Monday, 

September 13, 2010 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

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

Restructuring of the Stationary Source 

Audit Program; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0531; FRL–9195–7] 

RIN 2060–AP23 

Restructuring of the Stationary Source 

Audit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

promulgate amendments to the General 

Provisions to allow accredited providers 

to supply stationary source audit 

samples and to require sources to obtain 

and use these samples from the 

accredited providers instead of from 

EPA, as is the current practice. All 

requirements pertaining to the audit 

samples have been moved to the 

General Provisions and have been 

removed from the test methods because 

the current language in the test methods 

regarding audit samples is inconsistent 

from method to method. Therefore, 

deleting all references to audit samples 

in the test methods eliminates any 

possible confusion and inconsistencies. 

Under this final rule, the requirement to 

use an audit sample during a 

compliance test will apply to all test 

methods for which a commercially 

available audit exists. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 30 

days after September 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0531. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the 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 Restructuring of the 

Stationary Source Audit Program 

Docket, Docket ID No. EPA–OAR–2008– 

0531, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday 

excluding legal holidays. The docket 

telephone number is (202) 566–1742. 

The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Assessment Division, 

Measurement Technology Group (E143– 

02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–1064; fax 

number: (919) 541–0516; e-mail address: 

sorrell.candace@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action would apply to you if you 

operate a stationary source that is 

subject to applicable requirements to 

conduct compliance testing under 40 

CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. 

In addition, this action would apply 

to you if Federal, State, or local agencies 

take certain additional actions. For 

example, this action would apply if 

State or local agencies implement 

regulations using any of the stationary 

source compliance test methods in 

Appendix M of Part 51 by adopting 

these methods in rules or permits (either 

by incorporation by reference or by 

duplicating the method in its entirety). 

The source categories and entities 

potentially affected include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ....................................................................... 336111 336112 Surface Coating. 

Industry ....................................................................... 332410 Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units. 

Industry ....................................................................... 332410 Electric Generating Units. 

Industry ....................................................................... 333611 Stationary Gas Turbines. 

Industry ....................................................................... 324110 Petroleum Refineries. 

Industry ....................................................................... 562213 Municipal Waste Combustors. 

Industry ....................................................................... 322110 Pulp and Paper Mills. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

B. Where can I obtain a copy of this 

action and other related information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the final 

rule is also available on the Worldwide 

Web (http://www.epa.gov/ttn) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following the Administrator’s 

signature, a copy of the final rule will 

be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

C. How is this document organized? 

The information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I obtain a copy of this 

document and other related information? 

C. How is this document organized? 

II. Background 

III. This Action 

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule 

A. Accreditation Program vs. Audit 

Program 

B. Alternatives to Restructuring the Audit 

Program 

C. Test Method Bias With Respect to the 

Audit Program 

D. Terms Need Defining or Clarifying 

E. Audit Sample Failure and NonCompliance 

F. Reporting Period 

G. Choosing Correct Concentration for an 

Audit Sample 

H. Cost Estimates 

I. Requiring the Same Analyst and 

Analytical System for Sample Analysis 

J. When are audit samples required? 

K. Audit Sample Availability 

L. Setting Acceptance Limits 

M. Audit Samples Should Not Apply to 

Instrumental Methods 

N. Notice and Comment Procedure 

O. Field Analysis of Audit Samples 

P. Audit Sample Matrix 

Q. Audit Results Reporting and 

Availability 

R. External QA Program 

S. No Justification for the Program 

T. Consistency 

U. Ordering Audit Samples 

V. EPA Maintained List of Audit Providers 

W. 2003 Study on Quality Gas Cylinder 

Samples 

X. Proposal Is Premature 

Y. Voluntary Consensus Standards Body 

(VCSB) Standard Does Not Meet EPA’s 

Needs 

Z. Gas Audit Samples Entry Point 

V. Judicial Review 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55637 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

II. Background 

The Restructuring of the Stationary 

Source Audit Program (SSAP) was 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

June 16, 2009, with a public comment 

period that ended July 16, 2009 (74 FR 

28451). A public commenter asked that 

the comment period be extended. We 

extended the public comment period 

until August 5, 2009 (74 FR 31903). A 

total of 21 comment letters were 

received on the proposed rule. We have 

compiled and responded to the public 

comments and made appropriate 

changes to the final rule based on the 

comments. 

III. This Action 

This action finalizes revisions to the 

General Provisions of Parts 51, 60, 61, 

and 63 to allow accredited audit sample 

providers to supply stationary source 

audit samples and to require sources to 

obtain and use these samples from the 

accredited providers instead of from 

EPA, as was the practice. It also revises 

test methods 5I, 6, 6A–C, 7, 7A–D, 8, 

15A, 16A, 18, 23, 25, 25C, 25D, 26, 26A, 

104, 106, 108, 108A–C, 204A–F, 306, 

306A, and 308 to delete any language 

pertaining to audit samples. By adding 

language to the General Provisions of 

Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63, the requirement 

to obtain and use audits for stationary 

source compliance testing using EPA 

stationary source test methods is 

expanded and clarified. The previous 

General Provisions and EPA test 

methods were not consistent in their 

language concerning the use or 

availability of audit samples. This 

action will potentially increase the 

number of test methods required to use 

audit samples and clarify how the 

samples are to be obtained and used. By 

clarifying the requirement for audit 

samples and expanding their 

availability through multiple providers, 

EPA believes audit samples will be used 

during more compliance tests and, 

therefore, the overall quality of the data 

used for determining compliance will 

improve. 

This action finalizes the regulatory 

criteria which list the minimum 

requirements for the audit samples, the 

accredited audit sample providers 

(AASP), and the audit sample provider 

acceditor (ASPA). The AASP is the 

company that prepares and distributes 

the audit samples and the ASPA is a 

third-party organization that will 

accredit and monitor the performance of 

the AASPs. Both the AASP and the 

ASPA must work with a Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Body (VCSB) using 

the consensus process to develop 

criteria documents that describe how 

they will function and meet EPA 

regulatory criteria listed in this rule. 

The Federal Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A–119 defines a VCSB 

as one having the following attributes: 

(i) Openness; (ii) balance of interest; 

(iii) due process; (iv) an appeals process; 

and (v) consensus, which is general 

agreement, but not necessarily 

unanimity, and includes a process for 

attempting to resolve objections by 

interested parties. As long as all 

comments have been fairly considered, 

each objector is advised of the 

disposition of his or her objection(s) and 

the reason(s) why, and the consensus 

body members are given an opportunity 

to change their votes after reviewing the 

comments. 

AASPs must be accredited by an 

ASPA according to a technical criteria 

document developed by a VCSB. The 

technical criteria document must meet 

EPA regulations. There may be many 

AASPs and more than one ASPA and 

VCSB. We predict that initially there 

will only be one VCSB. 

This action finalizes language that 

outlines the responsibilities of the 

regulated source owner or operator to 

acquire and use an audit sample for all 

testing conducted to determine 

compliance with an air emission limit. 

The requirement applies only if there 

are commercially available audit 

samples for the test method used during 

the compliance testing. The source 

owner, operator or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the appropriate compliance authority. 

In addition to allowing private AASPs 

to provide audit samples for the 

stationary source audit program, this 

action shifts the burden of obtaining an 

audit sample from the compliance 

authority to the source. In the past, the 

EPA provided the samples to the 

compliance authorities at no cost, but 

this action requires the source to 

purchase the samples from an 

accredited provider. The samples will 

vary in cost depending on the type of 

audit sample required; however, the 

cost will be a very small portion of the 

cost of a compliance test (approximately 

one percent). Based on historical data, 

EPA estimates that the total cost to 

industry to purchase audit samples will 

be between $150,000 to $200,000 per 

year at the current usage rate. 

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

A more detailed summary of the 

public comments and our responses can 

be found in the Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses document, 

which is available from several sources 

(see ADDRESSES section). The major 

public comments are summarized by 

subject as follows: 

A. Accreditation Program vs. Audit 

Program 

Comment: Several comments 

suggested that the audit program was 

not needed due to the existence of 

accreditation programs for laboratories 

or that EPA should conduct a 

proficiency testing program as part of an 

accreditation program. 

Response: An accreditation program 

or proficiency testing program serves a 

different purpose than an audit 

program. An accreditation program 

looks to see if the laboratory has the 

capabilities to conduct the analysis in 

question. The audit program is an event 

driven program that looks to see at a 

particular time that the combination of 

equipment and analyzer is able to 

analyze the sample within an acceptable 

range. Analyzing the audit samples at 

the same time as the field samples using 

the same equipment and analyst give 

the compliance authorities and the 

regulated community more confidence 

in the test results. 

B. Alternatives to Restructuring the 

Audit Program 

Comment: A number of commenters 

suggested alternatives to our proposed 

restructuring of the audit program to 

allow for independent accredited audit 

sample providers. These alternatives 

included maintaining the audit program 

as it currently stands in order to 

maintain oversight/authority, charging 

for audit samples, or conducting an EPA 

accreditation program for audit sample 

providers. 

Response: We retain oversight 

authority over all parties who develop 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

information required by EPA to fully 

assess the proper implementation of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 114 of the 

Act gives EPA the authority to require 

the production of information, test 

results and answers to questions EPA 

may ask. We do not believe that it is 

necessary for EPA to directly provide or 

approve specific audit samples in order 

to ensure integrity in this program. 

We do not believe it is necessary to 

develop a program to certify audit 

providers when there are already 

Voluntary Consensus Bodies in 

existence that have the capabilities to 

develop such a program with the input 

from a wide variety of stakeholders. 

Also, EPA is not legally allowed to 

charge for the samples. It would be a 

violation of the Miscellaneous Receipts 

Statute, 331 U.S.C. Section 3302(b), in 

addition to being an unlawful 

augmentation of EPA’s Congressional 

appropriation. 

C. Test Method Bias With Respect to the 

Audit Program 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

by definition a performance audit is 

intended to provide a measure of test 

data bias. The commenter stated that 

this program is presumably intended as 

an audit of emissions sampling and 

analysis that would include the 

sampling technique, sample handling, 

sample preparation, and sample 

analysis accounting for the 

measurement biases relative to all steps 

of the process. However, this is not clear 

in the proposed rule. Please clarify the 

intent of the performance audit. 

Response: Most of the current audit 

samples only evaluate the analysis 

portion of the method; we believe that 

in the future restructured program more 

audits will assess the effect of sampling 

and handling because we defined blind 

audit sample as follows: ‘‘A blind audit 

sample is a sample whose value is 

known only to the sample provider and 

is not revealed to the tested facility until 

after they report the measured value of 

the audit sample. For pollutants that 

exist in the gas phase at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that 

will be introduced into the sampling 

system of the test method at or near the 

same entry point as a sample from the 

emission source.’’ 

D. Terms Need Defining or Clarifying 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the following terms be 

defined in the final rule: Commercially 

available and true value. 

Response: We agree that 

‘‘commercially available’’ and ‘‘true 

value’’ need to be defined. The final rule 

has been revised to state that an audit 

sample is ‘‘commercially available’’ 

when there are two or more sources for 

obtaining the audit sample. ‘‘True value’’ 

is the spiked/expected value of the 

audit. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the term ‘‘performance audit’’ be 

revised to include the potential for field 

collection of audit samples. 

Response: Our intent was to include 

field collection and analysis in the 

definition of performance audit. We 

revised the definition in the final rule to 

state that if gaseous audits are available 

then they must be collected by the field 

sampling system during the compliance 

test just as the compliance samples are 

collected. 

E. Audit Sample Failure and NonCompliance 

Comment: Seven commenters oppose 

the use of audit samples as evidence of 

non-compliance and believe the audit 

sample results should only be used as 

a tool to assess the quality of the 

compliance testing results but not as the 

sole reason for finding a facility in noncompliance when the emission test may 

demonstrate compliance. 

