8160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart E—Special Information 

Sharing Procedures To Deter Money 

Laundering and Terrorist Activity 

§ 1029.500 General. 

Loan or finance companies are subject 

to the special information sharing 

procedures to deter money laundering 

and terrorist activity requirements set 

forth and cross referenced in this 

subpart. Loan or finance companies 

should also refer to subpart E of part 

1010 of this chapter for special 

information sharing procedures to deter 

money laundering and terrorist activity 

contained in that subpart which apply 

to loan or finance companies. 

§ 1029.520 Special information sharing 

procedures to deter money laundering and 

terrorist activity for loan or finance 

companies. 

(a) Refer to § 1010.520 of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 1029.530 [Reserved] 

§ 1029.540 Voluntary information sharing 

among financial institutions. 

(a) Refer to § 1010.540 of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

Subpart F—Special Standards of 

Diligence; Prohibitions, and Special 

Measures for Loan or Finance 

Companies 

§ 1029.600 [Reserved] 

§ 1029.610 [Reserved] 

§ 1029.620 [Reserved] 

§ 1029.630 [Reserved] 

§ 1029.640 [Reserved] 

§ 1029.670 [Reserved] 

Dated: February 6, 2012. 

James H. Freis, Jr., 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3074 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4802–10–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0873; FRL–9630–7] 

RIN 2060–AH23 

Quality Assurance Requirements for 

Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

Systems at Stationary Sources 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final 

action to establish quality assurance and 

quality control (QA/QC) procedures for 

continuous opacity monitoring systems 

(COMS) used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with opacity standards in 

federally enforceable regulations. This 

action is necessary because we do not 

currently have QA/QC procedures for 

COMS. This action would require 

COMS used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance to meet these procedures 

(referred to as Procedure 3). 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 16, 

2012 without further notice, unless the 

EPA receives adverse comment by 

March 15, 2012. If the EPA receives 

adverse comment, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0873 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0873, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0873. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ 

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Procedure 3—Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary 

Sources Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Docket 

Facility and Public Reading Room are 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Air Docket is (202) 566–1742, and the 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lula H. Melton, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Assessment Division, 

Measurement Technology Group (Mail 

Code: E143–02), Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 

541–2910; fax number: (919) 541–0516; 

email address: melton.lula@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I obtain a copy of this action? 

D. Judicial Review 

II. This Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8161 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

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 

I. General Information 

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final 

rule? 

The EPA is publishing this rule 

without a prior proposed rule because 

we view this as a non-controversial 

action and anticipate no adverse 

comment. This action establishes QA/ 

QC procedures for continuous opacity 

monitoring systems used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with opacity 

standards in federally enforceable 

regulations. We believe that these QA/ 

QC procedures are reasonable and that 

they can be met by any well-maintained 

and operated COMS. Furthermore, the 

procedures were developed based on 

input provided by the affected parties. 

On May 8, 2003, we published a 

proposed rule to codify QA/QC 

procedures for COMS (i.e., Procedure 3). 

Due to other priorities, we did not 

finalize Procedure 3, but public 

comments received on the proposal 

have been considered in this action. 

This rule also takes into account 

changes in technology since 2003. 

In the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of 

this Federal Register, we are publishing 

a separate document that will serve as 

the proposed rule if relevant adverse 

comments are received on this direct 

final rule. We will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting, must 

do so at this time. For further 

information about commenting on this 

rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. If the EPA receives adverse 

comment, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this direct 

final rule will not take effect. We would 

address all public comments in any 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

Procedure 3 applies to COMS used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with opacity standards in federally 

enforceable regulations. 

C. Where can I obtain a copy of this 

action? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this rule 

will also be available on the Worldwide 

Web (www) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 

Administrator’s signature, a copy of the 

final rule will be placed on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at 

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

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. A redline strikeout 

document that compares this final rule 

to the proposed rule has also been 

added to the docket. 

D. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

direct final rule is available by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by April 16, 2012. 

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

only an objection to this direct 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 

that are the subject of this direct final 

rule may not be challenged later in civil 

or criminal proceedings brought by the 

EPA to enforce these requirements. 

