[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12575-12591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6275]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0074; FRL-8785-4]
RIN 2060-AG21
Performance Specification 16 for Predictive Emissions Monitoring
Systems and Amendments to Testing and Monitoring Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to promulgate Performance
Specification (PS) 16 for predictive emissions monitoring systems
(PEMS). Performance Specification 16 provides testing requirements for
assessing the acceptability of PEMS when they are initially installed.
Currently, there are no Federal rules requiring the use of PEMS;
however, some sources have obtained Administrator approval to use PEMS
as alternatives to continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).
Other sources may desire to use PEMS in cases where initial and
operational costs are less than CEMS and process optimization for
emissions control may be desirable. Performance Specification 16 will
apply to any PEMS required in future rules in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, or
63, and in cases where a source petitions the Administrator and
receives approval to use a PEMS in lieu of another emissions monitoring
system required under the regulation. We are also finalizing minor
technical amendments.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 24, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0074. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Performance Specification 16
for Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-
OAR-2003-0074, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number is (202) 566-1742. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Foston Curtis, Air Quality
Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(E143-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-1063; fax number (919)
541-0516; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action?
III. Background
IV. This Action
A. PS-16
B. Method 24 of Appendix A-7 of Part 60
C. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60
D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of Part 60
E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63
V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
A. Parameter Operating Level Terminology
B. PS-16 Applicability to Market-Based Programs
C. PS-16 and the Older Draft Performance Specifications on the
EPA Web site
D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency vs CEMS Stringency
E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters
F. Statistical Tests
G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the Relative Accuracy Audit
H. Potential Overlap Between PS-16 and PS-17
I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit Frequency for Good
Performance
VI. Judicial Review
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Predictive emission monitoring systems are not currently required
in any Federal rule. However, they may be used under certain New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) to predict nitrogen oxides emissions from
small industrial, commercial, and institutional steam generating units.
In some cases, PEMS have been approved as alternatives to CEMS for the
initial 30-day compliance test at these facilities. Various State and
Local regulations are incorporating PEMS as an emissions monitoring
tool. The major entities that are potentially affected by Performance
Specification 16 and the amendments to the subparts are included in the
following tables. Performance Specification 16 will neither apply to
existing PEMS nor those covered under Subpart E of 40 CFR part 75.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected
include the following:
[[Page 12576]]
Table 1--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Performance Specification 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\a\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................... 333611 Stationary Gas Turbines.
Industry.................................... 332410 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating
Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry classification system.
Table 2--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Amendments to Performance Specification 11 and
Procedures 1 and 2, Appendix F, part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\a\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................... 333298 Portland Cement Manufacturing.
Industry.................................... 562211 Hazardous Waste Incinerators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classsification System.
Table 3--Major entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Amendments to Method 24, Appendix a, Part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\a\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... 326211 Rubber Tire Manufacturing.
Industry............................... 323111 Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing.
Industry............................... 334613 Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities.
Industry............................... 326199 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines.
Industry............................... 332812 Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities.
Industry............................... 337124 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
Industry............................... 336111 Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating.
Industry............................... 323111 Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing.
Industry............................... 322222 Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating
Operations.
Industry............................... 421620 Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances.
Industry............................... 335931 Metal Coil Surface Coating.
Industry............................... 332812 Beverage Can Surface Coating.
Industry............................... 33641 Aerospace.
Industry............................... ......... Boat and Ship Manufacturing and Repair Surface Coating.
Industry............................... ......... Fabric Printing, Coating, and Dyeing.
Industry............................... ......... Leather Finishing.
Industry............................... ......... Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.
Industry............................... ......... Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products.
Industry............................... ......... Paper and Other Web Surface Coating.
Industry............................... ......... Plastic Parts Surface Coating.
Industry............................... ......... Printing and Publishing Surface Coating.
Industry............................... ......... Wood Building Products.
Industry............................... ......... Wood Furniture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry classificatiion System.
Table 4--Major Entities Potentially Affected by This Action: Amendment to Method 303, Appendix A, Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\a\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................... 33111111 Coke Ovens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry classsification System.
These tables are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
these actions. These tables list examples of the types of entities EPA
is now aware could potentially be affected by these final actions.
Other types of entities not listed could also be affected. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
[[Page 12577]]
II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web (www) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's
signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy
and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
III. Background
Performance Specification 16 and the amendments to PS-11,
Procedures 1 and 2, Method 24, and Method 303 were proposed in the
Federal Register on August 8, 2005 with a public comment period that
ended October 7, 2005. A public commenter asked that the comment period
be reopened to allow for additional time to prepare their response
since they were a leading vendor of PEMS and were significantly
impacted by the rule. We reopened the comment period for two weeks,
from November 2-16, 2005. A total of 42 comment letters were received
on the proposed rule. Most comment letters pertained to PS-16 and
contained multiple comments. We have compiled and responded to the
public comments and made appropriate changes to the rule based on the
comments.
IV. This Action
A. PS-16
This action finalizes PS-16 for PEMS. This performance
specification was originally proposed by EPA on August 8, 2005 (70 FR
45608). Performance Specification 16 establishes procedures that must
be used to determine whether a PEMS is acceptable for use in
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Predictive
emission monitoring systems predict source emissions indirectly using
process parameters instead of measuring them directly.
Additionally, the following amendments are made to the noted
testing and monitoring provisions.
B. Method 24 of Appendix A-7 of Part 60
Method 24, part 60, Appendix A-7 is used to determine the contents
and properties of surface coatings under NSPS applications. Method 24
currently references ASTM D2369 as the method for determining volatiles
content. The American Society for Testing and Materials has recommended
that ASTM D6419 be allowed as an alternative to D2369 in this case. We
have amended Method 24 to cite this optional method.
C. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B of Part 60
The publication on January 12, 2004 of PS-11 for Appendix B and
Procedure 2 for part 60, Appendix F contained technical and
typographical errors and unclear instructions. We have revised the
definition of confidence interval half range to clarify the language,
replacing the word ``pairs'' with ``sets'' to avoid possible confusion
regarding the use of paired sampling trains, corrected errors in
Equations 11-22, 11-27, and 11-37, corrected the procedures in
paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 12.3 for determining confidence and
tolerance interval half ranges for the exponential and power
correlation models, and added a note following paragraph (5)(v)
concerning the application of correlation equations to calculate
particulate matter (PM) concentrations using the response data from an
operating PM CEMS. We have also renumbered some equations and
references for clarification, consistency, and accuracy.
D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of Part 60
In Procedure 1 of Appendix F of part 60, we revised obsolete
language that describes the standard reference material that is
required, and in Procedure 2, we added a needed equation for
calculating an absolute correlation audit based on the applicable
standard.
E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63
In Method 303 of Appendix A to part 63, a statement on varying the
time of day runs are taken that was deleted by mistake in a recent
amendment of the method has been added.
V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
A more detailed summary of the public comments and our responses
can be found in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document,
which is available from several sources (see ADDRESSES section). The
major public comments are summarized by subject as follows:
A. Parameter Operating Level Terminology
Several commenters suggested we revise the key parameter operating
level used for the relative accuracy (RA) test from ``normal'' to
``mid.'' It was noted that some units normally operate in the high or
low levels and that a revised listing of mid level would ensure that
the intended three levels would be evaluated. We agree with the
commenters and changed the reference from ``normal'' to ``mid.''
B. PS-16 Applicability to Market-Based Programs
Several commenters objected to applying PS-16 to PEMS that are used
in a market-based program. They noted that market-based PEMS are
already covered in Subpart E of 40 CFR part 75 and those requirements
are different from proposed PS-16. This was deemed confusing from an
applicability standpoint, especially for those PEMS that have already
been approved under part 75. Other commenters stated that they did not
understand why performance specifications for market-based monitoring
were being added to 40 CFR part 60 since part 60 does not address
marketing regulations. Some commenters asked whether PS-16 would apply
to PEMS already in use.