Response: We believe the audit 

sample results can and should be used 

to assess the quality of test results for 

compliance purposes, but those audit 

sample results can and should, as 

appropriate, also be used to assist in 

establishing non-compliance. Sources 

may present whatever credible evidence 

they have to compliance officials 

indicating whether or not the audit 

sample results have a significant bearing 

on the compliance test results. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the rule provide a 

means to appeal or question a retest or 

compliance action as the result of a 

failed audit. They believe that EPA 

should provide oversight authority to 

referee such situations, while one 

commenter suggested a procedure to 

require the audit sample be reanalyzed 

by the accredited audit sample provider. 

Response: Audit samples are not the 

only criterion used to evaluate the 

quality of the test data; therefore, we do 

not expect disputes to be common. We 

believe that disputes involving failed 

audits can be negotiated by the parties. 

F. Reporting Period 

Comment: Three commenters 

requested that the final rule include 

additional time to submit a final report 

if audit results must be included in the 

report or delete the requirement to 

include the pass/fail results in the final 

report. 

Response: Since the purpose of an 

audit sample is to support the 

credibility of a particular test result, it 

is important that the pass/fail result of 

the audit sample be included in the 

final test report. By privatizing the audit 

program, facilities will be able to get 

audit results directly from the AASPs 

which will be much quicker then 

obtaining them from the compliance 

authorities as in the past. Since the 

procedure for obtaining audit results 

will now be quicker, the final rule does 

not include additional time to submit a 

final report. 

G. Choosing Correct Concentration for 

an Audit Sample 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed rule did not 

provide for compliance authority input 

into the supplied audit concentration 

levels. This commenter pointed out that 

while the proposal specifies that the 

source provide an estimate of the 

pollutant concentration(s), there is no 

compliance authority confirmation, nor 

the option for the compliance authority 

to make specific requests based on the 

needs for the given test program. 

Response: We agree that the 

compliance authority should have the 

opportunity for input into the supplied 

audit sample concentration level. The 

final rule has been revised to require 

that an acceptable criteria document 

must provide the opportunity for the 

compliance authority to comment with 

the supplied audit sample concentration 

levels. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Section 60.8(g)(1), ‘‘When ordering an 

audit sample, the source operator, or 

representative shall give the sample 

provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority’’ will cause 

confusion because a source may or may 

not know the concentration of the 

pollutant of concern. Because EPA’s 

interest is in ensuring that the emission 

standards are being met, the commenter 

suggested that the requirement should 

be to provide information on the 

standard the facility has to meet and the 

concentration that would be expected if 

the emissions equaled the permitted 

level. 

Response: We agree that the facility 

could provide information based on the 

facility standard or permit level instead 

of exact emissions. The rule has been 

revised to allow this option. 

H. Cost Estimates 

Comment: Four commenters stated 

that the cost estimates for audit samples 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55639 

are low. The commenters also asserted 

that the cost will be more than the 

EPA’s estimate of approximately 1 

percent of a source test. One commenter 

cited an example where a NELAC 

Performance Test (PT) sample initially 

cost $150 and quickly increased to over 

$900 for just a standard SO2 gas audit 

sample. 

Response: The commenter did not 

present any evidence to support this 

cost, and we were not able to 

substantiate the claim. According to 

discussions with the Executive Director 

of The NELAC Institute, the current cost 

range of SO2 PT samples is 

approximately $95 to $108, and we 

expect the cost for the SO2 audit 

samples to be about the same because 

they are made exactly the same and only 

used for different purposes. The cost 

estimates discussed in the proposed 

rulemaking are based on the last ten 

years that EPA has operated the 

program. 

Comment: Seven commenters stated 

that EPA significantly underestimated 

the cost of the audit program because 

EPA did not include the analytical fees 

associated with the audit. 

Response: Analytical fees are not a 

new cost. Facilities have always been 

required to pay for the analysis of the 

audit samples even under the current 

program where we have provided the 

audit samples free of charge. Therefore, 

we do not believe it is appropriate to 

add analytical fees to the estimated cost 

for the program. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the cost estimates and the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) are 

woefully incomplete. This commenter 

stated that EPA’s estimate should 

include the total costs and burdens 

imposed on sources by the proposed 

new SSAP such as the cost to sources 

for purchasing audit samples, analyzing 

(and in some cases reanalyzing) audit 

samples, reporting audit sample results 

and other information, developing and 

implementing the other aspects of the 

proposed ‘‘external QA program,’’ and 

participating initially and every two 

years thereafter in the proposed VCSB 

‘‘public process’’ to ensure that criteria 

developed by those organizations are 

reasonable, and not just the cost 

incurred by the AASP to report the true 

value of the audit sample. This 

commenter believes that the burden 

estimate should also include the cost to 

EPA of reviewing and approving 

proposed ‘‘written technical criteria 

documents’’ and otherwise participating 

in the VCSB process. This commenter 

believes that EPA could limit the ICR to 

the cost incurred by the AASP to report 

the true value of the audit sample only 

if the other burdens already were 

covered under an approved ICR for the 

period in question. 

Response: The ICR estimate of burden 

includes the estimated cost for the 

AASP to report the results of the audit 

to the compliance authority. In addition, 

the ICR has been revised to include the 

cost of the audit sample since in the 

past the audit samples were free. The 

cost of the requirement to analyze (and 

in some cases reanalyze) audit samples 

and reporting audit sample results has 

already been taken into account in past 

ICRs for each emission limit under the 

New Source Performance Standards 

which contained a burden estimate for 

reporting emission testing results to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

limits. We believe that not all 

compliance tests that should be audited 

are being audited under the current 

program. We believe under the 

restructured program the rate of 

compliance with the audit requirement 

will be higher; therefore, we have 

revised the ICR to reflect the fact that 

more audit samples will be purchased. 

The final rule does not require anyone 

to participate in the VCSB ‘‘public 

process’’ and, therefore, the cost of 

participating was not included in the 

ICR. 

I. Requiring the Same Analyst and 

Analytical System for Sample Analysis 

Comment: Two commenters are 

concerned about the requirement that 

the audit sample must be analyzed by 

the same analyst using the same 

analytical reagents and analytical 

system as the compliance samples. 

These commenters pointed out that 

there may be several gas 

chromatograph/mass spectrometers in a 

particular lab, and all of these 

instruments are calibrated and certified, 

so that it does not matter which of these 

instruments are used to analyze an 

individual sample. 

Response: While EPA agrees that 

identical instruments calibrated by the 

same reagents should give the same 

answer within repeatability limits, EPA 

also believes that it is important to limit 

all sources of imprecision and, 

therefore, the audits should be analyzed 

using the same analyst and the same 

analytical system as the compliance test 

samples. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the requirement that the ‘‘audit sample 

must be analyzed by the same analyst 

using the same analytical reagents and 

analytical system as the compliance 

samples’’ should be expanded to specify 

analyzing them in the same batch as the 

compliance samples and, if they are 

collected in the field, to collect them 

with the same person(s), using the same 

reagents and collection system. This 

commenter suggested that if field testers 

use different sampling trains to collect 

compliance samples during different 

test runs, from then the tester should 

collect audit samples with all the trains 

and analyze the samples from the 

different trains separately or as a 

composite. 

Response: We have revised the final 

rule to clarify how field audits should 

be collected when the audit sample is 

designed to check the sampling system. 

The final rule requires that field audits 

must be collected using the same field 

testing person who collected the field 

samples using one of the field sampling 

systems that was used to collect the 

compliance samples. If multiple 

sampling systems were used, the rule 

will not require that each sampling train 

used during the field test be used to 

collect an audit sample. The revised 

rule also requires that the audit samples 

must be analyzed at the same time as 

the test samples unless the compliance 

authority waives this requirement. 

J. When are audit samples required? 

Comment: Two commenters believe it 

makes more sense for the source and the 

compliance authority to discuss the 

need for an audit sample on a case-bycase basis instead of EPA making it 

mandatory for each individual test. 

Response: The requirement for an 

audit sample is nothing new. Current 

regulations require audit samples if they 

are available and we do not see a need 

to change the requirement. We believe 

that the program should be 

administered consistently across the 

Nation and the only way to do that is 

to require the tester to include an audit 

sample with all compliance tests using 

methods for which audits are available. 

The compliance authority can always 

waive the requirement to include an 

audit sample for a specific compliance 

test if they believe the audit sample is 

not necessary. 

Comment: Four commenters stated 

that the proposed rule was unclear with 

respect to how many audit samples may 

be required during a given performance 

test. They stated that if the same method 

is used and the same pollutant is 

sampled, then only one audit sample 

should be necessary for the entire set of 

samples collected during a test program. 

Response: We agree that only one 

audit sample per method used during a 

performance test is needed so long as all 

pollutants measured using that method 

are covered by the audit sample. The 

final rule has been revised to clarify 

this. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

K. Audit Sample Availability 

Comment: Two commenters are 

concerned that the timing for checking 

on availability of a specific pollutant 

audit sample does not mesh with the 

60-day requirement to submit a test 

protocol for approval by the permitting 

authority. The commenters suggested 

that the cut-off date for sources to locate 

and incorporate audit sample 

requirements into a performance test 

plan must be at least three months prior 

to submitting the test protocol to their 

permitting authority. 

Response: There is no requirement 

under the amended SSAP program to 

submit a test protocol for approval by 

the compliance authority. If a source 

chooses to voluntarily prepare and 

submit a test protocol, the protocol 

could incorporate audit sample 

requirements that would have to be met 

only if an audit sample became 

available 60 days prior to the scheduled 

test date. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

EPA presumes that there will be 

Accredited Audit Sample Providers or 

Accredited Proficiency Test Sample 

Providers willing to get in the business 

of supplying the necessary audits for all 

applicable methods. The commenters 

suggested that EPA should plan for a 

transition period if there is a delay in 

getting providers accredited. 

Response: We anticipate that audit 

samples will be available for most if not 

all the methods for which EPA currently 

provides audit samples. We know that 

The NELAC Institute is currently 

developing criteria documents and 

accreditation standards to produce audit 

standards (http://www.nelacinstitute.org/standards.php) so we know 

there is interest in the private sector. We 

believe there will be an accredited audit 

program in the future. Therefore, we do 

not believe that there is a need for a 

transition period during which EPA 

would continue to provide audit 

samples until an accredited audit 

sample provider is approved. Again, if 

an audit sample is not available, there 

is no requirement for use of an audit 

sample. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that PT samples should not be used in 

place of audit samples, unless PT 

providers follow the provider 

requirements and be accepted as an 

audit sample provider by a provider 

accreditor, as set forth in the Standards 

defined by the VCSB they are using. 

Response: We agree with this 

comment. The rule has been revised to 

remove the option of using PT samples 

in place of audit samples if audit 

samples are not available. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

EPA should not allow sources to forgo 

using an audit sample if the EPA fails 

to identify a provider on its Web site 60 

days before a scheduled test. This 

commenter contends that EPA should 

leave the job of identifying providers 

and which samples are available to the 

sources that are required to demonstrate 

compliance. 

Response: It takes time to plan and 

prepare for a source test. We do not 

want a source to be cited for a violation 

because an audit sample becomes 

available a short time before the 

compliance test. We also do not want 

sources and testing firms to spend time 

every day looking for available audit 

samples. Therefore, we believe the final 

rule needs to provide a 60-day time 

frame so that sources can properly plan 

a compliance test. In addition, listing 

the available audits on our Web site not 

only benefits the sources but also the 

compliance authorities. The list 

provides one location for them to see 

what is available; otherwise they too 

would have to constantly contact 

providers for information on available 

audits. 

L. Setting Acceptance Limits 

Comment: Two commenters are 

concerned about allowing the VCSBs to 

determine the audit acceptance criteria. 