II. This Action 

This direct final rule codifies 

Procedure 3 in 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix F. Procedure 3 establishes 

quality assurance and quality control 

procedures for continuous opacity 

monitoring systems used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with opacity 

standards in federally enforceable 

regulations. More specifically, 

Procedure 3 provides requirements for 

daily instrument zero and upscale drift 

checks, daily status indicator checks, 

quarterly performance audits, annual 

zero alignment audits, and corrective 

action for malfunctioning COMS. On 

May 8, 2003, we published a proposed 

rule to codify Procedure 3. However, 

due to other priorities, we did not 

finalize Procedure 3 after the comment 

period ended July 7, 2003. Public 

comments received on the May 8, 2003, 

proposal have been considered in this 

action. 

Most of the comments on the 2003 

proposal required us to provide 

clarifications and updates. For example, 

several commenters were confused by 

the wording of the applicability 

statement in the 2003 proposal. We 

revised the applicability statement in 

the direct final rule to remove the 

ambiguity. The direct final rule 

references the 1998, 2003, and 2007 

versions of the American Society of 

Testing and Materials’ Standard Practice 

for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to 

Certify Conformance with Design and 

Performance Specifications, whereas the 

2003 proposal referenced the 1998 

version only. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). These 

quality assurance procedures do not add 

information collection requirements 

beyond those currently required under 

the applicable regulations. 

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 accessing 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 this rule on small entities, I 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. This 

action establishes quality assurance 

procedures for continuous opacity 

monitoring systems used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with opacity 

standards as specified in federally 

enforceable regulations and does not 

impose additional regulatory 

requirements on sources. 

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. 

Rules establishing quality assurance 

requirements impose no costs 

independent from national emission 

standards which require their use, and 

such costs are fully reflected in the 

regulatory impact assessment for those 

emission standards. 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. This 

action simply establishes quality 

assurance procedures for continuous 

opacity monitoring systems used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with opacity standards as specified in 

federally enforceable regulations. 

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 

establishes quality assurance procedures 

for continuous opacity monitoring 

systems used to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with opacity standards as 

specified in federally enforceable 

regulations. 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 establishes quality 

assurance procedures for continuous 

opacity monitoring systems used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with opacity standards as specified in 

federally enforceable regulations. It does 

not add any emission limits and does 

not affect pollutant emissions or air 

quality. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This 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, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

direct final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This rule does not 

relax the control measures on sources 

regulated by the rule and, therefore, will 

not cause emissions increases from 

these sources. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective April 

16, 2012. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Continuous opacity 

monitoring. 

Dated: February 6, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Appendix F of part 60 is amended 

by adding Procedure 3 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix F to Part 60—Quality 

Assurance Procedures 

* * * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8163 

Procedure 3—Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources 

1.0 What are the purpose and applicability 

of Procedure 3? 

The purpose of Procedure 3 is to establish 

quality assurance and quality control (QA/ 

QC) procedures for continuous opacity 

monitoring systems (COMS). Procedure 3 

applies to COMS used to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with opacity 

standards in federally enforceable 

regulations. 

1.1 What are the data quality objectives 

of Procedure 3? The overall data quality 

objective (DQO) of Procedure 3 is the 

generation of valid and representative 

opacity data. Procedure 3 specifies the 

minimum requirements for controlling and 

assessing the quality of COMS data submitted 

to us or the delegated regulatory agency. 

Procedure 3 requires you to perform periodic 

evaluations of a COMS performance and to 

develop and implement QA/QC programs to 

ensure that COMS data quality is maintained. 

1.2 What is the intent of the QA/QC 

procedures specified in Procedure 3? 

Procedure 3 is intended to establish the 

minimum QA/QC requirements to verify and 

maintain an acceptable level of quality of the 

data produced by COMS. It is presented in 

general terms to allow you to develop a 

program that is most effective for your 

circumstances. 

1.3 When must I comply with Procedure 

3? You must comply with Procedure 3 after 

your COMS has been initially certified. 

2.0 What are the basic functions of 

Procedure 3? 

The basic functions of Procedure 3 are 

assessment of the quality of your COMS data 

and control and improvement of the quality 

of the data by implementing QC requirements 

and corrective actions. Procedure 3 provides 

requirements for: 

(1) Daily instrument zero and upscale drift 

checks, as well as, daily status indicators 

checks; 

(2) Quarterly performance audits which 

include the following assessments: 

(i) Optical alignment, 

(ii) Calibration error, 

(iii) Zero compensation; and 

(3) Annual zero alignment. 

Sources that consistently achieve quality 

assured data may request a semi-annual audit 

frequency by submitting the request in 

writing to the Administrator. 

3.0 What special definitions apply to 

Procedure 3? 