We have dropped the proposed applicability of PS-16 to market-based
PEMS and agree that part 75 is the better place to address market-based
PEMS. Requirements for PEMS used in the part 75 market-based program
are already addressed in Subpart E of part 75, and we do not believe
the more stringent requirements given there for market-based PEMS are
warranted for compliance monitoring under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
We note in the final rule that PS-16 applies only to PEMS that are
installed after the effective date of today's action and to those used
to comply with requirements in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63.
C. PS-16 and the Older Draft Performance Specifications on the EPA Web
Site
A number of commenters asked that the draft ``Example
Specifications and Test Procedures for Predictive Emission Monitoring
Systems'' on the EPA Web site be adopted as PS-16 instead of the
proposed provisions. They note that these specifications have been used
in the past to approve prospective PEMS and felt the same guidelines
should be used in the future. One commenter thought a departure from
the draft requirements would result in a demise in PEMS use due to the
increased costs of initial certification and ongoing maintenance.
The ``Example Specifications and Test Procedures for Predictive
Emission Monitoring Systems'' was a guidance document to give PEMS
users and regulators a general idea of what could be expected of PEMS
in light of the limited performance data available at
[[Page 12578]]
that time. It was primarily based on the existing requirements in PS-2
for CEMS and not on extensive research. The document was offered on the
EMC Web site until the Agency could develop and finalize PS-16. Since
then, we have acquired relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data from a
number of PEMS over time, and our understanding of their capabilities
has increased. This data is presented in the docket and gives a better
indication of PEMS performance than what is reflected in the guidance
document (see EPA-OAR-2003-0074-0002, 0003, and 0004 docket entries).
This data confirms that the performance levels set in PS-16 are
achievable by the vast majority of PEMS in the data pool and are more
reflective of the technology's capabilities. We disagree with the
commenter that the new requirements in PS-16 will result in the demise
of PEMS due to increased cost for initial certification and ongoing
maintenance.
D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency vs. CEMS Stringency
Some commenters objected to the 10 percent relative accuracy limit
for PEMS in PS-16 considering that the corresponding performance
specifications for CEMS that are used for the same purposes have a 20
percent relative accuracy limit. They note that previous approvals of
PEMS were based on the 20 percent criterion in the draft Web site
performance specifications. They also argued that the added stringency
of having to certify at a level twice as accurate as a CEMS under the
same compliance conditions was not warranted.
The 20 percent relative accuracy limit was set for CEMS in the
1970's and reflects the performance capabilities of systems at that
time. State-of-the-art CEMS are capable of much better performance as
can be seen by their success under the tighter part 75 rules where a 10
percent relative accuracy is required. We have obtained performance
data on a number of installed PEMS currently in use (see EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0074-0002, 0003, and 0004 docket entries), and the data show an
overwhelming majority of the PEMS are capable of meeting a 10 percent
criterion on a repeated basis. We believe the quality of emissions data
should parallel the increased capabilities of newer technologies, not
the capabilities of older, outdated systems. Therefore, the 10 percent
relative accuracy limit for PEMS is retained in this final rule.
E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters
Several commenters asked that alternative relative accuracy limits
be allowed for low-emitting sources. They were concerned that the 10
percent relative accuracy limit would be problematic for low-emitters
because the error in the reference method measurement plays a
significant part in the accuracy determination at low concentrations.
One commenter noted that many permits set emission limits just above
the typical emission level of the source. This results in low-emitting
sources running in the 75-95 percent of the emission standard range.
The proposed alternative limits would only be of use when the unit is
operating either below 25 or below 10 percent of the emission standard.
They thought it would be more practical to base alternative criteria on
the measured concentration ranges instead of the emission standard. Two
commenters suggested scaling the relative accuracy requirement such
that 10 percent would be the limit for measurements over 100 ppm, 20
percent for measurements between 10 and 100 ppm, and within 2 ppm for
measurements under 10 ppm.
We understand the commenters' concerns and think their suggestion
for alternative criteria for low emitters is a practical idea. We have
added the suggested alternative criteria for concentrations between 10
and 100 ppm (20 percent RA) and below 10 ppm ( 2 ppm
difference between PEMS and reference method).
F. Statistical Tests
One commenter thought the relative accuracy requirements are, in
some cases, too severe and would prevent (1) even most CEMS from
certifying using standard reference method testing and (2) all but the
most sophisticated PEMS from passing certification. Two commenters
proposed using daily zero and span calibration checks and quarterly
linearity checks as alternatives to the statistical tests and quarterly
relative accuracy audits (RAA). Others recommended longer sampling
times to obtain the needed data for the relative accuracy statistical
tests similar to the 40 CFR part 75, Subpart E requirements. Several
commenters stated that they anticipated difficulty in meeting the 0.8
r-correlation requirement in tests where process variations are small.
One commenter recommended the proposed waiver of the correlation test
be made permanent if the data are determined to be either auto-
correlated or if the signal-to-noise ratio of the data is less than 4.
We do not believe the relative accuracy requirements are so severe
as to prevent most CEMS or PEMS from certifying using standard
reference method testing. Most PEMS are not amenable to daily zero and
span checks or quarterly linearity checks of their sensors. The
suggested long-term relative accuracy evaluation of PEMS similar to the
requirements of Subpart E of part 75 would render PEMS use economically
impractical under parts 60, 61, and 63. Evaluation times similar to
those currently required of CEMS should be sufficient. We have taken
the recommendation that the correlation test be permanently waived in
cases where the data are auto-correlated or have a signal-to-noise
ratio less than 4 and have made this change in PS-16.
G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the Relative Accuracy Audit
Several commenters opposed the use of portable analyzers for the
quarterly relative accuracy audits. They felt the analyzers lacked
sufficient accuracy to evaluate PEMS. Two commenters cited the report
``Evaluation of Portable Analyzers for Use in Quality Assuring
Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems for NOX'' (a report
prepared for EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, Washington, DC,
September 8, 2004) as proof of this inadequacy. They note that in the
report the only analyzer that achieved accuracy better than 10 percent
was the more sophisticated analyzer using the reference method
methodology. Additionally, a commenter suggested that sampling problems
related to sampling point location, sample conditioning, high-moisture
and volume, particulate, and high temperatures would render portable
analyzers ineffective. Another commenter thought that portable
analyzers, which were believed to be accurate to within 20 percent,
would not be able to show that PEMS are accurate to within 10 percent.
Three commenters asked that the quarterly audit requirements be
removed altogether. One commenter stated that he/she did not see any
added value in the audits because PEMS were thought to be inherently
reliable, and two commenters urged a return to the Web site performance
specification requirement to conduct biannual relative accuracy test
audits instead of quarterly relative accuracy audits.
We are not aware of and commenters did not present any data that
supports the idea that PEMS are inherently accurate such that their
performance is guaranteed over long periods of time. The performance of
PEMS, like CEMS, depends on a number of criteria that are subject to
change over time. The summary and findings of the noted
[[Page 12579]]
report on portable analyzers state that ``The portable analyzers
produced results that were comparable to those of the CEMS and Method
7E for the two natural gas-fired combustion sources and low
concentrations tested.'' Portable analyzers are offered as a cheaper
testing option to add flexibility to the relative accuracy audits.
However, reference methods may also be used in place of portable
analyzers for the relative accuracy audit. A relative accuracy audit
for a validated PEMS would not be valueless but would confirm that such
a PEMS is still functioning properly. Therefore, quarterly relative
accuracy audits are retained and may be performed using a portable
analyzer or a reference method.
H. Potential Overlap Between PS-16 and PS-17
Three commenters asked that we specifically state that PS-16 will
not apply to parametric monitoring systems. We were asked to clarify
that PS-16 would not cover parametric systems that are already covered
under PS-17.
Performance Specification 17 applies to parametric monitoring
systems (i.e., those that have associated parametric limits).
Performance Specification 16 applies to predictive emission monitoring
systems (i.e., those that have associated emission limits). This
difference has been noted in PS-16.
I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit Frequency for Good Performance
One commenter proposed that quarterly relative accuracy audit tests
be required for the first year after initial certification. If all
tests are passed through the second year relative accuracy test audit
(without tuning or additional training), the second year of relative
accuracy audits would be waived. In cases of failed relative accuracy
audit or relative accuracy test audit attempts during the year or any
PEMS retraining that triggers recertification would nullify this option
until the subsequent year. The commenter felt this waiver option was
important to the viability of PEMS use at remote sites.