The commenters contend that EPA 

needs to define its minimum 

requirements to define the acceptable 

level of performance for compliance 

purposes and not leave it up to 

voluntary consensus organizations. 

Response: We agree that EPA needs to 

define minimum requirements for how 

the acceptance criteria should be 

determined in the final rule. The final 

rule has been revised to specify that 

acceptance criteria must be based on 

results from the analysis of audit test 

samples analyzed by qualified 

laboratories using the method that is 

being audited. The final rule requires 

that acceptance limits must be set so 

that 90 percent of qualified laboratories 

would produce results within the 

acceptance limits for 95 percent of all 

future audits. This acceptance criterion 

is consistent with the general goal that 

EPA established for the program it 

operated in the past. 

M. Audit Samples Should Not Apply to 

Instrumental Methods 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed confusion and concern over 

how audit samples would be applied to 

instrumental methods and other test 

methods involving human observers 

(i.e., Method 9 and 22). 

Response: We agree that it is not 

necessary to require audit samples for 

those test methods that use instruments 

to measure pollutants in stack gas 

samples taken directly from an emission 

source. These methods include Method 

3C, 6C, 7E, 10, 20, 25A, 318, 320, and 

321. These methods already have 

sufficient calibration and quality 

assurance requirements that would 

make an additional audit sample 

redundant. We believe that Method 18 

also has sufficient quality assurance 

measures that make an audit sample 

unnecessary. This method requires that 

the tester perform a recovery study 

through the entire sampling system to 

demonstrate that the combined 

sampling and analytical system is 

capable of measuring the target 

pollutant within specified limits. The 

measured results are then corrected to 

account for the empirically determined 

recovery. We believe that for this 

method an audit sample would not add 

significant additional information about 

the quality of the measured results. We 

have revised the final rule to 

specifically exempt Methods 3C, 6C, 7E, 

9, 10, 18, 20, 22, 25A, 303, 318, 320, and 

321 from the requirement to have an 

audit sample. We also agree that 

Methods 9, 22, and 303 do not need 

audit samples. These are all methods for 

determining visible emissions by 

observation and, therefore, there is no 

practical way to audit them. The final 

rule has been revised to exempt these 

methods from the audit sample 

requirement. 

N. Notice and Comment Procedure 

Comment: One commenter believes 

this proposal turns the requirements of 

the ‘‘National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)’’ 

(Pub. L. 104–113) ‘‘on its head’’ because 

the NTTAA requires EPA (and other 

Federal agencies) to use standards 

already adopted by VCSBs, where 

appropriate, rather than developing 

their own government-unique 

standards. In addition NTTAA requires 

EPA to participate in the development 

of such standards to help ensure their 

usefulness in government applications 

but does not authorize EPA to adopt 

VCSB standards that do not currently 

exist, to adopt rules that condition 

sources’ compliance with Federal 

regulations on a VCSB’s adoption of 

standards, or to require regulated 

sources to participate in future VCSB 

proceedings in order to protect their 

interests. 

The commenter also contends that 

EPA’s own regulations do not allow 

EPA to approve and incorporate by 

reference future VCSB standards 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55641 

because it would be an unlawful 

circumvention of notice and comment 

procedures, and of limitations on 

incorporation by reference. 

Response: The NTTAA only requires 

agencies to use VCS in regulatory 

actions when VCSs are available. There 

are no current standards adopted by 

VCSBs for audit samples. We are 

allowing VCSBs to develop standards 

for audit samples and allowing these 

standards to be used for government 

applications. These audit samples are 

not used to determine compliance. They 

are quality assurance tools used during 

compliance testing to assist in 

determining the accuracy of the 

compliance testing. The final rule does 

not condition a sources’s compliance 

with Federal regulations on a VCSBs 

adoption of standards. If audit samples 

do not exist for a particular compliance 

test, an audit sample is not required. 

Although some may choose to 

participate, there is also no requirement 

that sources participate in future VCSB 

proceedings. 

On the second point, we did not 

circumvent notice and comment 

procedures. The final rule establishes 

minimum requirements for the audit 

samples, the accredited audit sample 

providers and the audit sample provider 

accreditor. We have proposed these 

criteria for notice and comment. 

Although audit samples may be 

produced in the future, the only audit 

samples that we will accept are those 

that meet the substantive requirements 

of this rule. Accordingly, all 

commenters have had a full opportunity 

to discuss their concerns with the 

requirements set for audit samples by 

this rule. 

O. Field Analysis of Audit Samples 

Comment: Five commenters requested 

that the final rule be revised to allow the 

owner/operator to obtain a waiver from 

the requirement to have the compliance 

authority present at the testing site on 

a case-by-case basis when the method 

being audited is a method that allows 

the samples to be analyzed in the field 

and tester plans to analyze the samples 

in the field because it may not be 

practical for a representative from the 

compliance authority to be on-site for 

every one of these audit analyses. 

Response: We agree that it may not be 

practical in all cases for a representative 

of the compliance authority to be 

present when an audit sample is 

analyzed in the field, so we revised the 

final rule to allow the owner/operator to 

obtain a waiver from the compliance 

authority for the requirement to have 

the compliance authority present at the 

testing site. 

P. Audit Sample Matrix 

Comment: Three commenters 

discussed the issue of the audit sample 

matrix. One commenter felt we needed 

to be clear about what interferents can 

and cannot be added to the samples to 

ensure consistency among the audit 

providers. Another commenter stated 

that EPA must specifically require that 

audit samples include realistic 

interferents while the third commenter 

found the use of interferents troubling 

since the audit providers would not 

necessarily know what to mimic. 

Response: The term sample matrix 

was not intended to imply that the audit 

samples were to be prepared in a 

manner that would duplicate an 

emission gas stream. The term matrix is 

only used in conjunction with those 

samples that do not consist of the 

pollutant in the gas phase in air or 

nitrogen. The term matrix was used to 

indicate that if a method collected the 

pollutant in a similar aqueous solution, 

then the audit sample should consist of 

the pollutant in an aqueous solution. 

The EPA believes that preparing audit 

samples in a matrix that would include 

interferents that might or might not be 

present in the stack is too complex to be 

workable. EPA is not requiring that 

interferents be included in the audit 

samples. 

Q. Audit Results Reporting and 

Availability 

Comment: One commenter believes 

the compliance authority should be 

provided a copy of the audit results at 

the time of shipment from the sample 

provider because having the results 

prior to sample analysis helps generate 

more accurate data and minimizes 

problems. 

Response: We believe that this would 

be beneficial but should not be 

mandatory. Since we did not provide 

the compliance authorities with the 

actual concentrations under the current 

audit program, it is hard to justify 

making it mandatory. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that if the audit is conducted in the field 

and the results of the audit are available 

prior to conducting the emission tests, 

the facility should be provided with 

information on the pass/fail status of the 

audit test results prior to carrying out 

the source test. The commenter points 

out that this would avoid unnecessary 

testing and waste of resources when the 

ability of the source tester is in question 

because of failure to produce acceptable 

results for the audit sample. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter, and there is nothing in the 

final rule to prevent this scenario. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

audit sample providers should report 

only pass or fail for the audit sample 

result and not the true value of the audit 

sample because audit samples are to be 

unknowns. This commenter was 

concerned that if the audit samples are 

supplied in a limited number of 

concentrations, then over time this 

might reveal the true values and would 

compromise the unknown status of the 

audit sample. 

Response: We agree that the sample’s 

true value needs to remain blind to the 

sources and laboratories at least until 

the values are reported. The final rule 

has been revised to state that only pass 

or fail results shall be reported unless 

the accredited audit sample provider 

ensures that no laboratory will receive 

the same sample twice. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the audit sample provider would be 

under no compliance (or contractual) 

obligation to provide a quick 

turnaround on the audit results, so 

significant delay could occur during this 

step, depending on the audit sample 

provider’s availability. This commenter 

asked EPA to add a regulatory provision 

requiring the audit sample provider to 

send out the results of the audit within 

7 calendar days. 

Response: We agree that it is 

important that the AASPs provide a 

quick turnaround of the audit results. 

The final rule includes a requirement 

that AASPs submit the results in a 

timely manner. The AASPs and the 

sources may decide a more specific time 

frame. 

R. External QA Program 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

confusion and concern about the 

proposed rule’s use of the terminology 

‘‘External QA program’’ and that an 

additional requirement might be added 

to the external QA program. 

Response: The only mandatory 

requirement under the restructured 

audit program would be to include an 

audit sample with each compliance test. 

EPA has revised the final rule to make 

this clear. 

S. No Justification for the Program 

Comment: Five commenters believe 

that EPA did not provide a justification 

for continuing the current program or 

expanding the program. Three 

commenters felt that the emergence of 

private providers is an insufficient 

rationale for the rulemaking. 

Response: We disagree. The 

emergence of private providers is one 

reason for changing the audit program. 

We discussed other reasons for 

privatizing the audit program in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Also, 

we believe allowing private companies 

to provide audit samples will: (1) 

Ensure a wider range of audit sample 

concentrations that will better match the 

working range of the methods, (2) 

provide a more efficient and responsive 

system for supplying the required 

samples, (3) ensure greater transparency 

in the operation of the audit program, 

(4) produce higher quality audit 

samples, and (5) ensure a more stable 

supply of samples. 

T. Consistency 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

there was an inconsistency in the 

proposed rules between the language in 

Part 51 and that in Part 60. According 

to this commenter, the language in Part 

51 could be interpreted to mean that the 

results for an audit sample could be 

reported to the AASP or Accredited PT 

Sample Providers (APTSP) at some later 

time after reporting to the compliance 

authority, whereas the language in Part 

60 could be interpreted to mean that the 

audit sample results should be reported 

to the compliance authority and to the 

AASP or APTSP at the same time. The 

commenter suggested that the statement 

in Part 51 should be amended to 

correspond with the statement in Part 

60. 

Response: We agree that the two 

statements should be consistent. The 

final rule has been revised so all parts 

require that the audit sample results be 

reported to the compliance authority 

and the audit sample provider at the 

same time. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we revise the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) General Provisions for 

consistency with the proposed audit 

restructuring program. The commenter 

pointed out that provisions in 63.7(4)(i) 

state that ‘‘audit materials may be 

obtained by contacting the appropriate 

EPA Regional Office or responsible 

enforcement authority,’’ and this 

language conflicts with the proposed 

rule. 

Response: We agree and the final rule 

has been revised to correct the 

inconsistency. 

U. Ordering Audit Samples 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that it is not clear who is responsible for 

obtaining the audit samples because the 

proposed rule allows the source or an 

agent for the source to request the audit 

sample for a source test. The 

commenters requested that EPA clarify 

the type of documentation that would 

be needed by the agent to demonstrate 

to the AASP that it is indeed an agent 

for the source. 

Response: This provision was 

intended to allow the source owner or 

someone designated by the owner such 

as a member of a source testing firm to 

request the audit sample. The agent 

would need to work with the AASP to 

provide any documentation necessary to 

satisfy the AASP that they were an agent 

acting for the source. 

Comment: One commenter believes 

there should be a time-frame for the 

source to order audit samples and the 

compliance authority should be notified 

when an audit sample was ordered. 

Response: The final rule has been 

revised to provide the compliance 

authority input into the audit sample 

concentration range which in itself 

provides the compliance authority 

notification of an audit sample order. 

We believe the time frame for ordering 

audit samples is an issue that should be 

considered by the source owner, 

compliance authority and the AASP. It 

is not an issue that is covered by this 

rule. 

V. EPA Maintained List of Audit 

Providers 

Comment: One commenter is 

concerned that if source owners seek the 

lowest cost AASPs, then there could be 

audit sample shortages, unforeseeable 

variations in costs, audit quality issues, 

and last minute failures in AASPs 

supplying audit samples. The 

commenter also asked that EPA flag or 

remove any AASP that fails to deliver 

audit material as offered or promised. 