The definitions in Procedure 3 include 

those provided in Performance Specification 

1 (PS–1) of Appendix B and ASTM D 6216– 

98, 03, 07 and the following additions. 

3.1 Out-of-control periods. Out-of-control 

periods mean that one or more COMS 

parameters falls outside of the acceptable 

limits established by this rule. 

(1) Daily Assessments. Whenever the 

calibration drift (CD) exceeds twice the 

specification of PS–1, the COMS is out-ofcontrol. The beginning of the out-of-control 

period is the time corresponding to the 

completion of the daily calibration drift 

check. The end of the out-of-control period 

is the time corresponding to the completion 

of appropriate adjustment and subsequent 

successful CD assessment. 

(2) Quarterly and Annual Assessments. 

Whenever an annual zero alignment or 

quarterly performance audit indicates 

noncompliance with the criteria established 

in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 10.4, the 

COMS is out-of-control. The beginning of the 

out-of-control period is the time 

corresponding to the completion of the 

performance audit indicating 

noncompliance. The end of the out-of-control 

period is the time corresponding to the 

completion of appropriate corrective actions 

and the subsequent successful audit (or, if 

applicable, partial audit). 

4.0 What interferences must I avoid? 

Opacity cannot be measured accurately in 

the presence of water droplets. Thus, COMS 

opacity compliance determinations cannot be 

made when water droplets are present, such 

as downstream of a wet scrubber without a 

reheater or at other saturated flue gas 

locations. 

5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the 

safety of persons using Procedure 3? 

People using Procedure 3 may be exposed 

to hazardous materials, operations and 

equipment. Procedure 3 does not purport to 

address all of the safety issues associated 

with its use. It is your responsibility to 

establish appropriate health and safety 

practices and determine the applicable 

regulatory limitations before performing this 

procedure. You should consult the COMS 

user’s manual for specific precautions to 

take. 

6.0 What equipment and supplies do I 

need? 

The equipment and supplies that you need 

are specified in PS–1. 

7.0 What reagents and standards do I need? 

The reagents and standards that you need 

are specified in PS–1. 

8.0 What sample collection, preservation, 

storage, and transport are relevant to this 

procedure ? [Reserved] 

9.0 What quality control measures are 

required by this procedure for my COMS? 

You must develop and implement a QC 

program for your COMS. Your QC program 

must, at a minimum, include written 

procedures which describe in detail complete 

step-by-step procedures and operations for 

the activities in paragraphs (1) through (4): 

(1) Procedures for performing drift checks, 

including both zero and upscale drift and the 

status indicators check, 

(2) Procedures for performing quarterly 

performance audits, 

(3) A means of checking the zero alignment 

of the COMS, and 

(4) A program of corrective action for a 

malfunctioning COMS. The corrective action 

must include, at a minimum, the 

requirements specified in section 10.5. 

9.1 What QA/QC documentation must I 

have? You are required to keep the QA/QC 

written procedures on record and available 

for inspection by us, the State, and/or local 

enforcement agencies for the life of your 

COMS or until you are no longer subject to 

the requirements of this procedure. 

9.2 What are the consequences of failing 

QC audits? Your QC procedures are deemed 

to be inadequate or your COMS incapable of 

providing quality data if you fail two 

consecutive annual audits, two consecutive 

quarterly audits, or five consecutive daily 

checks. If this occurs, you must either revise 

your QC procedures or repair or replace the 

COMS to correct the deficiencies causing the 

audit failures. If you determine that your 

COMS requires extensive repairs, you may 

use a substitute COMS provided the 

substitute meets the requirements in section 

10.6. 

10.0 What calibration and standardization 

procedures must I perform for my COMS? 

(1) You must perform routine system 

checks to ensure proper operation of system 

electronics and optics, light and radiation 

sources and detectors, electric or electromechanical systems, and general stability of 

the system calibration. 

(2) You must subject your COMS to a 

performance audit to include checks of the 

individual COMS components and factors 

affecting the accuracy of the monitoring data 

at least once per calendar quarter. 

(3) At least annually, you must perform a 

zero alignment by comparing the COMS 

simulated zero to the actual clear path zero. 

The simulated zero device produces a 

simulated clear path condition or low-level 

opacity condition, where the energy reaching 

the detector is between 90 and 110 percent 

of the energy reaching the detector under 

actual clear path conditions. 