We believe the commenter's suggestion has merit but think that at
least a semiannual test at a time approximately one-half year from the
previous RATA is needed to prevent extended malfunctions. We have
therefore revised PS-16 to allow a single RAA or RATA midway the second
year if three prior quarters of RAA and a second annual RATA are passed
without PEMS training or tuning.
VI. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available by filing a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May 26,
2009. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this
final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this action may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final rule does not add
information collection requirements beyond those currently required
under the applicable regulations. This final rule adds performance
requirements and amends testing and monitoring requirements as
necessary.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent
company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion
kilowatt-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on the size
definition for the affected North American Industry Classification
System code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities because it does
not impose any additional regulatory requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments of the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This action adds procedures that
apply when applicable parties choose to use a different monitoring tool
than what is currently required. Other amendments are made to correct
various errors in testing provisions.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule will benefit State and
local governments by
[[Page 12580]]
providing performance specifications they can use to evaluate PEMS.
Other amendments being made will correct PS-11, Procedures 1 and 2,
Method 24, and Method 303. No added responsibilities or increase in
implementation efforts or costs for State and local governments are
being added by this action. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action adds
an optional monitoring tool to the monitoring provisions that have
already been mandated. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This final rule does not relax the control measures on
sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not cause emissions
increases from these sources.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective April 24, 2009.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 16, 2009.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
0
2. Section 6.7 is added to Method 24 of Appendix A-7 to read as
follows:
Appendix A-7 to Part 60--Test Methods 19 through 25E
* * * * *
Method 24--Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content,
Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings
* * * * *
6.7 ASTM D 6419-00, Test Method for Volatile Content of Sheet-
Fed and Coldset Web Offset Printing Inks.
* * * * *
0
3. Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising Section 3.4.
0
b. By revising Section 8.6, introductory text.
0
c. By revising paragraphs (1)(ii), (1)(iii), (2), (4), and (5) of
Section 12.3
0
d. By revising paragraph (3)(ii) of Section 12.4.
0
e. By revising paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 13.2.
0
f. By adding Sections 16.8 and 16.9.
0
g. By revising Table 1 of Section 17.0 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
Performance Specification 11--Specifications and Test Procedures for
Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary
Sources
* * * * *
3.4 ``Confidence Interval Half Range (CI)'' is a statistical
term and means one-half of the width of the 95 percent confidence
interval around the predicted mean PM concentration (y value)
calculated at the PM CEMS response value (x value) where the
confidence interval is narrowest. Procedures for calculating CI are
specified in section 12.3. The CI as a percent of the emission limit
value (CI%) is calculated at the appropriate PM CEMS response value
and
[[Page 12581]]
must satisfy the criteria specified in Section 13.2 (2).
* * * * *
8.6 How do I conduct my PM CEMS correlation test? You must
conduct the correlation test according to the procedure given in
paragraphs (1) through (5) of this section. If you need multiple
correlations, you must conduct testing and collect at least 15 sets
of reference method and PM CEMS data for calculating each separate
correlation.
* * * * *
12.3 How do I determine my PM CEMS correlation?
* * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence
interval (CI) for the predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the
mean value of x, using Equation 11-8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.063
Where:
CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the
predicted PM concentration at the mean x value,
tdf,1-a/2 = the value for the t statistic provided in
Table 1 for df = (n - 2), and
SL = the scatter or deviation of [ycirc] values about the
correlation curve, which is determined using Equation 11-9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.064
Calculate the confidence interval half range for the predicted PM
concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value as a percentage of the
emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.065
Where:
CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the
predicted PM concentration at the mean x value, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iii) Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval (TI)
for the predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value
using Equation 11-11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.066
Where:
TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM
concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value,
kT = as calculated using Equation 11-12, and
SL = as calculated using Equation 11-9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.067
Where:
n' = the number of test runs (n),
un' = the tolerance factor for 75 percent coverage at 95
percent confidence provided in Table 1 for df = (n-2), and
vdf = the value from Table 1 for df = (n-2).
Calculate the half range of the tolerance interval for the
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value as a
percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.068
Where:
TI = the half range of the tolerance interval for the predicted PM
concentration ([ycirc]) at the mean x value, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
* * * * *
(2) How do I evaluate a polynomial correlation for my
correlation test data? To evaluate a polynomial correlation, follow
the procedures described in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iv) of this
section.
(i) Calculate the polynomial correlation equation, which is
indicated by Equation 11-16, using Equations 11-17 through 11-22:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.069
Where:
[ycirc] = the PM CEMS concentration predicted by the polynomial
correlation equation, and
b0, b1, b2 = the coefficients
determined from the solution to the matrix equation Ab=B
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.070
Where:
Xi = the PM CEMS response for run i,
Yi = the reference method PM concentration for run i, and
n = the number of test runs.
Calculate the polynomial correlation curve coefficients (b0, b1,
and b2) using Equations 11-19 through 11-21, respectively:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.071
[[Page 12582]]
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.072
(ii) Calculate the 95 percent confidence interval half range
(CI) by first calculating the C coefficients (Co to C5) using
Equations 11-23 and 11-24:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.073
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.074
Calculate [Delta] using Equation 11-25 for each x value:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.075
Determine the x value that corresponds to the minimum value of
[Delta] ([Delta]min). Determine the scatter or deviation
of [ycirc] values about the polynomial correlation curve
(SP) using Equation 11-26:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.076
Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI)
for the predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]) at the x value that
corresponds to [Delta]min using Equation 11-27:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.077
Where:
df = (n-3), and
tdf = as listed in Table 1 (see section 17).
Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for
the predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to
[Delta]min as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%)
using Equation 11-28:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.078
Where:
CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the
predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to
[Delta]min, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iii) Calculate the tolerance interval half range (TI) for the
predicted PM concentration at the x value that corresponds to
[Delta]min, as indicated in Equation 11-29 for the
polynomial correlation, using Equations 11-30 and 11-31:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.079
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.080
un' = the value indicated in Table 1 for df = (n'-3), and
vdf = the value indicated in Table 1 for df = (n'--3).
Calculate the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM
concentration at the x value that corresponds to
[Delta]min as a percentage of the emission limit (TI%)
using Equation 11-32:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.081
Where:
TI = the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM
concentration at the x value that corresponds to
[Delta]min, and
EL = PM emission limit, as described in section 13.2.
(iv) Calculate the polynomial correlation coefficient (r) using
Equation 11-33:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.082
Where:
SP = as calculated using Equation 11-26, and
Sy = as calculated using Equation 11-15.
* * * * *
(4) How do I evaluate an exponential correlation for my
correlation test data? To evaluate an exponential correlation, which
has the form indicated by Equation 11-37, follow the procedures
described in paragraphs (4)(i) through (v) of this section:
[[Page 12583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.083
(i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of each PM
concentration measurement (y values) using Equation 11-38:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.084
Where:
y'i = is the transformed value of yi, and
Ln(yi) = the natural logarithm of the PM concentration
measurement for run i.
(ii) Using the values for y'i in place of the values
for yi, perform the same procedures used to develop the
linear correlation equation described in paragraph (1)(i) of this
section. The resulting equation will have the form indicated by
Equation 11-39.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.085
Where:
[ycirc]' = the predicted log PM concentration value,
b'0 = the natural logarithm of b0, and the
variables b0, b1, and x are as defined in
paragraph (1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Using the values for y 'i in place of the values for yi,
calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval
(CI'), as described in paragraph (1)(ii) of this section for CI.
Note that CI' is on the log scale. Next, calculate the upper and
lower 95 percent confidence limits for the mean value y' using
Equations 11-40 and 11-41:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.087
Where:
LCL' = the lower 95 percent confidence limit for the mean value y',
UCL' = the upper 95 percent confidence limit for the mean value y',
y' = the mean value of the log-transformed PM concentrations, and
CI' = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for the
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]'), as calculated in Equation 11-
8.
Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval (CI)
on the original PM concentration scale using Equation 11-42:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.088
Where:
CI = the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval on the
original PM concentration scale, and UCL' and LCL' are as defined
previously.