Response: We intend to monitor the 

progress of this new system of 

supplying audit samples to ensure that 

it works as anticipated. We anticipate 

that most AASPs will deliver on their 

contracts, as most businesses want 

repeat customers. 

W. 2003 Study on Quality Gas Cylinder 

Samples 

Comment: One commenter believes 

reliance on voluntary consensus 

requirements for accreditation of audit 

samples does little to improve the 

reliability of compliance testing, and 

may threaten the quality of the testing 

itself without additional procedures for 

qualifying and auditing private entities. 

The commenter believes this makes the 

EPA proposal arbitrary and 

unreasonable. As proof of this 

contention, the commenter points to a 

2003 study where EPA performed an 

audit of 42 source-level, tri-blend, EPA 

Protocol calibration gas cylinders from a 

total of 14 major gas vendors 

nationwide. The commenter points out 

that the overall failure rate from this 

study was 11 percent on a gas 

component basis, and 57 percent on a 

vendor basis, and that no additional 

evidence of the availability or the 

quality or calibration of private vendor 

audit samples has been offered to refute 

EPA’s own study. 

Response: This study is not relevant 

to the restructuring of the audit 

program. The gas vendors surveyed in 

this study were not accredited to 

produce EPA Protocol calibration gases 

because the protocol gas program does 

not require accreditation and were not 

subject to any third party verification. 

The restructured audit program requires 

that providers be accredited and provide 

recurring third party verification of the 

quality of the audit samples being 

produced. 

X. Proposal Is Premature 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that there were no existing 

third party accrediting bodies for audit 

sample providers and, therefore, there 

are no AASPs from which to obtain 

audit samples under this proposed rule. 

This commenter contends that it is not 

sufficient for EPA to simply propose a 

framework and then to develop the 

details of the program after the 

opportunity for notice and comment has 

passed. 

Response: As stated previously, an 

audit sample is required with 

compliance testing only when a sample 

is available, except where exempted in 

the regulations. EPA is permitted to 

develop regulatory criteria for approval 

of criteria documents from audit sample 

providers and did this in the proposed 

rule which provided an opportunity for 

notice and comment. These are not 

‘‘details of the program’’ to be 

determined at a later date. If an audit 

sample provider’s criteria document 

meets the regulatory criteria, it will be 

approved and the sample provider may 

provide samples for sources conducting 

compliance tests. 

Y. Voluntary Consensus Standards Body 

(VCSB) Standard Does Not Meet EPA’s 

Needs 

Comment: One commenter believes 

the entire proposal is short on detail and 

hopes this will be addressed through 

EPA’s approval of accrediting bodies, 

where EPA would specify additional 

details. The commenter also expressed 

concern the VCSB may be able to agree 

to standards, but those standards might 

not serve the needs of EPA or other 

compliance authorities. 

Response: We believe that any 

program that meets the minimum 

criteria specified in the final rule will 

meet the needs of the EPA and other 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55643 

compliance agencies. The criteria in the 

final rule ensure that any program that 

is developed by the private sector and 

approved by EPA will be equivalent to 

EPA’s current audit program. 

Z. Gas Audit Samples Entry Point 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended changing Section 60.8(g) 

to read as follows: ‘‘For pollutants that 

exist in the gas phase at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that 

can be introduced into the sampling 

system of the test method at or near the 

same entry point as a sample from the 

emission source.’’ The commenter 

points out that in source gas sampling, 

calibration gases as well as audit gases 

are introduced in the probe such that 

they pass through most of the probe 

tube and all filters and other 

components of the sampling system, but 

it is not always practical to introduce 

the calibration gas at the same entry 

point as the source gas. 

Response: We agree that it may not 

always be practical to introduce the 

calibration gas at the same entry point 

as the source gas. EPA has revised the 

rule to allow introduction of the audit 

sample ‘‘at or near’’ the entry point for 

the sample from the emission source. 

V. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of this final rule is 

available by filing a petition for review 

in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit by 

November 12, 2010. Under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 

objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established by 

this action may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 

therefore, not subject to review under 

the E.O. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

A regulated emission source 

conducting a compliance test would 

purchase an audit sample from an 

AASP. The AASP would report the true 

value of the audit sample to the 

compliance authority (State, local or 

EPA Regional Office). This is a new 

reporting requirement. The AASP 

would in most cases make the report by 

electronic mail. A report would be made 

for each audit sample that the AASP 

sold to a regulated emission source that 

was conducting an emissions test to 

determine compliance with an emission 

limit. 

Based on historic data, EPA estimates 

that there will be about 1,000 audit 

samples sold each year generating the 

need for about 1,000 reports which 

corresponds to 80 hours burden or 0.08 

hour per response for reporting and 

recordkeeping. The estimated cost 

burden is $5.05 per response or an 

annual burden of $5,050. Burden means 

the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and 

providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities directly regulated by 

this final rule are small businesses. We 

have determined that annually as many 

as 70 or 0.001 percent of small 

businesses will experience an impact of 

0.013 to 0.2 percent of revenues. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any 

one year. The incremental costs 

associated with purchasing the audit 

samples (expected to be less than $1,000 

per test) do not impose a significant 

burden on sources. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. In 

fact, this rule removes the responsibility 

of acquiring the audit samples to the 

regulated facility from the government 

agency. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action adds 

language to the general provisions to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

allow accredited providers to supply 

stationary source audit samples and to 

require sources to obtain and use these 

samples from the accredited providers 

instead of from EPA, as is the current 

practice. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action adds language to the 

general provisions to allow accredited 

providers to supply stationary source 

audit samples and to require sources to 

obtain and use these samples from the 

accredited providers instead of from 

EPA, as is the current practice. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the E.O. has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to E.O. 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the Agency 

conducted a search to identify potential 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. However, we identified no 

such standards, and none were brought 

to our attention in comments. Therefore, 

EPA has decided to establish minimum 

requirements for the audit samples, the 

accredited audit sample providers and 

the audit sample provider accreditor. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

Federal executive policy on 

environmental justice. Its main 

provision directs Federal agencies, to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The amendments would 

add language to the general provisions 

to allow accredited providers to supply 

stationary source audit samples and to 

require sources to obtain and use these 

samples from the accredited providers 

instead of from EPA, as is the current 

practice. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective October 13, 2010. 

Restructuring of the Stationary Source 

Audit Program 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur compounds, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Continuous 

emission monitors. 

40 CFR Part 61 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and Procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 26, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

■ 2. Amend Appendix M to part 51 as 

follows: 

■ a. Designate the three introductory 

paragraphs as Sections 1.0 through 3.0. 

■ b. Add new Section 4.0. 

■ c. In Method 204A by removing 

Sections 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, and 7.2.3. 

■ d. In Method 204B by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

■ e. In Method 204C by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

■ f. In Method 204D by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

■ g. In Method 204E by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

■ h. In Method 204F by removing 

Sections 6.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55645 

Appendix M to Part 51—Recommended 

Test Methods for State Implementation 

Plans 

* * * * * 

4.0 Quality Assurance Procedures. The 

performance testing shall include a test 

method performance audit (PA) during the 

performance test. The PAs consist of blind 

audit samples supplied by an accredited 

audit sample provider and analyzed during 

the performance test in order to provide a 

measure of test data bias. Gaseous audit 

samples are designed to audit the 

performance of the sampling system as well 

as the analytical system and must be 

collected by the sampling system during the 

compliance test just as the compliance 

samples are collected. If a liquid or solid 

audit sample is designed to audit the 

sampling system, it must also be collected by 

the sampling system during the compliance 

test. If multiple sampling systems or 

sampling trains are used during the 

compliance test for any of the test methods, 

the tester is only required to use one of the 

sampling systems per method to collect the 

audit sample. The audit sample must be 

analyzed by the same analyst using the same 

analytical reagents and analytical system and 

at the same time as the compliance samples. 

Retests are required when there is a failure 

to produce acceptable results for an audit 

sample. However, if the audit results do not 

affect the compliance or noncompliance 

status of the affected facility, the compliance 

authority may waive the reanalysis 

requirement, further audits, or retests and 

accept the results of the compliance test. 

Acceptance of the test results shall constitute 

a waiver of the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests. The compliance 

authority may also use the audit sample 

failure and the compliance test results as 

evidence to determine the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected facility. 

A blind audit sample is a sample whose 

value is known only to the sample provider 

and is not revealed to the tested facility until 

after it reports the measured value of the 

audit sample. For pollutants that exist in the 

gas phase at ambient temperature, the audit 

sample shall consist of an appropriate 

concentration of the pollutant in air or 

nitrogen that will be introduced into the 

sampling system of the test method at or near 

the same entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant in the 

same matrix that would be produced when 

the sample is recovered from the sampling 

system as required by the test method. For 

samples that exist only in a liquid or solid 

form at ambient temperature, the audit 

sample shall consist of an appropriate 

concentration of the pollutant in the same 

matrix that would be produced when the 

sample is recovered from the sampling 

system as required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider (AASP) is 

an organization that has been accredited to 

prepare audit samples by an independent, 

third party accrediting body. 

a. The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if commercially 

available, from an AASP for each test method 

used for regulatory compliance purposes. No 

audit samples are required for the following 

test methods: Methods 3C of Appendix A–3 

of Part 60, Methods, 6C, 7E, 9, and 10 of 

Appendix A–4 of Part 60, Method 18 of 

Appendix A–6 of Part 60, Methods 20, 22, 

and 25A of Appendix A–7 of Part 60, and 

Methods 303, 318, 320, and 321 of Appendix 

A of Part 63. If multiple sources at a single 

facility are tested during a compliance test 

event, only one audit sample is required for 

each method used during a compliance test. 

The compliance authority responsible for the 

compliance test may waive the requirement 

to include an audit sample if they believe 

that an audit sample is not necessary. 

‘‘Commercially available’’ means that two or 

more independent AASPs have blind audit 

samples available for purchase. If the source 

owner, operator, or representative cannot 

find an audit sample for a specific method, 

the owner, operator, or representative shall 

consult the EPA Web site at the following 

URL, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc, to confirm 

whether there is a source that can supply an 

audit sample for that method. If the EPA Web 

site does not list an available audit sample 

at least 60 days prior to the beginning of the 

compliance test, the source owner, operator, 

or representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the quality 

assurance program for the compliance test. 

When ordering an audit sample, the source 

owner, operator, or representative shall give 

the sample provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source or the estimated 

concentration of each pollutant based on the 

permitted level and the name, address, and 

phone number of the compliance authority. 

The source owner, operator, or representative 

shall report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission test 

results for the audited pollutant to the 

compliance authority and shall report the 

results of the audit sample to the AASP. The 

source owner, operator, or representative 

shall make both reports at the same time and 

in the same manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and report to the 

AASP. If the method being audited is a 

method that allows the samples to be 

analyzed in the field and the tester plans to 

analyze the samples in the field, the tester 

may analyze the audit samples prior to 

collecting the emission samples provided a 

representative of the compliance authority is 

present at the testing site. The tester may 

request and the compliance authority may 

grant a waiver to the requirement that a 

representative of the compliance authority 

must be present at the testing site during the 

field analysis of an audit sample. The source 

owner, operator, or representative may report 

the results of the audit sample to the 

compliance authority and then report the 

results of the audit sample to the AASP prior 

to collecting any emission samples. The test 

protocol and final test report shall document 

whether an audit sample was ordered and 

utilized and the pass/fail results as 

applicable. 

b. An AASP shall have and shall prepare, 

analyze, and report the true value of audit 

samples in accordance with a written 

technical criteria document that describes 

how audit samples will be prepared and 

distributed in a manner that will ensure the 

integrity of the audit sample program. An 

acceptable technical criteria document shall 

contain standard operating procedures for all 

of the following operations: 

1. Preparing the sample; 

2. Confirming the true concentration of the 

sample; 

3. Defining the acceptance limits for the 

results from a well qualified tester. This 

procedure must use well established 

statistical methods to analyze historical 

results from well qualified testers. The 

acceptance limits shall be set so that there is 

95 percent confidence that 90 percent of well 

qualified labs will produce future results that 

are within the acceptance limit range; 

4. Providing the opportunity for the 

compliance authority to comment on the 

selected concentration level for an audit 

sample; 

5. Distributing the sample to the user in a 

manner that guarantees that the true value of 

the sample is unknown to the user; 

6. Recording the measured concentration 

reported by the user and determining if the 

measured value is within acceptable limits; 

7. Report the results from each audit 

sample in a timely manner to the compliance 

authority and to the source owner, operator, 

or representative by the AASP. The AASP 

shall make both reports at the same time and 

in the same manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and then report to 

the source owner, operator, or representative. 