10.1 What routine system checks must I 

perform on my COMS? Necessary 

components of the routine system checks 

will depend on the design details of your 

COMS. At a minimum, you must verify the 

system operating parameters listed in 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this section on 

a daily basis. Some COMS may perform one 

or more of these functions automatically or 

as an integral portion of unit operations; 

other COMS may perform one or more of 

these functions manually. 

(1) You must check the zero drift to ensure 

stability of your COMS response to the 

simulated zero device. The simulated zero 

device, an automated mechanism within the 

transmissometer that produces a simulated 

clear path condition or low-level opacity 

condition, is used to check the zero drift. You 

must, at a minimum, take corrective action 

on your COMS whenever the daily zero drift 

exceeds twice the applicable drift 

specification in PS–1. 

(2) You must check the upscale drift to 

ensure stability of your COMS response to 

the upscale drift value. The upscale 

calibration device, an automated mechanism 

(employing a filter or reduced reflectance 

device) within the transmissometer that 

produces an upscale opacity value is used to 

check the upscale drift. You must, at a 

minimum, take corrective action on your 

COMS whenever the daily upscale drift 

check exceeds twice the applicable drift 

specification in PS–1. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8164 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) You must, at a minimum, check the 

status indicators, data acquisition system 

error messages, and other system selfdiagnostic indicators. You must take 

appropriate corrective action based on the 

manufacturer’s recommendations when the 

COMS is operating outside preset limits. All 

COMS data recorded during periods in which 

the fault status indicators are illuminated are 

to be considered invalid. 

10.2 What are the quarterly auditing 

requirements for my COMS? At a minimum, 

the parameters listed in paragraphs (1) 

through (3) of this section must be included 

in the quarterly performance audit. 

(1) For units with automatic zero 

compensation, you must determine the zero 

compensation for the COMS. The value of the 

zero compensation applied at the time of the 

audit must be calculated as equivalent 

opacity and corrected to stack exit conditions 

according to the procedures specified by the 

manufacturer. The compensation applied to 

the effluent recorded by the monitor system 

must be recorded. 

(2) You must conduct a three-point 

calibration error test of the COMS. For either 

calibration error test method identified 

below, three neutral density filters meeting 

the requirements of PS–1 must be placed in 

the COMS light beam path for at least three 

nonconsecutive readings. All monitor 

responses must then be independently 

recorded from the COMS permanent data 

recorder. Additional guidance for conducting 

this test is included in section 8.1(3)(ii) of 

PS–1. The low-, mid-, and high-range 

calibration error results must be computed as 

the mean difference and 95 percent 

confidence interval for the difference 

between the expected and actual responses of 

the monitor as corrected to stack exit 

conditions. The equations necessary to 

perform the calculations are found in section 

12.0 of PS–1. For the calibration error 

method, you must use the external audit 

device. You must confirm that the external 

audit device produces a zero value within 

one percent opacity. 

(3) You must check the optical alignment 

of the COMS. The optical alignment should 

be checked when the stack temperature is 

±50 percent of the typical operating 

temperature in degrees Farenheit. 

10.3 What are the annual auditing 

requirements for my COMS? 

(1) You must perform the primary zero 

alignment method under clear path 

conditions. The COMS may be removed from 

its installation and setup under clear path 

conditions or, if the process is not operating 

and the monitor path is free of particulate 

matter, the zero alignment may be conducted 

at the installed site. Determining if the 

monitor path is free of particulate matter can 

be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the 

following procedure: observe the 

instantaneous or one-minute average opacity 

for at least two hours prior to the clear path 

adjustment; open the reflector or detector 

housing and observe the projected light beam 

and look for the presence of forward 

scattered light (halo-effect); if the beam 

observation reveals no perceptible 

particulate, and the 2-hour readings do not 

vary more than ±3 percent opacity, adjust the 

clear path zero based on the lowest opacity 

reading recorded during the 2-hour period. 

There must be no adjustments to the monitor 

other than the establishment of the proper 

monitor path length and correct optical 

alignment of the COMS components. You 

must record the COMS response to a clear 

condition and to the COMS’s simulated zero 

condition as percent opacity corrected to 

stack exit conditions. For a COMS with 

automatic zero compensation, you must 

disconnect or disable the zero compensation 

mechanism or record the amount of 

correction applied to the COMS’s simulated 

zero condition. The response difference in 

percent opacity to the clear path and 

simulated zero conditions must be recorded 

as the zero alignment error. You must adjust 

the COMS’s simulated zero device to provide 

the same response as the clear path condition 

as specified in paragraph (3) of section 10.0. 