Calculate the half range of the 95 percent confidence interval for
the predicted PM concentration corresponding to the mean value of x
as a percentage of the emission limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10.
(iv) Using the values for y' i in place of the values for yi,
calculate the half range tolerance interval (TI'), as described in
paragraph (1)(iii) of this section for TI. Note that TI' is on the
log scale. Next, calculate the half range tolerance limits for the
mean value y' using Equations 11-43 and 11-44:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.090
Where:
LTL' = the lower 95 percent tolerance limit for the mean value y',
UTL' = the upper 95 percent tolerance limit for the mean value y',
y', = the mean value of the log-transformed PM concentrations, and
TI' = the half range of the 95 percent tolerance interval for the
predicted PM concentration ([ycirc]'), as calculated in Equation 11-
11.
Calculate the half range tolerance interval (TI) on the original PM
concentration scale using Equation 11-45:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.091
TI = the half range of the 95 percent tolerance interval on the
original PM scale, and UTL' and LTL' are as defined previously.
Calculate the tolerance interval half range for the predicted PM
concentration corresponding to the mean value of x as a percentage
of the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-13.
(v) Using the values for y ' i in place of the values for yi,
calculate the correlation coefficient (r) using the procedure
described in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section.
(5) How do I evaluate a power correlation for my correlation
test data? To evaluate a power correlation, which has the form
indicated by Equation 11-46, follow the procedures described in
paragraphs (5)(i) through (v) of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.092
(i) Perform logarithmic transformations of each PM CEMS response
(x values) and each PM concentration measurement (y values) using
Equations 11-35 and 11-38, respectively.
(ii) Using the values for x 'i in place of the values for xi,
and the values for y 'i in place of the values for yi, perform the
same procedures used to develop the linear correlation equation
described in paragraph (1)(i) of this section. The resulting
equation will have the form indicated by Equation 11-47:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.093
Where:
[ycirc]' = the predicted log PM concentration value, and
x' = the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS response values,
b'0 = the natural logarithm of b0, and the
variables b0, b1, and x are as defined in
paragraph (1)(i) of this section.
(iii) Using the same procedure described for exponential models
in paragraph (4)(iii) of this section, calculate the half range of
the 95 percent confidence interval for the predicted PM
concentration corresponding to the mean value of x' as a percentage
of the emission limit.
(iv) Using the same procedure described for exponential models
in paragraph (4)(iv) of this section, calculate the tolerance
interval half range for the predicted PM concentration corresponding
to the mean value of x' as a percentage of the emission limit.
(v) Using the values for y 'i in place of the values for yi,
calculate the correlation coefficient (r) using the procedure
described in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section.
Note: PS-11 does not address the application of correlation
equations to calculate PM emission concentrations using PM CEMS
response data during normal operations of a PM CEMS. However, we
will provide guidance on the use of specific correlation models
(i.e., logarithmic, exponential, and power models) to calculate PM
concentrations in an operating PM CEMS in situations when the PM
CEMS response values are equal to or less than zero, and the
correlation model is undefined.
12.4 What correlation model should I use?
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Calculate the minimum value using Equation 11-48.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.106
* * * * *
13.2 What performance criteria must my PM CEMS correlation
satisfy?
* * * * *
(2) The confidence interval half range must satisfy the
applicable criterion specified in paragraph (2)(i), (ii), or (iii)
of this section, based on the type of correlation model.
(i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, the 95 percent
confidence interval half range at the mean PM CEMS response value
from the correlation test must be within 10 percent of the PM
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation.
Therefore, the CI% calculated using Equation 11-10 must be less than
or equal to 10 percent.
(ii) For polynomial correlations, the 95 percent confidence
interval half range at the PM CEMS response value from the
correlation test that corresponds to the minimum value for [Delta]
must be within 10 percent of the PM emission limit value specified
in the applicable regulation. Therefore, the CI% calculated using
Equation 11-28 must be less than or equal to 10 percent.
(iii) For exponential or power correlations, the 95 percent
confidence interval half range at the mean of the logarithm of the
PM CEMS response values from the correlation test must be within 10
percent of the PM emission limit value specified in the applicable
regulation. Therefore, the CI% calculated using Equation 11-10 must
be less than or equal to 10 percent.
(3) The tolerance interval half range must satisfy the
applicable criterion specified in
[[Page 12584]]
paragraph (3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, based on the type
of correlation model.
(i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, the half range
tolerance interval with 95 percent confidence and 75 percent
coverage at the mean PM CEMS response value from the correlation
test must be within 25 percent of the PM emission limit value
specified in the applicable regulation. Therefore, the TI%
calculated using Equation 11-13 must be less than or equal to 25
percent.
(ii) For polynomial correlations, the half range tolerance
interval with 95 percent confidence and 75 percent coverage at the
PM CEMS response value from the correlation test that corresponds to
the minimum value for [Delta] must be within 25 percent of the PM
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation.
Therefore, the TI% calculated using Equation 11-32 must be less than
or equal to 25 percent.
(iii) For exponential or power correlations, the half range
tolerance interval with 95 percent confidence and 75 percent
coverage at the mean of the logarithm of the PM CEMS response values
from the correlation test must be within 25 percent of the PM
emission limit value specified in the applicable regulation.
Therefore, the TI% calculated using Equation 11-13 must be less than
or equal to 25 percent.
* * * * *
16.0 Which references are relevant to this performance
specification?
* * * * *
16.8 Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G. (1989),
Statistical Methods, Eighth Edition, Iowa State University Press.
16.9 Wallis, W. A. (1951) ``Tolerance Intervals for Linear
Regression,'' in Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical
Statistics and Probability, ed. J. Neyman, Berkeley: University of
California Press, pp. 43-51.
17.0 * * *
Table 1--Factors for Calculation of Confidence and Tolerance Interval Half Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95%
Student's t, confidence level
df tdf -----------------------------------------------
vdf (95%) un' (75%) kT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................................... 3.182 2.920 1.266 3.697
4............................................... 2.776 2.372 1.247 2.958
5............................................... 2.571 2.089 1.233 2.576
6............................................... 2.447 1.915 1.223 2.342
7............................................... 2.365 1.797 1.214 2.183
8............................................... 2.306 1.711 1.208 2.067
9............................................... 2.262 1.645 1.203 1.979
10.............................................. 2.228 1.593 1.198 1.909
11.............................................. 2.201 1.551 1.195 1.853
12.............................................. 2.179 1.515 1.192 1.806
13.............................................. 2.160 1.485 1.189 1.766
14.............................................. 2.145 1.460 1.186 1.732
15.............................................. 2.131 1.437 1.184 1.702
16.............................................. 2.120 1.418 1.182 1.676
17.............................................. 2.110 1.400 1.181 1.653
18.............................................. 2.101 1.384 1.179 1.633
19.............................................. 2.093 1.370 1.178 1.614
20.............................................. 2.086 1.358 1.177 1.597
21.............................................. 2.080 1.346 1.175 1.582
22.............................................. 2.074 1.335 1.174 1.568
23.............................................. 2.069 1.326 1.173 1.555
24.............................................. 2.064 1.316 1.172 1.544
25.............................................. 2.060 1.308 1.172 1.533
26.............................................. 2.056 1.300 1.171 1.522
27.............................................. 2.052 1.293 1.170 1.513
28.............................................. 2.048 1.286 1.170 1.504
29.............................................. 2.045 1.280 1.169 1.496
30.............................................. 2.042 1.274 1.168 1.488
31.............................................. 2.040 1.268 1.168 1.481
32.............................................. 2.037 1.263 1.167 1.474
33.............................................. 2.035 1.258 1.167 1.467
34.............................................. 2.032 1.253 1.166 1.461
35.............................................. 2.030 1.248 1.166 1.455
36.............................................. 2.028 1.244 1.165 1.450
37.............................................. 2.026 1.240 1.165 1.444
38.............................................. 2.024 1.236 1.165 1.439
39.............................................. 2.023 1.232 1.164 1.435
40.............................................. 2.021 1.228 1.164 1.430
41.............................................. 2.020 1.225 1.164 1.425
42.............................................. 2.018 1.222 1.163 1.421
43.............................................. 2.017 1.218 1.163 1.417
44.............................................. 2.015 1.215 1.163 1.413
45.............................................. 2.014 1.212 1.163 1.410
46.............................................. 2.013 1.210 1.162 1.406
47.............................................. 2.012 1.207 1.162 1.403
48.............................................. 2.011 1.204 1.162 1.399
49.............................................. 2.010 1.202 1.162 1.396
50.............................................. 2.009 1.199 1.161 1.393
51.............................................. 2.008 1.197 1.161 1.390
52.............................................. 2.007 1.195 1.161 1.387
53.............................................. 2.006 1.192 1.161 1.384
54.............................................. 2.005 1.190 1.161 1.381
[[Page 12585]]
55.............................................. 2.004 1.188 1.160 1.379
56.............................................. 2.003 1.186 1.160 1.376
57.............................................. 2.002 1.184 1.160 1.374
58.............................................. 2.002 1.182 1.160 1.371
59.............................................. 2.001 1.180 1.160 1.369
60.............................................. 2.000 1.179 1.160 1.367
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References 16.8 (t values) and 16.9 (vdf and un' values).