The results shall include the name of the 

facility tested, the date on which the 

compliance test was conducted, the name of 

the company performing the sample 

collection, the name of the company that 

analyzed the compliance samples including 

the audit sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. The 

AASP shall report the true value of the audit 

sample to the compliance authority. The 

AASP may report the true value to the source 

owner, operator, or representative if the 

AASP’s operating plan ensures that no 

laboratory will receive the same audit sample 

twice. 

8. Evaluating the acceptance limits of 

samples at least once every two years to 

determine in consultation with the voluntary 

consensus standard body if they should be 

changed; 

9. Maintaining a database, accessible to the 

compliance authorities, of results from the 

audit that shall include the name of the 

facility tested, the date on which the 

compliance test was conducted, the name of 

the company performing the sample 

collection, the name of the company that 

analyzed the compliance samples including 

the audit sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

c. The accrediting body shall have a 

written technical criteria document that 

describes how it will ensure that the AASP 

is operating in accordance with the AASP 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

technical criteria document that describes 

how audit samples are to be prepared and 

distributed. This document shall contain 

standard operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

1. Checking audit samples to confirm their 

true value as reported by the AASP; 

2. Performing technical systems audits of 

the AASP’s facilities and operating 

procedures at least once every 2 years. 

3. Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

d. The technical criteria documents for the 

accredited sample providers and the 

accrediting body shall be developed through 

a public process guided by a voluntary 

consensus standards body (VCSB). The VCSB 

shall operate in accordance with the 

procedures and requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–119. A 

copy of Circular A–119 is available upon 

request by writing the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 

and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, by calling (202) 395– 

6880 or by downloading online at http:// 

standards.gov/standards_gov/a119.cfm. The 

VCSB shall approve all accrediting bodies. 

The Administrator will review all technical 

criteria documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in this Appendix M, 

paragraphs b. through d., the technical 

criteria documents are not acceptable and the 

proposed audit sample program is not 

capable of producing audit samples of 

sufficient quality to be used in a compliance 

test. All acceptable technical criteria 

documents shall be posted on the EPA Web 

site at the following URL, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc. 

* * * * * 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, 

7470–7479, 7491, 7492, 7601 and 7602. 

■ 4. Section 60.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 60.8 Performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(g) The performance testing shall 

include a test method performance audit 

(PA) during the performance test. The 

PAs consist of blind audit samples 

supplied by an accredited audit sample 

provider and analyzed during the 

performance test in order to provide a 

measure of test data bias. Gaseous audit 

samples are designed to audit the 

performance of the sampling system as 

well as the analytical system and must 

be collected by the sampling system 

during the compliance test just as the 

compliance samples are collected. If a 

liquid or solid audit sample is designed 

to audit the sampling system, it must 

also be collected by the sampling system 

during the compliance test. If multiple 

sampling systems or sampling trains are 

used during the compliance test for any 

of the test methods, the tester is only 

required to use one of the sampling 

systems per method to collect the audit 

sample. The audit sample must be 

analyzed by the same analyst using the 

same analytical reagents and analytical 

system and at the same time as the 

compliance samples. Retests are 

required when there is a failure to 

produce acceptable results for an audit 

sample. However, if the audit results do 

not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility, the compliance authority may 

waive the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests and accept the 

results of the compliance test. 

Acceptance of the test results shall 

constitute a waiver of the reanalysis 

requirement, further audits, or retests. 

The compliance authority may also use 

the audit sample failure and the 

compliance test results as evidence to 

determine the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility. A blind audit sample is a 

sample whose value is known only to 

the sample provider and is not revealed 

to the tested facility until after they 

report the measured value of the audit 

sample. For pollutants that exist in the 

gas phase at ambient temperature, the 

audit sample shall consist of an 

appropriate concentration of the 

pollutant in air or nitrogen that can be 

introduced into the sampling system of 

the test method at or near the same 

entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant 

in the same matrix that would be 

produced when the sample is recovered 

from the sampling system as required by 

the test method. For samples that exist 

only in a liquid or solid form at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in the same matrix that 

would be produced when the sample is 

recovered from the sampling system as 

required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) is an organization that has been 

accredited to prepare audit samples by 

an independent, third party accrediting 

body. 

(1) The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if commercially 

available, from an AASP for each test 

method used for regulatory compliance 

purposes. No audit samples are required 

for the following test methods: Methods 

3C of Appendix A–3 of Part 60, Methods 

6C, 7E, 9, and 10 of Appendix A–4 of 

Part 60, Method 18 of Appendix A–6 of 

Part 60, Methods 20, 22, and 25A of 

Appendix A–7 of Part 60, and Methods 

303, 318, 320, and 321 of Appendix A 

of Part 63. If multiple sources at a single 

facility are tested during a compliance 

test event, only one audit sample is 

required for each method used during a 

compliance test. The compliance 

authority responsible for the compliance 

test may waive the requirement to 

include an audit sample if they believe 

that an audit sample is not necessary. 

‘‘Commercially available’’ means that 

two or more independent AASPs have 

blind audit samples available for 

purchase. If the source owner, operator, 

or representative cannot find an audit 

sample for a specific method, the owner, 

operator, or representative shall consult 

the EPA Web site at the following URL, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc, to confirm 

whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. 

If the EPA Web site does not list an 

available audit sample at least 60 days 

prior to the beginning of the compliance 

test, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the 

quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an 

audit sample, the source, operator, or 

representative shall give the sample 

provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source or the estimated 

concentration of each pollutant based 

on the permitted level and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the compliance authority and shall 

report the results of the audit sample to 

the AASP. The source owner, operator, 

or representative shall make both 

reports at the same time and in the same 

manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and then 

report to the AASP. If the method being 

audited is a method that allows the 

samples to be analyzed in the field and 

the tester plans to analyze the samples 

in the field, the tester may analyze the 

audit samples prior to collecting the 

emission samples provided a 

representative of the compliance 

authority is present at the testing site. 

The tester may request and the 

compliance authority may grant a 

waiver to the requirement that a 

representative of the compliance 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55647 

authority must be present at the testing 

site during the field analysis of an audit 

sample. The source owner, operator, or 

representative may report the results of 

the audit sample to the compliance 

authority and report the results of the 

audit sample to the AASP prior to 

collecting any emission samples. The 

test protocol and final test report shall 

document whether an audit sample was 

ordered and utilized and the pass/fail 

results as applicable. 

(2) An AASP shall have and shall 

prepare, analyze, and report the true 

value of audit samples in accordance 

with a written technical criteria 

document that describes how audit 

samples will be prepared and 

distributed in a manner that will ensure 

the integrity of the audit sample 

program. An acceptable technical 

criteria document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(i) Preparing the sample; 

(ii) Confirming the true concentration 

of the sample; 

(iii) Defining the acceptance limits for 

the results from a well qualified tester. 

This procedure must use well 

established statistical methods to 

analyze historical results from well 

qualified testers. The acceptance limits 

shall be set so that there is 95 percent 

confidence that 90 percent of well 

qualified labs will produce future 

results that are within the acceptance 

limit range. 

(iv) Providing the opportunity for the 

compliance authority to comment on 

the selected concentration level for an 

audit sample; 

(v) Distributing the sample to the user 

in a manner that guarantees that the true 

value of the sample is unknown to the 

user; 

(vi) Recording the measured 

concentration reported by the user and 

determining if the measured value is 

within acceptable limits; 

(vii) The AASP shall report the results 

from each audit sample in a timely 

manner to the compliance authority and 

then to the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The AASP shall make 

both reports at the same time and in the 

same manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and then 

report to the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The results shall include 

the name of the facility tested, the date 

on which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. The 

AASP shall report the true value of the 

audit sample to the compliance 

authority. The AASP may report the 

true value to the source owner, operator, 

or representative if the AASP’s 

operating plan ensures that no 

laboratory will receive the same audit 

sample twice. 

(viii) Evaluating the acceptance limits 

of samples at least once every two years 

to determine in cooperation with the 

voluntary consensus standard body if 

they should be changed; 

(ix) Maintaining a database, accessible 

to the compliance authorities, of results 

from the audit that shall include the 

name of the facility tested, the date on 

which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

(3) The accrediting body shall have a 

written technical criteria document that 

describes how it will ensure that the 

AASP is operating in accordance with 

the AASP technical criteria document 

that describes how audit samples are to 

be prepared and distributed. This 

document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(i) Checking audit samples to confirm 

their true value as reported by the 

AASP; 

(ii) Performing technical systems 

audits of the AASP’s facilities and 

operating procedures at least once every 

two years; 

(iii) Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

(4) The technical criteria documents 

for the accredited sample providers and 

the accrediting body shall be developed 

through a public process guided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular 

A–119. A copy of Circular A–119 is 

available upon request by writing the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, by calling (202) 

395–6880 or downloading online at 

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/ 

a119.cfm. The VCSB shall approve all 

accrediting bodies. The Administrator 

will review all technical criteria 

documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in paragraphs 

(g)(2) through (4)of this section, the 

technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit 

sample program is not capable of 

producing audit samples of sufficient 

quality to be used in a compliance test. 

All acceptable technical criteria 

documents shall be posted on the EPA 

Web site at the following URL, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc. 

■ 5. In Appendix A–3 to part 60 amend 

Method 5I by revising Section 7.2 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A–3 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 4 through 5I 

* * * * * 

Method 5I—Determination of Low Level 

Particulate Matter Emissions From 

Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

7.2 Standards. There are no applicable 

standards commercially available for Method 

5I analyses. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend Appendix A–4 to part 60 as 

follows: 

■ a. In Method 6 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.3.6., including 

the note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1 

through 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1 through 

11.4.4, and 12.4. 

■ iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

■ b. In Method 6A as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 11.2. 

■ ii. Revise Section 16.5. 

■ c. In Method 6B by removing Section 

11.2. 

■ d. In Method 6C by revising Section 

16.1. 

■ e. In Method 7 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.3.10., including 

the note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.4, 11.4.1 

through 11.4.3, 11.5, 11.5.1 through 

11.5.4, and 12.6. 

■ iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

■ f. In Method 7A as follows: 

■ i. Revise Section 6.3. 

■ ii. Remove Section 7.3.5. 

■ iii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iv. Remove Section 11.3. 

■ g. In Method 7B as follows: 

■ i. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ ii. Remove Section 11.4. 

■ h. In Method 7C as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.2.15. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Section 11.6. 

■ i. In Method 7D as follows: 

■ i. Remove Sections 7.2.6 and 11.3. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ j. In Method 8 as follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

■ i. Remove Section 7.3.1., including 

the note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.1. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, 

11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2, 

11.4.3, 11.4.4, and 12.9. 

■ iiv. Revise Section 12.1. 

Appendix A–4 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 6 Through 10B 

* * * * * 

Method 6—Determination of Sulfur Dioxide 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

7.1.2 ..................................... Isopropanol check ........................................................... Ensure acceptable level of peroxide impurities in 

isopropanol. 