You must perform the zero alignment audits 

with the COMS off the stack at least every 

three years. 

(2) As an alternative, monitors capable of 

allowing the installation of an external zero 

device (commonly referred to as zero-jig) may 

use the device for the zero alignment 

provided that: the zero-jig setting has been 

established for the monitor path length and 

recorded for the specific COMS by 

comparison of the COMS responses to the 

installed zero-jig and to the clear path 

condition, and the zero-jig is demonstrated to 

be capable of producing a consistent zero 

response when it is repeatedly (i.e., three 

consecutive installations and removals prior 

to conducting the final zero alignment check) 

installed on the COMS. This can be 

demonstrated by either the MCOC or actual 

on-site performance. The zero-jig setting 

must be permanently set at the time of initial 

zeroing to the clear path zero value and 

protected when not in use to ensure that the 

setting equivalent to zero opacity does not 

change. The zero-jig response must be 

checked and recorded prior to initiating the 

zero alignment. If the zero-jig setting has 

changed, you must remove the COMS from 

the stack in order to reset the zero-jig. If you 

employ a zero-jig, you must perform the zero 

alignment audits with the COMS off the stack 

at least every three years. If the zero-jig is 

adjusted within the three-year period, you 

must perform the zero alignment with the 

COMS off the stack no later than three years 

from the date of adjustment. 

(3) The procedure in section 6.8 of ASTM 

D 6216–98, 03, 07 is allowed. 

(4) Other alternatives that verify that the 

zero optical adjustment is ±3 percent opacity 

are also allowed. 

10.4 What are my limits for excessive 

audit inaccuracy? Unless specified otherwise 

in the applicable subpart, the criteria for 

excessive inaccuracy are listed in paragraphs 

(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) What is the criterion for excessive zero 

or upscale drift? Your COMS is out-of-control 

if either the zero drift check or upscale drift 

check exceeds twice the applicable drift 

specification in PS–1 for any one day. 

(2) What is the criterion for excessive zero 

alignment? Your COMS is out-of-control if 

the zero alignment error exceeds 2 percent 

opacity. 

(3) What is the criterion to pass the 

quarterly performance audit? Your COMS is 

out-of-control if the results of a quarterly 

performance audit indicate noncompliance 

with the following criteria: 

(i) The optical alignment misalignment 

error exceeds 3 percent opacity, 

(ii) The zero compensation exceeds 4 

percent opacity, or 

(iii) The calibration error exceeds 3 percent 

opacity. 

(4) What is the criterion for data capture? 

The data capture will be considered 

insufficient if your COMS fails to obtain 

valid opacity data for at least 95 percent of 

your operating hours per calendar quarter, 

considering COMS downtime for all causes 

(e.g., monitor malfunctions, data system 

failures, preventative maintenance, unknown 

causes, etc.) except for downtime associated 

with routine zero and upscale checks and 

QA/QC activities required by this procedure. 

Whenever less than 95 percent of the valid 

data averages are obtained, you must either: 

(i) Perform additional QA/QC activities as 

deemed necessary to ensure acceptable data 

capture, or 

(ii) Determine if the COMS is functioning 

properly. If your COMS is malfunctioning, 

you may use a substitute COMS until repairs 

are made, provided the substitute meets the 

requirements in section 10.6. 

10.5 What corrective action must I take if 

my COMS is malfunctioning? You must have 

a corrective action program in place to 

address the repair and/or maintenance of 

your COMS. There are four classes of 

maintenance and repair procedures to be 

considered as described in paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this section. They may be 

performed at the manufacturer’s facility, a 

service provider’s facility, the user’s 

instrument laboratory, or at the stack/duct at 

the discretion of the owner/operator and 

within the recommendation of the 

manufacturer. They must be performed by 

persons either skilled and/or trained in the 

operation and maintenance of the analyzer. 

After the repair/maintenance of your COMS, 

you must ensure that the COMS is still in 

compliance with PS–1. Table 17–1 outlines 

the tests required to maintain PS–1 

certification. 

(1) Routine/Preventative Maintenance. 

Routine/preventative maintenance includes 

the routine replacement of consumables, 

cleaning of optical surfaces, and adjustment 

of monitor operating parameters as needed to 

maintain normal operation. Replacement of 

consumables that have the possibility of 

adversely affecting the performance of an 

analyzer may cause the nature of the 

maintenance procedure to fall within one of 

the classifications described below. 

(2) Measurement Non-Critical Repairs. 

Measurement non-critical repairs include 

repair and/or replacement of standard noncritical components, the unique 

characteristics of which do not materially 

affect the performance of the monitor. These 

components include, but are not limited to, 

resistors, capacitors, inductors, transformers, 

semiconductors, such as discrete components 

and integrated circuits, brackets and 

machined parts (not associated with internal 

optical components), cabling and connectors, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8165 

electro mechanical components, such as 

relays, solenoids, motors, switches, blowers, 

pressure/flow indicators, tubing, indicator 

lights, software with the same version and/ 

or revision level, glass windows (uncoated or 

anti-reflection coated, but with no curvature), 

lenses with mounts where such mounts are 

not adjustable as installed, circuit boards 

where such boards are interchangeable and 

without unique adjustments (except offset 

and gain adjustments) for the specific 

analyzer of the same model, with such 

repairs to include the maintenance 

procedures required to ensure that the 

analyzer is appropriately setup. 

(3) Primary Measurement Light Source. 

Repair or replace the primary measurement 

light source. 

(4) Measurement Critical Repairs. 

Measurement critical repairs include repair 

and/or replacement of measurement sensitive 

components, the unique characteristics of 

which may materially affect the performance 

of the monitor. These components include, 

but are not limited to, optical detectors 

associated with the opacity measurement/ 

reference beam(s), spectrally selective optical 

filters, beam splitters, internal zero and/or 

upscale reference reflective or transmissive 

materials, electro optical light switches, retro 

reflectors, adjustable apertures used on 

external zero devices or reflectors, lenses 

which have an adjustable mount, circuit 

boards which are not completely 

interchangeable and/or require unique 

adjustments for the specific analyzer, with 

such repairs to include the maintenance 

procedures required to ensure that the 

analyzer is appropriately setup. 

(5) Rebuilt or Refurbished Analyzers. 

Rebuilt or refurbished analyzers include 

analyzers for which a major sub-assembly has 

been replaced or multiple lesser subassemblies with different revision levels from 

the original have been replaced and/or 

modified. This also includes major changes 

to the analyzer measurement detection and 

processing hardware or software. 

10.6 What requirements must I meet if I 

use a substitute opacity monitor? In the event 

that your certified opacity monitor has to be 

removed for extended service, you may 

install a temporary replacement monitor to 

obtain required opacity emissions data 

provided that: 

(1) The temporary monitor has been 

certified according to ASTM D 6216–98, 03, 

07 for which a manufacturer’s certificate of 

conformance (MCOC) has been provided; 

(2) The use of the temporary monitor does 

not exceed 720 hours (30 days) of operation 

per year as a replacement for a fully certified 

opacity monitor. After that time, the analyzer 

must complete a full certification according 

to PS–1 prior to further use as a temporary 

replacement monitor. Once a temporary 

replacement monitor has been installed and 

required testing and adjustments have been 

successfully completed, it cannot be replaced 

by another temporary replacement monitor to 

avoid the full PS–1 certification testing 

required after 720 hours (30 days) of use; 

(3) The temporary monitor has been 

installed and successfully completed an 

optical alignment assessment and status 

indicator assessment; 

(4) The temporary monitor has successfully 

completed an off-stack clear path zero 

assessment and zero calibration value 

adjustment procedure; 

(5) The temporary monitor has successfully 

completed an abbreviated zero and upscale 

drift check consisting of seven zero and 

upscale calibration value drift checks which 

may be conducted within a 24-hour period 

with not more than one calibration drift 

check every three hours and not less than one 

calibration drift check every 25 hours. 

Calculated zero and upscale drift 

requirements are the same as specified for the 

normal PS–1 certification; 

(6) The temporary monitor has successfully 

completed a three-point calibration error test; 

(7) The upscale reference calibration check 

value of the new monitor has been updated 

in the associated data recording equipment; 

(8) The overall calibration of the monitor 

and data recording equipment has been 

verified; and 

(9) The user has documented all of the 

above in the maintenance log or in other 

appropriate permanently maintained records. 

10.7 When do out-of-control periods begin 

and end? The out-of-control periods are as 

specified in section 3.1. 

10.8 What are the limitations on the use of 

my COMS data collected during out-ofcontrol periods? During the period your 

COMS is out-of-control, you may not use 

your COMS data to calculate emission 

compliance or to meet minimum data capture 

requirements in this procedure or the 

applicable regulation. 

10.9 What are the QA/QC reporting 

requirements for my COMS? You must report 

the accuracy results from section 10.0 for 

your COMS at the interval specified in this 

procedure or the applicable regulation. You 

must report the drift and accuracy 

information as a Data Assessment Report 

(DAR), and include one copy of this DAR for 

each quarterly audit with the report of 

emissions required under the applicable 

regulation. An example DAR is provided in 

Procedure 1, Appendix F of this part. 

10.10 What minimum information must I 

include in my DAR? At a minimum, you 

must include the information listed in 

paragraphs (1) through (5) of this section in 

the DAR. 

(1) Your name and address, 

(2) Identification and location of your 

COMS(s), 

(3) Manufacturer, model, and serial 

number of your COMS(s), 

(4) Assessment of COMS data accuracy/ 

acceptability and date of assessment as 

determined by a performance audit described 

in section 10.0. If the accuracy audit results 

show your COMS to be out-of-control, you 

must report both the audit results showing 

your COMS to be out-of-control and the 

results of the audit following corrective 

action showing your COMS to be operating 

within specifications, and 

(5) Summary of all corrective actions you 

took when you determined your COMS was 

out-of-control. 

10.11 Where and how long must I retain 

the QA data that this procedure requires me 

to record for my COMS? You must keep the 

records required by this procedure for your 

COMS onsite and available for inspection by 

us, the State, and/or the local enforcement 

agency for the period specified in the 

regulations requiring the use of COMS. 

11.0 What analytical procedures apply to this 

procedure? [Reserved] 

12.0 What calculations and data analysis 

must I perform for my COMS? 

The calculations required for the 

performance audit are in section 12.0 of PS– 

1. 

13.0 Method Performance [Reserved] 

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 

16.0 References 

16.1 Performance Specification 1– 

Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Continuous Opacity Monitoring Systems in 

Stationary Sources, 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix B. 

16.2 ASTM D 6216–98, 03, 07–Standard 

Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers 

to Certify Conformance with Design and 

Performance Specifications, American 

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 

17.0 What Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, 

and Validation Data Are Relevant to This 

Procedure? 

17.1. TABLE 17–1—DIAGNOSTIC TESTS REQUIRED AFTER VARIOUS REPAIRS

Description of event 

Optical 

alignment 

Optical 

alignment 

indicator 

assessment 

(Note 1) 

Zero calibration 

check 

Clear 

path (offstack) 

zero assessment 

(Note 3) 

Upscale 

calibration 

check 

Calibration error 

check 

Fault status indicator 

check 

Averaging 

period 

calculation and 

recording 

7-Day 

zero and 

up-scale 

drift 

check 

(Note 2) 

Recertify 

per 

PS–1 

New 

MCOC 

per 

ASTM D 

6216–98, 

07 

Comments 

(1) Replace or repair components described as 

routine and/or preventative maintenance..

X — X — X — X — — — — Includes replacement of 

blower, cleaning optical 

surfaces, resetting adjustable parameters to 

maintain normal performance, etc. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

17.1. TABLE 17–1—DIAGNOSTIC TESTS REQUIRED AFTER VARIOUS REPAIRS—Continued 

Description of event 

Optical 

alignment 

Optical 

alignment 

indicator 

assessment 

(Note 1) 

Zero calibration 

check 

Clear 

path (offstack) 

zero assessment 

(Note 3) 

Upscale 

calibration 

check 

Calibration error 

check 

Fault status indicator 

check 

Averaging 

period 

calculation and 

recording 

7-Day 

zero and 

up-scale drift 

check 

(Note 2) 

Recertify per 

PS–1 

New 

MCOC 

per ASTM D 

6216–98, 07 

Comments 

(2) Replace or repair primary measurement light..X X X X X X X — — — — Light source uniformity and 

position are key source 

to many performance 

parameters. 

(3) Replace or repair components which are 

measurement noncritical..

X — X — X ................ X — — — — See text description, section 10.5(2). 

(4) Replace or repair components which are 

measurement critical..

X X X X X X X — X — — See test description, section 10.5(3). 

(5) Replace or repair components which are 

measurement critical but 

do not involve optical or 

electro-optical components..

— — X — X X X X — — — Includes changes of components involving data 

acquisition and recording. 

(6) Rebuild or substantially 

refurbish the analyzer..

— — — — — — — — — X — See text description, section 10.5(4). 

(7) Change to, or addition 

of, analyzer components 

which may affect MCOCspecified performance 

parameters..

— — — — — — — — — X X Significant changes which 

are not part of the 

MCOC-designated configuration. 

Notes: (1) Optical alignment indicator assessment requires the operator to verify during an off the stack clear path zero assessment that the beam is centered on the reflector/retro reflector 

when the alignment indicator indicates on-axis centered alignment. If not, the analyzer optical train must be adjusted until this condition is met. 

(2) 7-Day zero and upscale drift assessment. Opacity measurement data recorded prior to completion of the 7-day drift test will be considered as valid provided that the first 7-day drift test is 

successful, that it is completed within 14 days of completion of the repair, and that other QA requirements are met during this time period. 

(3) Requires verification of the external zero-jig response, or recalibration of the same, after the off-stack clear path zero has been re-established. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3379 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

48 CFR Parts 704, 713, 714, 715, 716, 

744, and 752 

RIN 0412–AA63 

Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions 

AGENCY: United States Agency for 

International Development. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) is 

implementing a pilot for a Partner 

Vetting System for USAID assistance 

and acquisition awards. The purpose of 

the Partner Vetting System is to help 

ensure that USAID funds and other 

resources do not inadvertently benefit 

individuals or entities that are terrorists, 

supporters of terrorists or affiliated with 

terrorists, while also minimizing the 

impact on USAID programs and its 

implementing partners. We are 

amending the USAID Acquisition 

Regulations (AIDAR) regulations in 

order to apply the Partner Vetting 

System to USAID acquisitions for the 

pilot and any subsequent 

implementation of PVS that is 

determined appropriate. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 15, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gushue, Telephone: 202–567– 

4678, Email: 

AIDARPartnerVetting@usaid.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

USAID’s final rule exempting portions 

of the Partner Vetting System (PVS) 

from provisions of the Privacy Act of 

1974 went into effect on August 4, 2009 

after several extensions, the most recent 

of which was published on May 6, 2009 

(74 FR 20871). Although USAID did not 

further extend the effective date, the 

agency did not implement PVS at that 

time in order to allow additional input 

from interested parties and to allow PVS 

to be applied to both assistance and 

acquisitions. Before the agency 

determines whether to implement PVS 

on a world-wide basis, USAID is 

launching a PVS pilot program to 

determine the costs and benefits of 

implementing PVS more broadly. At the 

conclusion of the pilot program, State 

and USAID will determine whether it is 

necessary to implement PVS more 

broadly, and/or make changes to the 

risk-based model it employs. In order to 

apply PVS to USAID acquisitions, 

USAID is amending 48 CFR Chapter 7, 

which is USAID’s procurement 

regulation. USAID published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2009 (74 

FR 30494) with a public comment 

period of 60 days, closing on August 25, 

2009. During the 60-day comment 

period, USAID received comments from 

five separate respondents. All 

respondents expressed concerns about 

USAID’s intent to implement PVS and 

reiterated objections raised during and 

after the public comment period when 

USAID established the PVS as a new 

system of records (72 FR 39042) and 

exempted portions of PVS from one or 

more provisions of the Privacy Act (74 

FR 9). However, since comments of this 

nature are outside the scope of the 

Proposed Rule, we are not addressing 

them in this Final Rule. Only those 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed amendments to the AIDAR 

and our responses are discussed below. 

B. Summary of the Final Rule 

USAID is issuing a final rule 

amending 48 CFR Chapter 7, as 

described in the proposed rule with 

some modifications in response to the 

public comments received. This final 

rule implements the partner vetting 

system for USAID acquisitions by 

adding a new subpart 704.70 to (48 CFR) 

AIDAR, with an associated solicitation 

provision and contract clause in (48 

CFR) AIDAR Part 752. Additionally, this 

final rule amends (48 CFR) AIDAR Parts 

713, 714, and 715, 716, and adds a new 

Part 744 to include reference to the 

requirements at (48 CFR) AIDAR 

Subpart 704.70. 

C. Discussion of Comments 

USAID received comments and 

suggestions from five organizations on 

its proposed rule to amend 48 CFR 

Chapter 7, which would enable USAID 

to apply the Partner Vetting System to 

USAID acquisitions. While some of the 

comments and suggestions received did 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES