacturers of opacity monitors and the owners/operators without
placing additional burden on either parties.

F. Unfunded Mandates Act

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

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking involves
technical standards. EPA decided to use a voluntary consensus standard
developed and adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), ASTM D 6216-98, Standard Practice for Opacity Monitor
Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with Design and Performance
Specifications. This standard was chosen because it was developed by
ASTM with EPA involvement. The standard used the requirements outlined
in PS-1 and developed clear and concise verification procedures for the
requirements. Copies of the ASTM standard can be obtained by contacting
the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428.

H. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

I. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804 (2). This rule will be effective February 6, 2001.

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

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

[[Page 48920]]

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

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

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

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

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

Sec. 60.13 Monitoring requirements.

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

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

Sec. 60.17 Incorporation by reference.

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

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

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

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

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

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

[[Page 48921]]

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

2.0 What Are the Basic Requirements of PS-1?

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

3.0 What Special Definitions Apply to PS-1?

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

4.0 Interferences. Water Droplets

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

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

6.0 What Equipment and Supplies Do I Need?

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

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

7.0 What Reagents and Standards Do I Need?

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

[[Page 48922]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 48923]]

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

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

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

10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]

11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]

12.0 What Calculations Are Needed for PS-1?

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

Where:

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

Where:

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

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.011

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

Where:

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

Where:

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

Where:

Er = Error.

[[Page 48924]]

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.016

Where:

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

14.0 Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management. [Reserved]

16.0 Which references are relevant to this method?

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

17.0 What tables and diagrams are relevant to this method?

17.1 Reference Tables.

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

[[Page 48925]]

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

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

17.2 Diagrams.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 48926]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.018

[[Page 48927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.019

[[Page 48928]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.020

[[Page 48929]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10AU00.021

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