8.2, 10.1–10.4 ...................... Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensure accurate measurement of stack gas flow rate, 

sample volume. 

10.5 ...................................... Barium standard solution standardization ....................... Ensure precision of normality determination 

11.2.3 ................................... Replicate titrations ........................................................... Ensure precision of titration determinations. 

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature 

CSO2 = Concentration of SO2, dry basis, 

corrected to standard conditions, mg/ 

dscm (lb/dscf). 

N = Normality of barium standard titrant, 

meq/ml. 

Pbar = Barometric pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg). 

Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg 

(29.92 in. Hg). 

Tm = Average DGM absolute temperature, °K 

(°R). 

Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 °K 

(528 °R). 

Va = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml. 

Vm = Dry gas volume as measured by the 

DGM, dcm (dcf). 

Vm(std) = Dry gas volume measured by the 

DGM, corrected to standard conditions, 

dscm (dscf). 

Vsoln = Total volume of solution in which the 

SO2 sample is contained, 100 ml. 

Vt = Volume of barium standard titrant used 

for the sample (average of replicate 

titration), ml. 

Vtb = Volume of barium standard titrant used 

for the blank, ml. 

Y = DGM calibration factor. 

* * * * * 

Method 6A—Determination of Sulfur 

Dioxide, Moisture and Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions From Fossil Fuel Combustion 

Sources 

* * * * * 

16.5 Sample Analysis. Analysis of the 

peroxide solution is the same as that 

described in Section 11.1. 

* * * * * 

Method 6C—Determination of Sulfur 

Dioxide Emissions From Stationary Sources 

(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) 

* * * * * 

16.1 Alternative Interference Check. You 

may perform an alternative interference 

check consisting of at least three comparison 

runs between Method 6C and Method 6. This 

check validates the Method 6C results at each 

particular source category (type of facility) 

where the check is performed. When testing 

under conditions of low concentrations (<15 

ppm), this alternative interference check is 

not allowed. 

Note: The procedure described below 

applies to non-dilution sampling systems 

only. If this alternative interference check is 

used for a dilution sampling system, use a 

standard Method 6 sampling train and extract 

the sample directly from the exhaust stream 

at points collocated with the Method 6C 

sample probe. 

a. Build the modified Method 6 sampling 

train (flow control valve, two midget 

impingers containing 3 percent hydrogen 

peroxide, and dry gas meter) shown in Figure 

6C–1. Connect the sampling train to the 

sample bypass discharge vent. Record the dry 

gas meter reading before you begin sampling. 

Simultaneously collect modified Method 6 

and Method 6C samples. Open the flow 

control valve in the modified Method 6 train 

as you begin to sample with Method 6C. 

Adjust the Method 6 sampling rate to 1 liter 

per minute (.10 percent). The sampling time 

per run must be the same as for Method 6 

plus twice the average measurement system 

response time. If your modified Method 6 

train does not include a pump, you risk 

biasing the results high if you over-pressurize 

the midget impingers and cause a leak. You 

can reduce this risk by cautiously increasing 

the flow rate as sampling begins. 

b. After completing a run, record the final 

dry gas meter reading, meter temperature, 

and barometric pressure. Recover and 

analyze the contents of the midget impingers 

using the procedures in Method 6. Determine 

the average gas concentration reported by 

Method 6C for the run. 

* * * * * 

Method 7—Determination of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.1 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensure linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature 

A = Absorbance of sample. 

A1 = Absorbance of the 100-μg NO2 standard. 

A2 = Absorbance of the 200-μg NO2 standard. 

A3 = Absorbance of the 300-μg NO2 standard. 

A4 = Absorbance of the 400-μg NO2 standard. 

C = Concentration of NOX as NO2, dry basis, 

corrected to standard conditions, mg/ 

dsm3 (lb/dscf). 

F = Dilution factor (i.e., 25/5, 25/10, etc., 

required only if sample dilution was 

needed to reduce the absorbance into the 

range of the calibration). 

Kc = Spectrophotometer calibration factor. 

M = Mass of NOX as NO2 in gas sample, μg. 

Pf = Final absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg 

(in. Hg). 

Pi = Initial absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg 

(in. Hg). 

Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg 

(29.92 in. Hg). 

Tf = Final absolute temperature of flask, °K 

(°R). 

Ti = Initial absolute temperature of flask, °K 

(°R). 

Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 °K 

(528°R). 

Vsc = Sample volume at standard conditions 

(dry basis), ml. 

Vf = Volume of flask and valve, ml. 

Va = Volume of absorbing solution, 25 ml. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55649 

Method 7A—Determination of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions From Stationary Sources 

(Ion Chromatographic Method) 

* * * * * 

6.3 Analysis. For the analysis, the 

following equipment and supplies are 

required. Alternative instrumentation and 

procedures will be allowed provided the 

calibration precision requirement in Section 

10.1.2 can be met. 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.1 ...................................... Ion chromatographn calibration ...................................... Ensure linearity of ion chromatograph response to 

standards. 

* * * * * Method 7B—Determination of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions From Stationary Sources 

(Ultraviolet Spectrophotometric Method) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.1 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensures linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

* * * * * Method 7C—Determination of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions From Stationary Sources 

(Alkaline Permanganate/Colorimetric 

Method) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.2, 10.1–10.3 ...................... Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensure accurate measurement of sample volume. 

10.4 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensure linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards 

11.3 ...................................... Spiked sample analysis. ................................................. Ensure reduction efficiency of column. 

* * * * * Method 7D—Determination of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions From Stationary Sources— 

Alkaline-Permanganate/Ion 

Chromatographic Method 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.2, 10.1–10.3 ...................... Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensure accurate measurement of sample volume. 

10.4 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensure linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

11.3 ...................................... Spiked sample analysis .................................................. Ensure reduction efficiency of column. 

* * * * * Method 8—Determination of Sulfuric Acid 

and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From 

Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

7.1.3 ..................................... Isopropanol check ........................................................... Ensure acceptable level of peroxide impurities in 

isopropanol. 

8.4, 8.5, 10.1 ........................ Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensure accurate measurement of stack gas flow rate, 

sample volume. 

10.2 ...................................... Barium standard solution standardization ....................... Ensure normality determination. 

11.2 ...................................... Replicate titrations ........................................................... Ensure precision of titration determinations. 

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature. Same as Method 5, 

Section 12.1, with the following additions 

and exceptions: 

CH2SO4 = Sulfuric acid (including SO3) 

concentration, g/dscm (lb/dscf). 

CSO2 = Sulfur dioxide concentration, g/dscm 

(lb/dscf). 

N = Normality of barium perchlorate titrant, 

meq/ml. 

Va = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, 100 

ml for H2SO4 and 10 ml for SO2. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Vsoln = Total volume of solution in which the 

sample is contained, 250 ml for the SO2

sample and 1000 ml for the H2SO4

sample. 

Vt = Volume of barium standard solution 

titrant used for the sample, ml. 

Vtb = Volume of barium standard solution 

titrant used for the blank, ml. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. In Appendix A–5 to part 60 amend 

Method 15A as follows: 

■ a. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ b. Remove Section 11.2. 

Appendix A–5 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 11 Through 15A 

* * * * * 

Method 15A—Determination of Total 

Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Sulfur 

Recovery Plants in Petroleum Refineries 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.5 ........................................ System performance check ............................................ Ensures validity of sampling train components and analytical procedure. 

8.2, 10.0 ............................... Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensures accurate measurement of stack gas flow rate, 

sample volume. 

10.0 ...................................... Barium standard solution standardization ....................... Ensures precision of normality determination. 

11.1 ...................................... Replicate titrations ........................................................... Ensures precision of titration determinations. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend Appendix A–6 to part 60 as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise Method 16A as follows: 

■ i. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ ii. Remove Section 11.2. 

■ b. Revise Method 18 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Sections 7.2, including the 

note that follows, 8.2.1.5.2.2, and 

8.2.1.7. 

■ ii. Revise Section 8.2.2.2. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 8.2.2.4, and 

8.2.3.2.3. 

■ iv. Revise Section 8.2.4.2.2. 

■ v. Remove Sections 9.2 and 13.1(b). 

■ vi. Revise ‘‘Gaseous Organic Sampling 

and Analysis Checklist’’ at the end of the 

appendix. 

Appendix A–6 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 16 Through 18 

* * * * * 

Method 16A—Determination of Total 

Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Stationary 

Sources (Impinger Technique) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.5 ........................................ System performance check ............................................ Ensure validity of sampling train components and analytical procedure. 

8.2, 10.0 ............................... Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensure accurate measurement of stack gas flow rate, 

sample volume. 

10.0 ...................................... Barium standard solution standardization ....................... Ensure precision of normality determination. 

11.1 ...................................... Replicate titrations ........................................................... Ensure precision of titration determinations. 

* * * * * 

Method 18—Measurement of Gaseous 

Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 

Chromatography 

* * * * * 

8.2.2.2 Procedure. Calibrate the GC using 

the procedures in Section 8.2.1.5.2.1. To 

obtain a stack gas sample, assemble the 

sampling system as shown in Figure 18–12. 

Make sure all connections are tight. Turn on 

the probe and sample line heaters. As the 

temperature of the probe and heated line 

approaches the target temperature as 

indicated on the thermocouple readout 

device, control the heating to maintain a 

temperature greater than 110 °C. Conduct a 

3-point calibration of the GC by analyzing 

each gas mixture in triplicate. Generate a 

calibration curve. Place the inlet of the probe 

at the centroid of the duct, or at a point no 

closer to the walls than 1 m, and draw source 

gas into the probe, heated line, and sample 

loop. After thorough flushing, analyze the 

stack gas sample using the same conditions 

as for the calibration gas mixture. For each 

run, sample, analyze, and record five 

consecutive samples. A test consists of three 

runs (five samples per run times three runs, 

for a total of fifteen samples). After all 

samples have been analyzed, repeat the 

analysis of the mid-level calibration gas for 

each compound. For each calibration 

standard, compare the pre- and post-test 

average response factors (RF) for each 

compound. If the two calibration RF values 

(pre- and post-analysis) differ by more than 

5 percent from their mean value, then 

analyze the other calibration gas levels for 

that compound and determine the stack gas 

sample concentrations by comparison to both 

calibration curves (this is done by preparing 

a calibration curve using all the pre- and 

post-test calibration gas mixture values.) If 

the two calibration RF values differ by less 

than 5 percent from their mean value, the 

tester has the option of using only the pretest calibration curve to generate the 

concentration values. Record this calibration 

data and the other required data on the data 

sheet shown in Figure 18–11, deleting the 

dilution gas information. 

Note: Take care to draw all samples and 

calibration mixtures through the sample loop 

at the same pressure. 

* * * * * 

8.2.4.2.2 Use a sample probe, if required, 

to obtain the sample at the centroid of the 

duct or at a point no closer to the walls than 

1 m. Minimize the length of flexible tubing 

between the probe and adsorption tubes. 