0
4. In Appendix B, Performance Specification 16 is added to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications
* * * * *
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 16--SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR
PREDICTIVE EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS IN STATIONARY SOURCES
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 Does this performance specification apply to me? If you, the
source owner or operator, intend to use (with any necessary
approvals) a predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS) to show
compliance with your emission limitation under 40 CFR 60, 61, or 63,
you must use the procedures in this performance specification (PS)
to determine whether your PEMS is acceptable for use in
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Use these
procedures to certify your PEMS after initial installation and
periodically thereafter to ensure the PEMS is operating properly. If
your PEMS contains a diluent (O2 or CO2)
measuring component and your emissions limitation is in units that
require a diluent measurement (e.g. lbs/mm Btu), the diluent
component must be tested as well. These specifications apply to PEMS
that are installed under 40 CFR 60, 61, and 63 after the effective
date of this performance specification. These specifications do not
apply to parametric monitoring systems, these are covered under PS-
17.
1.1.1 How do I certify my PEMS after it is installed? PEMS must
pass a relative accuracy (RA) test and accompanying statistical
tests in the initial certification test to be acceptable for use in
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. Ongoing
quality assurance tests also must be conducted to ensure the PEMS is
operating properly. An ongoing sensor evaluation procedure must be
in place before the PEMS certification is complete. The amount of
testing and data validation that is required depends upon the
regulatory needs, i.e., whether precise quantification of emissions
will be needed or whether indication of exceedances of some
regulatory threshold will suffice. Performance criteria are more
rigorous for PEMS used in determining continual compliance with an
emission limit than those used to measure excess emissions. You must
perform the initial certification test on your PEMS before reporting
any PEMS data as quality-assured.
1.1.2 Is other testing required after certification? After you
initially certify your PEMS, you must pass additional periodic
performance checks to ensure the long-term quality of data. These
periodic checks are listed in the table in Section 9. You are always
responsible for properly maintaining and operating your PEMS.
2.0 Summary of Performance Specification
The following performance tests are required in addition to
other equipment and measurement location requirements.
2.1 Initial PEMS Certification.
2.1.1 Excess Emissions PEMS. For a PEMS that is used for excess
emission reporting, the owner or operator must perform a minimum 9-
run, 3-level (3 runs at each level) RA test (see Section 8.2).
2.1.2 Compliance PEMS. For a PEMS that is used for continual
compliance standards, the owner or operator must perform a minimum
27-run, 3-level (9 runs at each level) RA test (see Section 8.2).
Additionally, the data must be evaluated for bias and by F-test and
correlation analysis.
2.2 Periodic Quality Assurance (QA) Assessments. Owners and
operators of all PEMS are required to conduct quarterly relative
accuracy audits (RAA) and yearly relative accuracy test audits
(RATA) to assess ongoing PEMS operation. The frequency of these
periodic assessments may be shortened by successful operation during
a prior year.
3.0 Definitions
The following definitions apply:
3.1 Centroidal Area means that area in the center of the stack
(or duct) comprising no more than 1 percent of the stack cross-
sectional area and having the same geometric shape as the stack.
3.2 Data Recorder means the equipment that provides a permanent
record of the PEMS output. The data recorder may include automatic
data reduction capabilities and may include electronic data records,
paper records, or a combination of electronic data and paper
records.
3.3 Defective sensor means a sensor that is responsible for PEMS
malfunction or that operates outside the approved operating
envelope. A defective sensor may be functioning properly, but
because it is operating outside the approved operating envelope, the
resulting predicted emission is not validated.
3.4 Diluent PEMS means the total equipment required to predict a
diluent gas concentration or emission rate.
3.5 Operating envelope means the defined range of a parameter
input that is established during PEMS development. Emission data
generated from parameter inputs that are beyond the operating
envelope are not considered quality assured and are therefore
unacceptable.
3.6 PEMS means all of the equipment required to predict an
emission concentration or emission rate. The system may consist of
any of the following major subsystems: sensors and sensor
interfaces, emission model, algorithm, or equation that uses process
data to generate an output that is proportional to the emission
concentration or emission rate, diluent emission model, data
recorder, and sensor evaluation system. Systems that use fewer than
3 variables do not qualify as PEMS unless the system has been
specifically approved by the Administrator for use as a PEMS. A PEMS
may predict emissions data that are corrected for diluent if the
relative accuracy and relevant QA tests are passed in the emission
units corrected for diluent. Parametric monitoring systems that
serve as indicators of compliance and have parametric limits but do
not predict emissions to comply with an emissions limit are not
included in this definition.
3.7 PEMS training means the process of developing or confirming
the operation of the PEMS against a reference method under specified
conditions.
3.8 Quarter means a quarter of a calendar year in which there
are at least 168 unit operating hours.
3.9 Reconciled Process Data means substitute data that are
generated by a sensor evaluation system to replace that of a failed
sensor. Reconciled process data may not be used without approval
from the Administrator.
3.10 Relative Accuracy means the accuracy of the PEMS when
compared to a reference method (RM) at the source. The RA is the
average difference between the pollutant PEMS and RM data for a
specified number of comparison runs plus a 2.5 percent confidence
coefficient, divided by the average of the RM tests. For a diluent
PEMS, the RA may be expressed as a percentage of absolute difference
between the PEMS and RM. Alternative specifications are given for
units that have very low emissions.
3.11 Relative Accuracy Audit means a quarterly audit of the PEMS
against a
[[Page 12586]]
portable analyzer meeting the requirements of ASTM D6522-00 or a RM
for a specified number of runs. A RM may be used in place of the
portable analyzer for the RAA.
3.12 Relative Accuracy Test Audit means a RA test that is
performed at least once every four calendar quarters after the
initial certification test while the PEMS is operating at the normal
operating level.
3.13 Reference Value means a PEMS baseline value that may be
established by RM testing under conditions when all sensors are
functioning properly. This reference value may then be used in the
sensor evaluation system or in adjusting new sensors.
3.14 Sensor Evaluation System means the equipment or procedure
used to periodically assess the quality of sensor input data. This
system may be a sub-model that periodically cross-checks sensor
inputs among themselves or any other procedure that checks sensor
integrity at least daily (when operated for more than one hour in
any calendar day).
3.15 Sensors and Sensor Interface means the equipment that
measures the process input signals and transports them to the
emission prediction system.
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 Safety [Reserved]
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
6.1 PEMS Design. You must detail the design of your PEMS and
make this available in reports and for on-site inspection. You must
also establish the following, as applicable:
6.1.1 Number of Input Parameters. An acceptable PEMS will
normally use three or more input parameters. You must obtain the
Administrator's permission on a case-by-case basis if you desire to
use a PEMS having fewer than three input parameters.
6.1.2 Parameter Operating Envelopes. Before you evaluate your
PEMS through the certification test, you must specify the input
parameters your PEMS uses, define their range of minimum and maximum
values (operating envelope), and demonstrate the integrity of the
parameter operating envelope using graphs and data from the PEMS
development process, vendor information, or engineering
calculations, as appropriate. If you operate the PEMS beyond these
envelopes at any time after the certification test, the data
generated during this condition will not be acceptable for use in
demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements. If these
parameter operating envelopes are not clearly defined and supported
by development data, the PEMS operation will be limited to the range
of parameter inputs encountered during the certification test until
the PEMS has a new operating envelope established.
6.1.3 Source-Specific Operating Conditions. Identify any source-
specific operating conditions, such as fuel type, that affect the
output of your PEMS. You may only use the PEMS under the source-
specific operating conditions it was certified for.
6.1.4 Ambient Conditions. You must explain whether and how
ambient conditions and seasonal changes affect your PEMS. Some
parameters such as absolute ambient humidity cannot be manipulated
during a test. The effect of ambient conditions such as humidity on
the pollutant concentration must be determined and this effect
extrapolated to include future anticipated conditions. Seasonal
changes and their effects on the PEMS must be evaluated unless you
can show that such effects are negligible.
6.1.5 PEMS Principle of Operation. If your PEMS is developed on
the basis of known physical principles, you must identify the
specific physical assumptions or mathematical manipulations that
support its operation. If your PEMS is developed on the basis of
linear or nonlinear regression analysis, you must make available the
paired data (preferably in graphic form) used to develop or train
the model.
6.1.6 Data Recorder Scale. If you are not using a digital
recorder, you must choose a recorder scale that accurately captures
the desired range of potential emissions. The lower limit of your
data recorder's range must be no eater than 20 percent of the
applicable emission standard (if subject to an emission standard).
The upper limit of your data recorder's range must be determined
using the following table. If you obtain approval first, you may use
other lower and upper recorder limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then your upper
If PEMS is measuring. . . And if. . . limit. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled emissions, such No other regulation Must be 1.25 to 2
as NOX at the stack of a sets an upper limit times the average
natural gas-fired boiler. for the data potential emission
recorder's range. level
Uncontrolled emissions, such Another regulation Must follow the
as NOX at the stack of a sets an upper limit other regulation
natural gas-fired boiler. for the data
recorder's range.
Controlled emissions........ .................... Must be 1.5 to 2.0
times concentration
of the emission
standard that
applies to your
emission unit
Continual compliance .................... Must be 1.1 to 1.5
emissions for an applicable times the
regulation. concentration of
the emission
standard that
applies to your
emission unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.1.7 Sensor Location and Repair. We recommend you install
sensors in an accessible location in order to perform repairs and
replacements. Permanently installed platforms or ladders may not be
needed. If you install sensors in an area that is not accessible,
you may be required to shut down the emissions unit to repair or
replace a sensor. Conduct a new RATA after replacing a sensor. All
sensors must be calibrated as often as needed but at least as often
as recommended by the manufacturers.
6.1.8 Sensor Evaluation System. Your PEMS must be designed to
perform automatic or manual determination of defective sensors on at
least a daily basis. This sensor evaluation system may consist of a
sensor validation sub-model, a comparison of redundant sensors, a
spot check of sensor input readings at a reference value, operation,
or emission level, or other procedure that detects faulty or failed
sensors. Some sensor evaluation systems generate substitute values
(reconciled data) that are used when a sensor is perceived to have
failed. You must obtain prior approval before using reconciled data.
6.1.9 Parameter Envelope Exceedances. Your PEMS must include a
plan to detect and notify the operator of parameter envelope
exceedances. Emission data collected outside the ranges of the
sensor envelopes will not be considered quality assured.
6.2 Recordkeeping. All valid data recorded by the PEMS must be
used to calculate the emission value.
7.0 Reagents and Standards [Reserved]
8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport
8.1 Initial Certification. Use the following procedure to
certify your PEMS. Complete all PEMS training before the
certification begins.
8.2 Relative Accuracy Test.
8.2.1 Reference Methods. Unless otherwise specified in the
applicable regulations, you must use the test methods in Appendix A
of this part for the RM test. Conduct the RM tests at three
operating levels of the key parameter that most affects emissions
(e.g., load level). Conduct the specified number of RM tests at the
low (minimum to 50 percent of maximum), mid (an intermediary level
between the low and high levels), and high (80 percent to maximum)
key parameter operating levels, as practicable. If these levels are
not practicable, vary the key parameter range as much as possible
over three levels.
8.2.2 Number of RM Tests for Excess Emission PEMS. For PEMS used
for excess emission reporting, conduct at least the following number
of RM tests at the following key parameter operating levels:
(1) Three at a low level.
(2) Three at a mid level.
(3) Three at a high level.
You may choose to perform more than nine total RM tests. If you
perform more than nine tests, you may reject a maximum of three
tests as long as the total number of test results used to determine
the RA is nine or greater and each operating level has at least
three tests. You must report all data, including the rejected data.
[[Page 12587]]
8.2.3 Number of RM Tests for Continual Compliance PEMS. For PEMS
used to determine compliance, conduct at least the following number
of RM tests at the following key parameter operating levels:
(1) Nine at a low level.
(2) Nine at a mid level.
(3) Nine at a high level.
You may choose to perform more than 9 RM runs at each operating
level. If you perform more than 9 runs, you may reject a maximum of
three runs per level as long as the total number of runs used to
determine the RA at each operating level is 9 or greater.
8.2.4 Reference Method Measurement Location. Select an
accessible measurement point for the RM that will ensure you measure
emissions representatively. Ensure the location is at least two
equivalent stack diameters downstream and half an equivalent
diameter upstream from the nearest flow disturbance such as the
control device, point of pollutant generation, or other place where
the pollutant concentration or emission rate can change. You may use
a half diameter downstream instead of the two diameters if you meet
both of the following conditions:
(1) Changes in the pollutant concentration are caused solely by
diluent leakage, such as leaks from air heaters.
(2) You measure pollutants and diluents simultaneously at the
same locations.
8.2.5 Traverse Points. Select traverse points that ensure
representative samples. Conduct all RM tests within 3 cm of each
selected traverse point but no closer than 3 cm to the stack or duct
wall. The minimum requirement for traverse points are as follows:
(1) Establish a measurement line across the stack that passes
through the center and in the direction of any expected
stratification.
(2) Locate a minimum of three traverse points on the line at
16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the stack inside diameter.
(3) Alternatively, if the stack inside diameter is greater than
2.4 meters, you may locate the three traverse points on the line at
0.4, 1.2, and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct wall. You may not
use this alternative option after wet scrubbers or at points where
two streams with different pollutant concentrations are combined.
You may select different traverse points if you demonstrate and
provide verification that it provides a representative sample. You
may also use the traverse point specifications given the RM.
8.2.6 Relative Accuracy Procedure. Perform the number of RA
tests at the levels required in Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3. For
integrated samples (e.g., Method 3A or 7E), make a sample traverse
of at least 21 minutes, sampling for 7 minutes at each traverse
point. For grab samples (e.g., Method 3 or 7), take one sample at
each traverse point, scheduling the grab samples so that they are
taken simultaneously (within a 3-minute period) or at an equal
interval of time apart over a 21-minute period. A test run for grab
samples must be made up of at least three separate measurements.
Where multiple fuels are used in the monitored unit and the fuel
type affects the predicted emissions, determine a RA for each fuel
unless the effects of the alternative fuel on predicted emissions or
diluent were addressed in the model training process. The unit may
only use fuels that have been evaluated this way.
8.2.7 Correlation of RM and PEMS Data. Mark the beginning and
end of each RM test run (including the exact time of day) on the
permanent record of PEMS output. Correlate the PEMS and the RM test
data by the time and duration using the following steps:
A. Determine the integrated pollutant concentration for the PEMS
for each corresponding RM test period.
B. Consider system response time, if important, and confirm that
the pair of results is on a consistent moisture, temperature, and
diluent concentration basis.
C. Compare each average PEMS value to the corresponding average
RM value. Use the following guidelines to make these comparisons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If . . . Then . . . And then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RM has an instrumental Directly compare RM
or integrated non- and PEMS results.
instrumental sampling
technique.
The RM has a grab sampling Average the results Compare this average
technique. from all grab RM result with the
samples taken PEMS result
during the test obtained during the
run. The test run run.
must include >=3
separate grab
measurements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use the paired PEMS and RM data and the equations in Section
12.2 to calculate the RA in the units of the applicable emission
standard. For this 3-level RA test, calculate the RA at each
operation level.
8.3 Statistical Tests for PEMS that are Used for Continual
Compliance. In addition to the RA determination, evaluate the paired
RA and PEMS data using the following statistical tests.
8.3.1 Bias Test. From the RA data taken at the mid-level,
determine if a bias exists between the RM and PEMS. Use the
equations in Section 12.3.1.
8.3.2 F-test. Perform a separate F-test for the RA paired data
from each operating level to determine if the RM and PEMS variances
differ by more than might be expected from chance. Use the equations
in Section 12.3.2.
8.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Perform a correlation analysis using
the RA paired data from all operating levels combined to determine
how well the RM and PEMS correlate. Use the equations in Section
12.3.3. The correlation is waived if the process cannot be varied to
produce a concentration change sufficient for a successful
correlation test because of its technical design. In such cases,
should a subsequent RATA identify a variation in the RM measured
values by more than 30 percent, the waiver will not apply, and a
correlation analysis test must be performed at the next RATA.
8.4 Reporting. Summarize in tabular form the results of the RA
and statistical tests. Include all data sheets, calculations, and
charts (records of PEMS responses) necessary to verify that your
PEMS meets the performance specifications. Include in the report the
documentation used to establish your PEMS parameter envelopes.
8.5 Reevaluating Your PEMS After a Failed Test, Change in
Operations, or Change in Critical PEMS Parameter. After initial
certification, if your PEMS fails to pass a quarterly RAA or yearly
RATA, or if changes occur or are made that could result in a
significant change in the emission rate (e.g., turbine aging,
process modification, new process operating modes, or changes to
emission controls), your PEMS must be recertified using the tests
and procedures in Section 8.1. For example, if you initially
developed your PEMS for the emissions unit operating at 80-100
percent of its range, you would have performed the initial test
under these conditions. Later, if you wanted to operate the emission
unit at 50-100 percent of its range, you must conduct another RA
test and statistical tests, as applicable, to verify that the new
conditions of 50-100 percent of range are functional. These tests
must demonstrate that your PEMS provides acceptable data when
operating in the new range or with the new critical PEMS
parameter(s). The requirements of Section 8.1 must be completed by
the earlier of 60 unit operating days or 180 calendar days after the
failed RATA or after the change that caused a significant change in
emission rate.
9.0 Quality Control
You must incorporate a QA plan beyond the initial PEMS
certification test to verify that your system is generating quality-
assured data. The QA plan must include the components of this
section.
9.1 QA/QC Summary. Conduct the applicable ongoing tests listed
below.
Ongoing Quality Assurance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test PEMS regulatory purpose Acceptability Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensor Evaluation.................. All.................... ....................... Daily
[[Page 12588]]
RAA................................ Compliance............. 3-test average <=10% of Each quarter except
simultaneous PEMS quarter when RATA
average. performed
RATA............................... All.................... Same as for RA in Sec. Yearly in quarter when
13.1. RAA not performed
Bias Correction.................... All.................... If davg <= Bias test passed (no
[bond]cc[bond]. correction factor
needed)
PEMS Training...................... All.................... If Fcritical [gteqt]F r Optional after initial
[gteqt]0.8. and subsequent RATAs
Sensor Evaluation Alert Test All.................... See Section 6.1.8...... After each PEMS training
(optional).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.2 Daily Sensor Evaluation Check. Your sensor evaluation system
must check the integrity of each PEMS input at least daily.
9.3 Quarterly Relative Accuracy Audits. In the first year of
operation after the initial certification, perform a RAA consisting
of at least three 30-minute portable analyzer or RM determinations
each quarter a RATA is not performed. The average of the 3 portable
analyzer or RM determinations must not differ from the simultaneous
PEMS average value by more than 10 percent of the analyzer or RM
value or the test is failed. If a PEMS passes all quarterly RAAs in
the first year and also passes the subsequent yearly RATA in the
second year, you may elect to perform a single mid-year RAA in the
second year in place of the quarterly RAAs. This option may be
repeated, but only until the PEMS fails either a mid-year RAA or a
yearly RATA. When such a failure occurs, you must resume quarterly
RAAs in the quarter following the failure and continue conducting
quarterly RAAs until the PEMS successfully passes both a year of
quarterly RAAs and a subsequent RATA.
9.4 Yearly Relative Accuracy Test Audit. Perform a minimum 9-run
RATA at the normal operating level on a yearly basis in the quarter
that the RAA is not performed.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization [Reserved]
11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]
12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis
12.1 Nomenclature
B = PEMS bias adjustment factor.
cc = Confidence coefficient.
di = Difference between each RM and PEMS run.
d = Arithmetic mean of differences for all runs.
ei = Individual measurement provided by the PEMS or RM at
a particular level.
em = Mean of the PEMS or RM measurements at a particular
level.
ep = Individual measurement provided by the PEMS.
ev = Individual measurement provided by the RM.
F = Calculated F-value.
n = Number of RM runs.
PEMSi = Individual measurement provided by the PEMS.
PEMSiAdjusted = Individual measurement provided by the
PEMS adjusted for bias.
PEMS = Mean of the values provided by the PEMS at the normal
operating range during the bias test.
r = Coefficient of correlation.
RA = Relative accuracy.
RAA = Relative accuracy audit.
RM = Average RM value (or in the case of the RAA, the average
portable analyzer value). In cases where the average emissions for
the test are less than 50 percent of the applicable standard,
substitute the emission standard value here in place of the average
RM value.
Sd = Standard deviation of differences.
S2 = Variance of your PEMS or RM.
t0.025 = t-value for a one-sided, 97.5 percent confidence
interval (see Table 16-1).
12.2 Relative Accuracy Calculations. Calculate the mean of the
RM values. Calculate the differences between the pairs of
observations for the RM and the PEMS output sets. Finally, calculate
the mean of the differences, standard deviation, confidence
coefficient, and PEMS RA, using Equations 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, and 16-
4, respectively. For compliance PEMS, calculate the RA at each test
level. The PEMS must pass the RA criterion at each test level.
12.2.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
differences between paired RM and PEMS observations using Equation
16-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.094
12.2.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation of
the differences using Equation 16-2 (positive square root).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.095
12.2.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate the confidence
coefficient using Equation 16-3 and Table 16-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.096
12.2.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the RA of your data using
Equation 16-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.097
12.3 Compliance PEMS Statistical Tests. If your PEMS will be
used for continual compliance purposes, conduct the following tests
using the information obtained during the RA tests. For the
pollutant measurements at any one test level, if the mean value of
the RM is less than either 10 ppm or 5 percent of the emission
standard, all statistical tests are waived at that specific test
level. For diluent measurements at any one test level, if the mean
value of the RM is less than 3 percent of span, all statistical
tests are waived for that specific test level.
12.3.1 Bias Test. Conduct a bias test to determine if your PEMS
is biased relative to the RM. Determine the PEMS bias by comparing
the confidence coefficient obtained from Equation 16-3 to the
[[Page 12589]]
arithmetic mean of the differences determined in Equation 16-1. If
the arithmetic mean of the differences (d) is greater than the
absolute value of the confidence coefficient (cc), your PEMS must
incorporate a bias factor to adjust future PEMS values as in
Equation 16-5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.098
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.099
12.3.2 F-test. Conduct an F-test for each of the three RA data
sets collected at different test levels. Calculate the variances of
the PEMS and the RM using Equation 16-6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.100
Determine if the variance of the PEMS data is significantly
different from that of the RM data at each level by calculating the
F-value using Equation 16-7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.101
Compare the calculated F-value with the critical value of F at the
95 percent confidence level with n-1 degrees of freedom. The
critical value is obtained from Table 16-2 or a similar table for F-
distribution. If the calculated F-value is greater than the critical
value at any level, your proposed PEMS is unacceptable. For
pollutant PEMS measurements, if the standard deviation of the RM is
less than either 3 percent of the span or 5 ppm, use a RM standard
deviation of either 5 ppm or 3 percent of span. For diluent PEMS
measurements, if the standard deviation of the reference method is
less than 3 percent of span, use a RM standard deviation of 3
percent of span.
12.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Calculate the correlation
coefficient either manually using Eq. 16-8, on a graph, or by
computer using all of the paired data points from all operating
levels. Your PEMS correlation must be 0.8 or greater to be
acceptable. If during the initial certification test, your PEMS data
are determined to be auto-correlated according to the procedures in
40 CFR 75.41(b)(2), or if the signal-to-noise ratio of the data is
less than 4, then the correlation analysis is permanently waived.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.102
12.4 Relative Accuracy Audit. Calculate the quarterly RAA using
Equation 16-4.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.103
13.0 Method Performance
13.1 PEMS Relative Accuracy. The RA must not exceed 10 percent
if the PEMS measurements are greater than 100 ppm or 0.2 lbs/mm Btu.
The RA must not exceed 20 percent if the PEMS measurements are
between 100 ppm (or 0.2 lb/mm Btu) and 10 ppm (or 0.05 lb/mm Btu).
For measurements below 10 ppm, the absolute mean difference between
the PEMS measurements and the RM measurements must not exceed 2
pppm. For diluent PEMS, an alternative criterion of 1
percent absolute difference between the PEMS and RM may be used if
less stringent.
13.2 PEMS Bias. Your PEMS data is considered biased and must be
adjusted if the arithmetic mean (d) is greater than the absolute
value of the confidence coefficient (cc) in Equations 16.1 and 16.3.
In such cases, a bias factor must be used to correct your PEMS data.
13.3 PEMS Variance. Your calculated F-value must not be greater
than the critical F-value at the 95-percent confidence level for
your PEMS to be acceptable.
13.4 PEMS Correlation. Your calculated r-value must be greater
than or equal to 0.8 for your PEMS to be acceptable.
13.5 Relative Accuracy Audits. The average of the 3 portable
analyzer or RM determinations must not differ from the simultaneous
PEMS average value by more than 10 percent of the analyzer or RM
value.
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.070 Waste Management [Reserved]
16.0 References [Reserved]
17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data
Table 16-1--t-Values for One-sided, 97.5 Percent Confidence Intervals for Selected Sample Sizes*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n-1 t0.025 n-1 t0.025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................... 12.706 16 2.131
3............................................................... 4.303 17 2.120
4............................................................... 3.182 18 2.110
5............................................................... 2.776 19 2.101
6............................................................... 2.571 20 2.093
7............................................................... 2.447 21 2.086
8............................................................... 2.365 22 2.080
9............................................................... 2.306 23 2.074
10.............................................................. 2.262 24 2.069
11.............................................................. 2.228 25 2.064
12.............................................................. 2.201 26 2.060
13.............................................................. 2.179 27 2.056
14.............................................................. 2.160 28 2.052
15.............................................................. 2.145 > 29 t-Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Use n equal to the number of data points (n-1 equals the degrees of freedom).
[[Page 12590]]
Table 16-2. F-Values for Critical Value of F at the 95 Percent Confidence Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d.f. for S2PEMS
d.f. for S2RM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -----------------------
10 11 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... 161 199 215 224 230 234 236 238 240 241 243 243
.4 .5 .7 .6 .2 .0 .8 .9 .5 .8 .0 .9
2............... 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
51 00 16 25 30 33 35 37 38 50 40 41
3.10.......9.5.. 9.2 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.7
13 52 77 17 14 41 87 45 12 86 63 45
4............... 7.7 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
09 44 91 88 56 63 94 41 99 64 35 12
5............... 6.6 5.7 5.4 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6
08 86 10 92 50 50 76 18 73 35 03 78
6............... 5.9 5.1 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
87 43 57 34 87 84 07 47 99 60 27 00
7............... 5.5 4.7 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5
91 34 47 20 71 66 87 26 77 37 03 75
8............... 5.3 4.4 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2
18 59 66 38 88 81 01 38 88 47 12 84
9............... 5.1 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0
17 57 63 33 82 74 93 30 97 37 02 73
10.............. 4.9 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9
65 03 09 78 26 17 36 72 20 78 42 13
11.............. 4.8 3.9 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7
44 82 87 57 04 95 12 48 96 54 17 88
12.............. 4.7 3.8 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6
47 85 90 59 06 96 13 49 96 53 17 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. In Procedure 1 of Appendix F, paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 and
Section 8 is revised as follows:
Appendix F to Part 60--Quality Assurance Procedures
Procedure 1. Quality Assurance Requirements for Gas Continuous
Emission Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance Determination
* * * * *
5.1.2 Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA).
* * *
(3) Use Certified Reference Materials (CRM's) (See Citation 1)
audit gases that have been certified by comparison to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or EPA Traceability
Protocol Materials (ETPM's) following the most recent edition of
EPA's Traceability Protocol No. 1 (See Citation 2). Procedures for
preparation of CRM's are described in Citation 1. Procedures for
preparation of ETPM's are described in Citation 2. As an alternative
to CRM's or ETPM gases, Method 205 (See Citation 3) may be used. The
difference between the actual concentration of the audit gas and the
concentration indicated by the monitor is used to assess the
accuracy of the CEMS.
* * * * *
8. Bibliography
1. ``A Procedure for Establishing Traceability of Gas Mixtures
to Certain National Bureau of Standards Standard Reference
Materials.'' Joint publication by NBS and EPA-600/7-81-010, Revised
1989. Available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Quality Assurance Division (MD-77). Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
2. ``EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay And Certification Of
Gaseous Calibration Standards.'' EPA-600/R-97/121, September 1997.
Available from EPA's Emission Measurement Center at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
3. Method 205, ``Verification of Gas Dilution Systems for Field
Instrument Calibrations,'' 40 CFR 51, Appendix M.
* * * * *
0
6. In Procedure 2 of Appendix F, Section 10.1, paragraph (3) of Section
10.4, and paragraph (2) of Section 12.0 are revised as follows:
Procedure 2--Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter
Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources
* * * * *
10.1 When should I use paired trains for reference method testing?
Although not required, we recommend that you should use paired-train
reference method testing to generate data used to develop your PM CEMS
correlation and for RCA testing. Guidance on the use of paired sampling
trains can be found in the PM CEMS Knowledge Document (see section 16.5
of PS-11).
* * * * *
10.4 What are my limits for excessive audit inaccuracy?
* * * * *
(3) What are the criteria for excessive ACA error? Your PM CEMS is
out of control if the results of any ACA exceed 10 percent
of the average audit value, as calculated using Equation 2-1a, or 7.5
percent of the applicable standard, as calculated using Equation 2-1b,
whichever is greater.
* * * * *
12.0 What calculations and data analysis must I perform for my PM
CEMS?
* * * * *
(2) How do I calculate ACA accuracy? You must use either Equation
2-1a or 2-1b to calculate ACA accuracy for each of the three audit
points. However, when calculating ACA accuracy for the first audit
point (0 to 20 percent of measurement range), you must use Equation 2-
1b to calculate ACA accuracy if the reference standard value
(Rv) equals zero.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.104
[[Page 12591]]
Where:
ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at each audit point, in percent,
RCEM = Your PM CEMS response to the reference standard, and
RV = The reference standard value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25MR09.105
Where:
ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at each audit point, in percent,
CCEM = The PM concentration that corresponds to your PM CEMS
response to the reference standard, as calculated using the correlation
equation for your PM CEMS,
CRV = The PM concentration that corresponds to the reference
standard value in units consistent with CCEM, and
Cs = The PM concentration that corresponds to the applicable
emission limit in units consistent with CCEM.
* * * * *
Part 63--[Amended]
0
7. The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
8. In Method 303 of Appendix A, add a sentence to the end of Section
1.1 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods
Method 303--Determination of Visible Emissions From By-Product
Coke Oven Batteries
1.1 Applicability. * * * In order for the test method results to
be indicative of plant performance, the time of day of the run
should vary.
[FR Doc. E9-6275 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P