Several adsorption tubes can be connected in 

series, if the extra adsorptive capacity is 

needed. Adsorption tubes should be 

maintained vertically during the test in order 

to prevent channeling. Provide the gas 

sample to the sample system at a pressure 

sufficient for the limiting orifice to function 

as a sonic orifice. Record the total time and 

sample flow rate (or the number of pump 

strokes), the barometric pressure, and 

ambient temperature. Obtain a total sample 

volume commensurate with the expected 

concentration(s) of the volatile organic(s) 

present and recommended sample loading 

factors (weight sample per weight adsorption 

media). Laboratory tests prior to actual 

sampling may be necessary to predetermine 

this volume. If water vapor is present in the 

sample at concentrations above 2 to 3 

percent, the adsorptive capacity may be 

severely reduced. Operate the gas 

chromatograph according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. After 

establishing optimum conditions, verify and 

document these conditions during all 

operations. Calibrate the instrument and then 

analyze the emission samples. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55651 

GASEOUS ORGANIC SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS CHECK LIST (RESPOND WITH INITIALS OR NUMBER AS APPROPRIATE) 

1. Pre-survey data ............................................................................................................................................................................ Date 

A. Grab sample collected .......................................................................................................................................................... b llll 

B. Grab sample analyzed for composition ................................................................................................................................ b llll 

Method GC ......................................................................................................................................................................... b llll 

GC/MS ................................................................................................................................................................................ b llll 

Otherllllllllllll ....................................................................................................................................... b llll 

C. GC–FID analysis performed ................................................................................................................................................. b llll 

2. Laboratory calibration curves prepared ........................................................................................................................................ b llll 

A. Number of components ........................................................................................................................................................ b llll 

B. Number of concentrations per component (3 required) ....................................................................................................... b llll 

C. OK obtained for field work .................................................................................................................................................... b llll 

3. Sampling procedures.

A. Method.

Bag sample ........................................................................................................................................................................ b llll 

Direct interface ................................................................................................................................................................... b llll 

Dilution interface ................................................................................................................................................................. b llll 

B. Number of samples collected ............................................................................................................................................... b llll 

4. Field Analysis.

A. Total hydrocarbon analysis performed ................................................................................................................................. b llll 

B. Calibration curve prepared ................................................................................................................................................... b llll 

Number of components ...................................................................................................................................................... b llll 

Number of concentrations per component (3 required) ..................................................................................................... b llll 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend Appendix A–7 to part 60 as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise Method 23 by removing 

Sections 8., 8.1., 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4. 

■ b. Revise Method 25 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, and 

7.5.2., including the note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, 

11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2, 

11.4.3, and 11.4.4. 

■ c. Revise Method 25C as follows: 

■ i. Remove Sections 7.3, 7.3.1, and 

7.3.2. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.1. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.2, 11.2.1, 

11.2.2, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, and 

11.3.4. 

■ d. Revise Method 25D by removing 

Sections 7.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, including the 

note that follows, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 

11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2. 

Appendix A–7 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 19 Through 25E 

* * * * * 

Method 25—Determination of Total Gaseous 

Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.1.1 ................................... Initial performance check of condensate recovery apparatus.Ensure acceptable condensate recovery efficiency. 

10.1.2, 10.2 .......................... NMO analyzer initial and daily performance checks ...... Ensure precision of analytical results. 

* * * * * Method 25C—Determination of Nonmethane 

Organic Compounds (NMOC) in Landfill 

Gases 

* * * * * 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.4.1 ..................................... Verify that landfill gas sample contains less than 20 

percent N2 or 5 percent O2.

Ensures that ambient air was not drawn into the landfill 

gas sample. 

10.1, 10.2 ............................. NMOC analyzer initial and daily performance checks .... Ensures precision of analytical results. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend Appendix A–8 to part 60 

as follows: 

■ a. Revise Method 26 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.3., including the 

note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.2, 11.2.1, 

11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 

11.3.3, and 11.3.4. 

■ b. Revise Method 26A as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.3., including the 

note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise the first Section 9.1. 

■ iii. Redesignate the second Section 9.1 

as 9.2. 

■ iv. Remove Sections 11.4, 11.4.1, 

11.4.2, 11.4.3, 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 

11.5.3, and 11.5.4. 

Appendix A–8 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 26 through 29 

* * * * * 

Method 26—Determination of Hydrogen 

Halide and Halogen Emissions From 

Stationary Sources Non-Isokinetic Method 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Method 26A—Determination of Hydrogen 

Halide and Halogen Emissions From 

Stationary Sources Isokinetic Method 

* * * * * 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.1.4, 10.1 ............................ Sampling equipment leak-check and calibration ............ Ensure accurate measurement of stack gas flow rate, 

sample volume. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS 

■ 11. The authority citation for Part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7413, 

7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602. 

■ 12. Section 61.13 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(1) and adding and 

reserving paragraph (e)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.13 Emission tests and waiver of 

emission tests. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The performance testing shall 

include a test method performance audit 

(PA) during the performance test. The 

PAs consist of blind audit samples 

supplied by an accredited audit sample 

provider and analyzed during the 

performance test in order to provide a 

measure of test data bias. Gaseous audit 

samples are designed to audit the 

performance of the sampling system as 

well as the analytical system and must 

be collected by the sampling system 

during the compliance test just as the 

compliance samples are collected. If a 

liquid or solid audit sample is designed 

to audit the sampling system, it must 

also be collected by the sampling system 

during the compliance test. If multiple 

sampling systems or sampling trains are 

used during the compliance test for any 

of the test methods, the tester is only 

required to use one of the sampling 

systems per method to collect the audit 

sample. The audit sample must be 

analyzed by the same analyst using the 

same analytical reagents and analytical 

system and at the same time as the 

compliance samples. Retests are 

required when there is a failure to 

produce acceptable results for an audit 

sample. However, if the audit results do 

not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility, the compliance authority may 

waive the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests and accept the 

results of the compliance test. 

Acceptance of the test results shall 

constitute a waiver of the reanalysis 

requirement, further audits, or retests. 

The compliance authority may also use 

the audit sample failure and the 

compliance test results as evidence to 

determine the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility. A blind audit sample is a 

sample whose value is known only to 

the sample provider and is not revealed 

to the tested facility until after they 

report the measured value of the audit 

sample. For pollutants that exist in the 

gas phase at ambient temperature, the 

audit sample shall consist of an 

appropriate concentration of the 

pollutant in air or nitrogen that can be 

introduced into the sampling system of 

the test method at or near the same 

entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant 

in the same matrix that would be 

produced when the sample is recovered 

from the sampling system as required by 

the test method. For samples that exist 

only in a liquid or solid form at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in the same matrix that 

would be produced when the sample is 

recovered from the sampling system as 

required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) is an organization that has been 

accredited to prepare audit samples by 

an independent, third party accrediting 

body. 

(i) The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if commercially 

available, from an AASP for each test 

method used for regulatory compliance 

purposes. No audit samples are required 

for the following test methods: Methods 

3C of Appendix A–3 of Part 60, Methods 

6C, 7E, 9, and 10 of Appendix A–4 of 

Part 60, Method 18 of Appendix A–6 of 

Part 60, Methods 20, 22, and 25A of 

Appendix A–7 of Part 60, and Methods 

303, 318, 320, and 321 of Appendix A 

of Part 63. If multiple sources at a single 

facility are tested during a compliance 

test event, only one audit sample is 

required for each method used during a 

compliance test. The compliance 

authority responsible for the compliance 

test may waive the requirement to 

include an audit sample if they believe 

that an audit sample is not necessary. 

‘‘Commercially available’’ means that 

two or more independent AASPs have 

blind audit samples available for 

purchase. If the source owner, operator, 

or representative cannot find an audit 

sample for a specific method, the owner, 

operator, or representative shall consult 

the EPA Web site at the following URL, 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc, to confirm 

whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. 

If the EPA Web site does not list an 

available audit sample at least 60 days 

prior to the beginning of the compliance 

test, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the 

quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an 

audit sample, the source owner, 

operator, or representative shall give the 

sample provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source or the estimated 

concentration of each pollutant based 

on the permitted level and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the compliance authority and shall 

report the results of the audit sample to 

the AASP. The source owner, operator, 

or representative shall make both 

reports at the same time and in the same 

manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and report to 

the AASP. If the method being audited 

is a method that allows the samples to 

be analyzed in the field and the tester 

plans to analyze the samples in the 

field, the tester may analyze the audit 

samples prior to collecting the emission 

samples provided a representative of the 

compliance authority is present at the 

testing site. The tester may request and 

the compliance authority may grant a 

waiver to the requirement that a 

representative of the compliance 

authority must be present at the testing 

site during the field analysis of an audit 

sample. The source owner, operator, or 

representative may report the results of 

the audit sample to the compliance 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55653 

authority and then report the results of 

the audit sample to the AASP prior to 

collecting any emission samples. The 

test protocol and final test report shall 

document whether an audit sample was 

ordered and utilized and the pass/fail 

results as applicable. 

(ii) An AASP shall have and shall 

prepare, analyze, and report the true 

value of audit samples in accordance 

with a written technical criteria 

document that describes how audit 

samples will be prepared and 

distributed in a manner that will ensure 

the integrity of the audit sample 

program. An acceptable technical 

criteria document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(A) Preparing the sample; 

(B) Confirming the true concentration 

of the sample; 

(C) Defining the acceptance limits for 

the results from a well qualified tester. 

This procedure must use well 

established statistical methods to 

analyze historical results from well 

qualified testers. The acceptance limits 

shall be set so that there is 95 percent 

confidence that 90 percent of well 

qualified labs will produce future 

results that are within the acceptance 

limit range; 

(D) Providing the opportunity for the 

compliance authority to comment on 

the selected concentration level for an 

audit sample; 

(E) Distributing the sample to the user 

in a manner that guarantees that the true 

value of the sample is unknown to the 

user; 

(F) Recording the measured 

concentration reported by the user and 

determining if the measured value is 

within acceptable limits; 

(G) Reporting the results from each 

audit sample in a timely manner to the 

compliance authority and to the source 

owner, operator, or representative by the 

AASP. The AASP shall make both 

reports at the same time and in the same 

manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and then 

report to the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The results shall include 

the name of the facility tested, the date 

on which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. The 

AASP shall report the true value of the 

audit sample to the compliance 

authority. The AASP may report the 

true value to the source owner, operator, 

or representative if the AASP’s 

operating plan ensures that no 

laboratory will receive the same audit 

sample twice. 

(H) Evaluating the acceptance limits 

of samples at least once every two years 

to determine in consultation with the 

voluntary consensus standard body if 

they should be changed; 

(I) Maintaining a database, accessible 

to the compliance authorities, of results 

from the audit that shall include the 

name of the facility tested, the date on 

which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

(iii) The accrediting body shall have 

a written technical criteria document 

that describes how it will ensure that 

the AASP is operating in accordance 

with the AASP technical criteria 

document that describes how audit or 

samples are to be prepared and 

distributed. This document shall 

contain standard operating procedures 

for all of the following operations: 

(A) Checking audit samples to 

confirm their true value as reported by 

the AASP. 

(B) Performing technical systems 

audits of the AASP’s facilities and 

operating procedures at least once every 

two years. 

(C) Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

(iv) The technical criteria documents 

for the accredited sample providers and 

the accrediting body shall be developed 

through a public process guided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A– 

119. A copy of Circular A–119 is 

available upon request by writing the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, by calling (202) 

395–6880 or downloading online at 

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/ 

a119.cfm. The VCSB shall approve all 

accrediting bodies. The Administrator 

will review all technical criteria 

documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section, the 

technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit 

sample program is not capable of 

producing audit samples of sufficient 

quality to be used in a compliance test. 

All acceptable technical criteria 

documents shall be posted on the EPA 

Web site at the following URL, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

Appendix B—[Amended] 

■ 13. Amend Appendix B to part 61 as 

follows: 

■ a. In Method 104 revise Section 9. 

■ b. In Method 106 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Sections 7.2.4, 7.2.4.1, 

including the note that follows, and 

7.2.4.2. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 

11.1. 

■ c. In Method 108 as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.3.16., including 

the note that follows. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.1. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.6, 11.6.1, 

11.6.2, including the note that follows, 

11.6.3, 11.7, 11.7.1, 11.7.2, 11.7.3, and 

11.7.4. 

■ iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

d. In Method 108A as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.2.1. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Sections 11.6, 11.6.1, 

11.6.2, including the note that follows, 

11.6.3, 11.7, 11.7.1, 11.7.2, 11.7.3, and 

11.7.4. 

e. In Method 108B as follows: 

■ i. Remove Section 7.2.5. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Section 11.5. 

f. In Method 108C as follows: 

■ i. Remove Sections 7.2.10. 

■ ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

■ iii. Remove Section 11.3. 

g. In Method 111 as follows: 

■ i. Revise Section 9.2. 

■ ii. Revise Section 11.0. 

■ iii. Remove Section 11.3. 

Appendix B to Part 61—Test Methods 

* * * * * 

Method 104—Determination of Beryllium 

Emissions From Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.4, 10.1 ............................... Sampling equipment leak checks and calibration .......... Ensure accuracy and precision of sampling measurements. 

10.2 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensure linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

11.5 ...................................... Check for matrix effects .................................................. Eliminate matrix effects. 

* * * * * Method 106—Determination of Vinyl 

Chloride Emissions From Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.3 ...................................... Chromatograph calibration .............................................. Ensure precision and accuracy of chromatograph. 

* * * * * Method 108—Determination of Particulate 

and Gaseous Arsenic Emissions 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

8.4, 10.1 ............................... Sampling equipment leak-checks and calibration .......... Ensures accuracy and precision of sampling measurements. 

10.4 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensures linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

11.5 ...................................... Check for matrix effects .................................................. Eliminates matrix effects. 

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature 

Bws = Water in the gas stream, proportion by 

volume. 

Ca = Concentration of arsenic as read from 

the standard curve, μg/ml. 

Cs = Arsenic concentration in stack gas, dry 

basis, converted to standard conditions, 

g/dsm3 (gr/dscf). 

Ea = Arsenic mass emission rate, g/hr (lb/hr). 

Fd = Dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample 

has not been diluted). 

I = Percent of isokinetic sampling. 

mbi = Total mass of all four impingers and 

contents before sampling, g. 

mfi = Total mass of all four impingers and 

contents after sampling, g. 

mn = Total mass of arsenic collected in a 

specific part of the sampling train, μg. 

mt = Total mass of arsenic collected in the 

sampling train, μg. 

Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter 

temperature (see Figure 108–2), °K (°R). 

Vm = Volume of gas sample as measured by 

the dry gas meter, dry basis, m3 (ft3). 

Vm(std) = Volume of gas sample as measured 

by the dry gas meter, corrected to 

standard conditions, m3 (ft3). 

Vn = Volume of solution in which the arsenic 

is contained, ml. 

Vw(std) = Volume of water vapor collected in 

the sampling train, corrected to standard 

conditions, m3 (ft3). 

DH = Average pressure differential across the 

orifice meter (see Figure 108–2), mm 

H2O (in. H2O). 

* * * * * 

Method 108A—Determination of Arsenic 

Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous 

Smelters 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.2 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensure linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

11.5 ...................................... Check for matrix effects .................................................. Eliminate matrix effects. 

* * * * * Method 108B—Determination of Arsenic 

Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous 

Smelters 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.2 ...................................... Spectrophotometer calibration ........................................ Ensure linearity of spectrophotometer response to 

standards. 

11.4 ...................................... Check for matrix effects .................................................. Eliminate matrix effects. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55655 

* * * * * Method 108C—Determination of Arsenic 

Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous 

Smelters (Molybdenum Blue Photometric 

Procedure) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.2 ...................................... Calibration curve preparation .......................................... Ensure linearity of spectrophotometric response to 

standards. 

* * * * * Method 111—Determination of Polonium— 

210 Emissions From Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.2 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.1 ...................................... Standardization of alpha spectrometry system ............... Ensure precision of sample analyses. 

10.3 ...................................... Standardization of internal proportional counter ............. Ensure precise sizing of sample aliquot. 

11.1, 11.2 ............................. Determination of procedure background and instrument 

background.

Minimize background effects. 

* * * * * 

11.0 Analytical Procedure 

Note: Perform duplicate analyses of all 

samples, including background counts and 

Method 5 samples. Duplicate measurements 

are considered acceptable when the 

difference between them is less than two 

standard deviations as described in EPA 600/ 

4–77–001 or subsequent revisions. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 15. Section 63.7 is amended by 

revising (c)(2)(iii) and removing 

paragraph (c)(4). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 63.7 Performance testing requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The performance testing shall 

include a test method performance audit 

(PA) during the performance test. The 

PAs consist of blind audit samples 

supplied by an accredited audit sample 

provider and analyzed during the 

performance test in order to provide a 

measure of test data bias. Gaseous audit 

samples are designed to audit the 

performance of the sampling system as 

well as the analytical system and must 

be collected by the sampling system 

during the compliance test just as the 

compliance samples are collected. If a 

liquid or solid audit sample is designed 

to audit the sampling system, it must 

also be collected by the sampling system 

during the compliance test. If multiple 

sampling systems or sampling trains are 

used during the compliance test for any 

of the test methods, the tester is only 

required to use one of the sampling 

systems per method to collect the audit 

sample. The audit sample must be 

analyzed by the same analyst using the 

same analytical reagents and analytical 

system and at the same time as the 

compliance samples. Retests are 

required when there is a failure to 

produce acceptable results for an audit 

sample. However, if the audit results do 

not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility, the compliance authority may 

waive the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests and accept the 

results of the compliance test. 

Acceptance of the test results shall 

constitute a waiver of the reanalysis 

requirement, further audits, or retests. 

The compliance authority may also use 

the audit sample failure and the 

compliance test results as evidence to 

determine the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility. A blind audit sample is a 

sample whose value is known only to 

the sample provider and is not revealed 

to the tested facility until after they 

report the measured value of the audit 

sample. For pollutants that exist in the 

gas phase at ambient temperature, the 

audit sample shall consist of an 

appropriate concentration of the 

pollutant in air or nitrogen that can be 

introduced into the sampling system of 

the test method at or near the same 

entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant 

in the same matrix that would be 

produced when the sample is recovered 

from the sampling system as required by 

the test method. For samples that exist 

only in a liquid or solid form at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in the same matrix that 

would be produced when the sample is 

recovered from the sampling system as 

required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) is an organization that has been 

accredited to prepare audit samples by 

an independent, third party accrediting 

body. 

(A) The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if commercially 

available, from an AASP for each test 

method used for regulatory compliance 

purposes. No audit samples are required 

for the following test methods: Methods 

3C of Appendix A–3 of Part 60, Methods 

6C, 7E, 9, and 10 of Appendix A–4 of 

Part 60, Method 18 of Appendix A–6 of 

Part 60, Methods 20, 22, and 25A of 

Appendix A–7 of Part 60, and Methods 

303, 318, 320, and 321 of Appendix A 

of Part 63. If multiple sources at a single 

facility are tested during a compliance 

test event, only one audit sample is 

required for each method used during a 

compliance test. The compliance 

authority responsible for the compliance 

test may waive the requirement to 

include an audit sample if they believe 

that an audit sample is not necessary. 

‘‘Commercially available’’ means that 

two or more independent AASPs have 

blind audit samples available for 

purchase. If the source owner, operator, 

or representative cannot find an audit 

sample for a specific method, the owner, 

operator, or representative shall consult 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

55656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the EPA Web site at the following URL, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc, to confirm 

whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. 

If the EPA Web site does not list an 

available audit sample at least 60 days 

prior to the beginning of the compliance 

test, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the 

quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an 

audit sample, the source owner, 

operator, or representative shall give the 

sample provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source or the estimated 

concentration of each pollutant based 

on the permitted level and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the compliance authority and shall 

report the results of the audit sample to 

the AASP. The source owner, operator, 

or representative shall make both 

reports at the same time and in the same 

manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and report to 

the AASP. If the method being audited 

is a method that allows the samples to 

be analyzed in the field and the tester 

plans to analyze the samples in the 

field, the tester may analyze the audit 

samples prior to collecting the emission 

samples provided a representative of the 

compliance authority is present at the 

testing site. The tester may request and 

the compliance authority may grant a 

waiver to the requirement that a 

representative of the compliance 

authority must be present at the testing 

site during the field analysis of an audit 

sample. The source owner, operator, or 

representative may report the results of 

the audit sample to the compliance 

authority and then report the results of 

the audit sample to the AASP prior to 

collecting any emission samples. The 

test protocol and final test report shall 

document whether an audit sample was 

ordered and utilized and the pass/fail 

results as applicable. 

(B) An AASP shall have and shall 

prepare, analyze, and report the true 

value of audit samples in accordance 

with a written technical criteria 

document that describes how audit 

samples will be prepared and 

distributed in a manner that will ensure 

the integrity of the audit sample 

program. An acceptable technical 

criteria document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(1) Preparing the sample; 

(2) Confirming the true concentration 

of the sample; 

(3) Defining the acceptance limits for 

the results from a well qualified tester. 

This procedure must use well 

established statistical methods to 

analyze historical results from well 

qualified testers. The acceptance limits 

shall be set so that there is 95 percent 

confidence that 90 percent of well 

qualified labs will produce future 

results that are within the acceptance 

limit range; 

(4) Providing the opportunity for the 

compliance authority to comment on 

the selected concentration level for an 

audit sample; 

(5) Distributing the sample to the user 

in a manner that guarantees that the true 

value of the sample is unknown to the 

user; 

(6) Recording the measured 

concentration reported by the user and 

determining if the measured value is 

within acceptable limits; 

(7) Reporting the results from each 

audit sample in a timely manner to the 

compliance authority and to the source 

owner, operator, or representative by the 

AASP. The AASP shall make both 

reports at the same time and in the same 

manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and then 

report to the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The results shall include 

the name of the facility tested, the date 

on which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. The 

AASP shall report the true value of the 

audit sample to the compliance 

authority. The AASP may report the 

true value to the source owner, operator, 

or representative if the AASP’s 

operating plan ensures that no 

laboratory will receive the same audit 

sample twice. 

(8) Evaluating the acceptance limits of 

samples at least once every two years to 

determine in consultation with the 

voluntary consensus standard body if 

they should be changed. 

(9) Maintaining a database, accessible 

to the compliance authorities, of results 

from the audit that shall include the 

name of the facility tested, the date on 

which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

(C) The accrediting body shall have a 

written technical criteria document that 

describes how it will ensure that the 

AASP is operating in accordance with 

the AASP technical criteria document 

that describes how audit samples are to 

be prepared and distributed. This 

document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(1) Checking audit samples to confirm 

their true value as reported by the 

AASP. 

(2) Performing technical systems 

audits of the AASP’s facilities and 

operating procedures at least once every 

two years. 

(3) Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

(D) The technical criteria documents 

for the accredited sample providers and 

the accrediting body shall be developed 

through a public process guided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular 

A–119. A copy of Circular A–119 is 

available upon request by writing the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, by calling (202) 

395–6880 or downloading online at 

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/ 

a119.cfm. The VCSB shall approve all 

accrediting bodies. The Administrator 

will review all technical criteria 

documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(iii)(B) through (C) of this section, 

the technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit 

sample program is not capable of 

producing audit samples of sufficient 

quality to be used in a compliance test. 

All acceptable technical criteria 

documents shall be posted on the EPA 

Web site at the following URL, http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A to Part 63—[Amended] 

■ 15. Amend Appendix A to Part 63 as 

follows: 

■ a. In Method 306 by removing 

Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 9.1.8, 9.1.8.1, 

9.1.8.2, 9.1.8.3, 9.1.9, 9.1.9.1, 9.1.9.2, 

9.1.9.3, 9.1.9.4, 9.2.8, 9.2.8.1, 9.2.8.2, 

9.2.8.3, 9.2.9, 9.2.9.1, 9.2.9.2, 9.2.9.3, 

9.2.9.4, 9.3.6, 9.3.6.1, 9.3.6.2, 9.3.6.3, 

9.3.7, 9.3.7.1, 9.3.7.2, 9.3.7.3, and 

9.3.7.4. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 55657 

■ b. In Method 306A by removing 

Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, and 7.5.2. 

■ c. In Method 308 by removing 

Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–21820 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES2