p.1 

OAR Box 1811 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

79) FED REG VOL 58 NO 223 

NOVEMBER 22,1993 

Docket Number: 

A-84-22 

Printed 10/30/2008 1:19:25 PM Sheet 79 of 82 
P.3 

61640 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

business entities. 

Section 605(b) of the Act, however, 

provides that section 603 of the Act 

"shall not apply to any proposed or 

final rule if the head of the Agency 

certifies that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities." Pursuant to 

section 605(b) of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule, which exempts the OIG 

Hotline Allegation System from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

will not have any economic impact on 

small entities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 16 

Environmental protection, Privacy. 

Dated: October 22,1993. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that.40 CFR 

part 16 be amended as follows: 

PART 16—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

2. Section 16.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 16.14 Specific exemptions. 

(a) Exemptions under 5 U.S C. 

552a(k)(2).—[l) Systems of records 

affected. 

EPA-2 General Personnel Records—EPA. 

EPA-4 OIG Criminal Investigative Index and 

Files—EPA/OIG. 

EPA-5 OIG Personnel Security Files—EPA/ 

OIG. 

EPA-17 NEIC Criminal Investigative Index 

and Files—EPA/NEIC/OCI. 

EPA-30 OIG Hotline Allegation System— 

EPA/OIG. 

**** * 

[FR Doc. 93-28620 Filed 11-19-93; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-60-P 

40 CFR Part 51 

[AD-FRL-4516-3] 

7^-F 

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal 

of State Implementation Plans: 

Methods for Measurement of Visible 

Emissions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: EPA is today proposing three 

methods for State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) applications. The three proposed 

methods are visible emission test 

procedures that are to be included as 

Methods 203A, 203B, and 203C in 

appendix M. The data reduction 

procedures in existing visible emission 

methods are not sufficient for all SIP 

applications. This action provides States 

with an expanded array of data 

reduction procedures to determine 

compliance with various types of State 

implementation plan (SIP) opacity 

regulations. These data reduction 

procedures constitute the primary 

difference between the existing method, 

Method 9 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 

60 (Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources) and Methods 203A, 

203B, and 203C of appendix M of part 

51 (Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans). This action is 

necessary because SIP opacity 

regulations may have certain opacity 

data reduction provisions that are not 

consistent with the data averaging 

procedures specified in Method 9 of 

. nart 60. 

rf-jyDATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before January 21,1994. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by December 13,1993, a public 

hearing will be held on December 22, 

1993, beginning at 10 a.m. Persons 

interested in attending the hearing 

should contact Ms. Shelby Journigan of 

EPA at (919) 541-5543 to verify that a 

hearing will be held. If a hearing is held, 

a verbatim transcript will be placed in 

the docket. 

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons 

wishing to present oral testimony must 

contact the Branch secretary at (919) 

-J541-5543 by December 13,1993. 

"yfADDRESSES: Comments. Comments 

should be submitted (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE131), Attention, Docket No. A-84-22, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20460. 

yu. •I*v--' Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

&— O EPA requesting a public hearing, it will 

be held at EPA's Emission Measurement 

Laboratory Building, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711. Persons 

interested in attending the hearing or , 

wishing to present oral testimony 

should notify Ms. Shelby Journigan, 

Emission Measurement Branch (MD19), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5543. 

Background Information Documents. 

The Background Information Document 

(BID) for the proposed standard may be 

obtained from the docket or from the 

U.S. EPA library (MD-35), Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, . 

telephone number (919) 541-2777. 

Docket. Docket No. A-84-22, 

containing supporting information used 

in developing the proposed methods, is 

available for public inspection and 

copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the 

EPA's Air Docket Section, Waterside 

Mall, room 1500,1st Floor, 401 M Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20460. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information concerning the 

proposed rule, contact Mr. Roy Huntley 

at (919) 541-1060 or Mr. Peter Westlin 

at (919) 541-1058, Emission 

Measurement Branch (MD-19), 

Technical Support Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

B. Summary of the 1986 Proposal 

C. Comments on the 1986 Proposal 

D. 1990 Promulgation of Part 51, Appendix 

M 

E. Additional Technical Work Since the 

1986 Proposal , 

F. Accuracy of Methods 

II. Proposed Revisions to the 1986 Proposal 

A. Summary of Proposed Revisions 

B. Rationale for Revisions to Proposed 

Method F-1 

C. Rationale for Proposal as a 

Recommended Method in 40 CFR Part 51 

D. Rationale for Proposed Procedures for 

Fugitive Emissions Applications ' 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Docket 

B. Office of Management and Budget 

Reviews 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance 

I. Background 

A. Introduction 

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410), 

specifies that States are to submit plans 

for the approval of EPA that provide for 

the attainment and maintenance of air 

quality standards through control 

programs directed at sources of air 

pollutants. Many SIP's include 

regulations limiting pollutant emissions 

by limiting opacity (i.e., visible 

emissions). 

The only general visible emission 

observation test procedure in 40 CFR 

part 60 is Method 9 of appendix A. 

Method 9 contains procedures for the 

training and certification of observers, 
P.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, "1993 / Proposed Rules 61641 

field procedures for the determination 

of plume opacity, and a data reduction 

procedure. 

The EPA revised Method 9 on 

November 12,1974 (39 FR 39872). In 

the preamble to that revision, EPA 

recognized that the Method 9 data 

reduction techniques were not 

appropriate for some types of SIP 

opacity regulations. The preamble also 

stated EPA's intent to propose 

procedures to enforce SIP limitations 

that were not adequately addressed by 

Method 9. Such SIP limitations include 

those with time-exception provisions (a 

limit incorporating an allowance of a 

specified number of minutes in an hour 

in which the opacity limit may be 

exceeded), as well as those that specify 

averaging times other than 6 minutes. 

Also, Method 9 did not address data 

reduction procedures for instantaneous 

limitations (sometimes called caps) on 

visible emissions which are included in 

some SIP's. 

A 1983 report, "Opacity Regulations: 

Summary of State Regulations and 

Rulemaking Status" (Docket No. A-84-

22), indicated that State regulations 

incorporating opacity limits include a 

variety of types of opacity limits. The 

limits generally specify a maximum 

opacity that a source is allowed to emit, 

as determined by a trained observer. 

Some regulations limit opacity for a 

specified number of minutes in an hour 

(time exception), others limit opacity 

levels as averaged over a specified 

number of minutes (time averaged), and 

others specify limits that are never to be 

exceeded (instantaneous limitation). 

In order to provide appropriate data 

reduction procedures for opacity limits 

that are inconsistent with Method 9, 

EPA proposed new visible emission test 

procedures for evaluating compliance 

with opacity standards on August 29, 

1986 (51 FR 31076). 

B. Summary of the 1986 Proposal 

The 1986 Federal Register notice 

proposed to incorporate a new method, 

Method F-1, into a new appendix F (51 

FR 31076, August 29,1986). Part 52 of 

40 CFR provides regulations for various 

SIP requirements, such as the Federal 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program, and other control 

program elements. Proposed Method F1 contained field and observer 

certification procedures identical to 

those of Method 9. Proposed Method F1 and Method 9 differed only in data 

reduction procedures for determining 

compliance with SIP regulations that 

contain time-exception, time-averaged 

(2 minutes or greater), and 

instantaneous limitations. The data 

reduction procedures in proposed 

Method F-1 were based on a number of 

method studies. The 1986 notice also 

discussed the accuracy of each of the 

new procedures (51 FR 31079, August 

29,1986). 

The 1986 proposal indicated EPA 

would select the visible emission test 

method and data reduction procedures 

in part 52 that best ensured enforcement 

of the SIP visible emission standard in 

a manner consistent with the original 

language in the Federally-approved or 

promulgated SIP. Further, EPA would 

assume that a State intended a 6-minute 

averaging time for SIP opacity 

regulations with no specific reference to 

time-exception, time-averaged, or 

instantaneous limitations. 

C. Comments on the 1986 Proposal 

The EPA solicited public comments 

on proposed Method F-1 and received 

24 comment letters from parties 

representing industry, utilities, trade 

associations. State and local air 

pollution control agencies, and one 

Federal agency. Commenters addressed 

many different issues, some of which 

have contributed to the changes 

incorporated in today's proposed 

methods. All comments addressing 

either the originally-proposed Method 

F-1 or today's action will be addressed 

at the time of promulgation, and only 

those comments directly related to the 

changes made to proposed Method F-1 

for incorporation into Methods 203A, 

203B, and 203C are summarized in this 

section. 

Proposed Use of Method F-1 Affecting 

Existing State Implementation Plans 

Some commenters on proposed 

Method F-1 argued that using a new 

method in determining compliance with 

existing opacity standards would 

constitute a change in the standards 

themselves. Therefore, they argued that 

incorporation of the new method 

constituted improper rulemaking 

procedures, since previously-approved 

SIP's would be amended without 

adequate notice and hearings. The 

commenters further argued that because 

existing SIP's either specified a test 

method or assumed the use of Method 

9, the new test method, if applied to 

existing SIP's, could render existing SEP 

opacity standards more stringent than 

originally intended. Several commenters 

expressed particular concern that the 

appUcation of the proposed Method F1 would make compliance with timeexception regulations more difficult 

than intended by the SIP's. 

Data Reduction Techniques 

Some commenters stated that for 

time-exception standards, Method F-1 

would eliminate the intended leniency 

afforded by Method 9's 6-minute 

averaging. Other commenters stated that 

for instantaneous standards, the 2-

minute averaging time called for in 

Method F-1 would be inadequate for 

enforcement, and a shorter averaging 

time was recommended. 

Admissibility of Evidence 

The Method F-1 proposal stated that 

promulgation of test methods in part 52 

or 60 of 40 CFR is not intended to alter 

the conditions of admissibility of 

evidence to prove violation. Two 

commenters stated that including the 

statement on admissibility of evidence 

was inappropriate. The commenters 

stated that decisions on admissibility of 

evidence must be made by the courts. 

Nonprocess Fugitive Dust Emissions 

One-third of the Method F-1 

commenters stated that the application 

of the proposed method to nonprocess 

fugitive dust emissions was premature. 

The commenters recommended further 

evaluation of the accuracy of Method F1 for these emissions, modification of 

observation procedures, and averaged 

rather than aggregated data reduction 

procedures. Commenters referred to the 

difference in the character of the 

fugitive emissions plume and the 

increased complexity of taking visual 

observations for fugitive emissions. 

D. 1990 Promulgation of Part 51, 

Appendix M 

In a separate action, on April 17,1990 

(55 FR 14246), EPA promulgated 

Methods 201 and 201A for the 

measurement of stack particulate matter 

with an aerodynamic diameter of a 

nominal 10 micrometers (nm) (0.000393 

inches (in.)) or less (PM*o). These 

methods were included in the new 

appendix M of 40 CFR part 51. The new 

appendix M was designated as a 

repository for recommended test 

methods for SIP's. Under the same 

action, EPA also revised subpart K, 40 

CFR part 51, to direct States to appendix 

M for recommended test methods, and* 

to emphasize the requirement that 

States must include enforceable test 

methods with each emission limit in the 

SIP. 

Appendix M is entitled 

"Recommended Test Methods for State 

Implementation Plans" and contains 

recommended test methods for 

inclusion in SIP's. Recommended test 

methods are methods that are not 

sp*0fically required by Federal 

regulations but are promulgated by EPA 

and are available for use by States. 

States may incorporate appropriate 

appendix M test methods into their 
61642 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

P.5 

SIP's, or they may choose an alternate 

method, subject to review and approval 

by the Administrator, as stated in 40 

CFR 51.212(c). States may also use any 

appropriate method in appendix A of 40 

CER part 60 (40 CFR 51.212(c)). 

E. Additional Technical Work Since the 

1986 Proposal 

During the interim between the 

proposal of Method F-1 and proposal of 

Methods 203A, 203B and 2G3C, 

technical work has continued in several 

areas. First, the technical analysis of 

fugitive dust procedures, underway at 

the time of the initial proposal, was „ 

completed, and these procedures are 

included in Methods 203A, 203B, and 

203C. Second, EPA completed a 

collaborative study of the effect of 

shorter observation intervals begun in 

1986, and a report of the study's 

conclusions was added to the docket 

(Docket No. A-84-22). Finally, EPA has 

developed several implementation tools, 

including, a revised sample visible 

emissions observation (VEO) form, to 

assist States in specifying the 

appropriate test method for the opacity 

limit proposed in the SIP or SEP 

revision. 

F. Accuracy of Methods 

the data reduction procedures 

included in Methods 203A, 203B, and 

203C differ from Method 9; therefore, 

EPA has evaluated field studies and 

other information to determine the 

accuracy of the test procedures for timeaveraged, time-exception, and 

instantaneous limitation regulations. A 

characterization of the error associated 

with each method and discussions of 

the consideration of error in establishing 

opacity regulations are included in 

Docket No. A-84-22. 

Accuracy of Method 203A (limeAveraged Regulations) 

The accuracy of test procedures for 

time-averaged regulations was evaluated 

through field studies and other 

information. The results indicated that 

both positive and negative error may 

occur while using Method 203A test 

procedures to read plumes under 

contrasting conditions. 

To evaluate potential positive error, 

EPA conducted a series of field 

experiments under controlled field 

conditions, using light and dark visible 

plumes generated by a smoke generator 

and a transmissometer meeting the 

specifications of Method 9. During these 

evaluation tests, panels of qualified 

observers (who had been certified by 

Method 9 procedures] read the 

generated plumes in 5-percent opacity 

increments and at 15-second intervals, 

except for one test that included only 5-. 

second intervals. The data.were reduced 

by averaging over varying lengths of 

time. Data from earlier field trials, 

conducted in developing Method 9, 

were also evaluated. Observer 

measurements were then compared to 

the reference values -measured by the 

smoke generator transmissometer. These 

data indicate that both positive and 

negative error occur for time-averaged 

test procedures over averaging periods 

of 2 to 6 minutes. 

Analysis of these data shows that, as 

the time interval for averaging increases, 

the positive error decreases. For 

example, over a 2-minute time period, 

90 percent of the data have positive 

error of 9.5 percent opacity or less, 

while over a 6-minute time period, 90 

percent of the data have positive error 

of 7.5 percent opacity or less. 

Overall, the field studies 

demonstrated a negative bias. Over a 2-

minute time period, 57 percent of the 

data have zero or negative error, and 

over a 6-minute time period, 58 percent 

of Ae data have zero or negative error. 

This means that observers are more 

likely to assign opacity values that are 

below, rather than above, the actual 

opacify value. Consequently, a larger 

percentage of noncompliance periods 

will be reported as compliant periods 

rather than compliant periods reported 

as violations. States are advised to take 

into consideration both the potential for 

some positive error end the overall 

negative bias of the procedure when 

setting and enforcing opacity standards 

in SIP's. 

Accuracy of Method 203B {TimeException Regulations j 

Field studies to determine the 

accuracy of the test procedures for timeexception regulations indicated that 

both positive and negative error may 

occur while using the test procedures of 

Method 203B to read plumes under 

contrasting conditions. 

To evaluate potential positive error, * 

EPA conducted a series of field 

experiments under controlled field 

conditions using light and dark visible 

plumes generated by a smoke generator 

and a transmissometer meeting the 

specifications of Method 9. During these 

evaluation tests, panels of qualified 

observers (who had been certified by 

Method 9 procedures) read the 

generated plumes in 5-percent opacity 

increments and at 15-second intervals. 

The data were reduced for timeexception provisions by aggregating the 

readings above a given opacity within 

the time period. Observer measurements 

were then compared to the reference 

values measured by the smoke generator 

transmissometer. These data are 

included in Docket Na A-84-22. 

The field experiments indicate a range 

of observer errors in determining 

duration of visible emissions for timeexception test procedures. Error was 

derived by comparing observed opacity 

with transmissometer readings. 

No positive error occurred In 70 

percent of the data reduced using 

Method 203B procedures, i.e., 70 

percent of the data sets matched or 

underestimated the total time of excess 

opacity compared to the aggregated time 

of excess opacity recorded by the 

transmissometer. Overall, visual 

determination of opacity of emissions 

was shown to have a negative bias (i.e., 

certified observers are more likely to 

assign opacity values that are below 

actual opacity than above actual 

opacity). Because of this negative bias of 

visual determination, the reported 

period of exceedance is more likely to 

be shorter, not longer, than the actual 

period of exceedance. States are advised 

to take into consideration both the 

potential for some positive error and the 

overall negative bias of the procedure 

when setting opacity standards and 

establishing time-exception intervals in 

their SIP's. 

Accuracy of Method 203C 

(Instantaneous Regulations j . 

The evaluation of field studies and 

other information to determine the 

accuracy of the test procedure for 

instantaneous limitation regulations 

indicated that both positive and 

negative error may occur while using 

the test procedures of Method 203C to 

read plumes under contrasting 

conditions. 

For an instantaneous limitation, 

observations are taken over a shorter 

time period and may also be taken at 

shorter intervals. The method proposes 

a 1-minute averaging period to balance 

the desired short time period implied by 

an instantaneous limitation with the 

improved accuracy achieved by 

multiple readings. Further, the shorter, 

5-second interval between observations 

has been shown to maintain comparable 

accuracy. 

.Data from 5-second observation 

intervals have been assembled since 

1986 when EPA proposed Method F-1. 

The EPA used positive error evaluation 

data for sets of 12 observations at 5-

second intervals to assess observation 

error for instantaneous opacity 

measurement An analysis of the field 

test data indicates that error for Method 

203C, is nearly identical to that of 

Method 9 and strongly indicates that no 

. significant difference exists between 

observation of opacity at 5- and 15-
P.6 

:©? / VoL 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

second intervals over a 1-minute 

averaging period. Results of studies 

conducted by EPA indicate that efror 

increases by only 2 percent when four 

rather than 12 observations are 

averaged. The EPA considers these data 

to be adequate for assessing the positive 

error associated with Method 203C. 

Data, reduced according to the 

procedures provided in Method 203C, 

will reflect an overall negative bias (i.e., 

observers are more likely to assign 

opacity values that ar® below the actual 

opacity value rather than above the 

actual opacity value). States are advised 

to take into consideration both the 

potential for some positive error and the 

overall negative bias of the procedure 

when setting opacity standards and 

establishing instantaneous limitation 

regulations ia their SIP's. 

In response to the comments 

discussed above and the decisions -

regarding test methods for visible 

emissions made by EPA since the 1986 

proposal, EPA is today proposing visible 

emission test procedures slightly 

modified from those introduced in 

proposed Method F-1. Today's 

procedures are proposed Methods 203A, 

203B, and 203C for inclusion in 

appendix M of 40 CFR part 51. Other • 

revisions, based oa the additional 

technical work discussed above, are 

discussed in the following text 

A. Summary of Proposed Revisions 

Revisions to Method F-1 

Today's proposal divides the 

procedures proposed as Method F-1 in 

1986 into tares distinct methods. This 

will allow a State to specify the exact 

data reduction procedures to ba used in 

compliance determinations. The three 

methods incorporate ths certification 

procedures for observers from Method 9 

of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 

without change. The only procedural 

differences between Methods 203A, 

203B, and 203C and Method 9 are in the 

provisions for recording observations 

and data reduction aad the inclusion of 

fugitive emissions applications in the 

newly proposed methods. The addition 

of procedures for fugitive emission 

appUcations is described ia the section 

entitled, "Additional Procedures for 

Fugitive Emissions." 

The procedures for recording 

observations have been revised to: (a) 

Reflect recording intervals appropriate 

to each method individually, and (b) 

indicate that the overall time span for 

recording observations must be 

appropriate to the time span specified in 

the State regulation. For example, 

Method 203B specifies that, in order to 

determine that a source is ia compliance 

with a time-exception regulation in 

which 10 peircent opacity may be 

exceeded for no more than 3 minutes 

per hour, collection of readings for an 

entire hour is indicated. However, more 

than twelve 15-second readings above 

10 percent opacity ia less than 1 hour, 

either consecutive or nonconsecutive, 

would indicate a violation of the time- . 

exception limit In such a case, a State 

may elect not to require collection of 

additional data after a violation is 

indicated. 

The data reduction procedures in 

proposed Method 203C specify a 1-

. minute averaging period and require the 

recording of opacity observations at 

either 15-second or 5-second intervals. 

Summary of Proposal as a 

Recommended Method in Part 51 

In addition to the revisions to the 

previously proposed Method F-1 

discussed earlier, today's proposed 

methods will be included in appendix 

M of part 51, rather than part 52, as 

originally proposed. Under today's 

proposal, a State would specify the 

appropriate method when needed in a 

SIP revision. Also, the language 

concerning "rules of evidence," which 

was proposed in 1986 for § 52.23, has 

Additional Procedures for Fugitive 

Emissions 

EPA added procedures for 

determining opacity of fugitive 

amissions to Method 203A. These 

procedures are also cited in Methods 

203B aad 203C. By the addition of these 

procedures, EPA is expanding the 

guidance available to visible emissions 

observers, as well as State and local 

regulators, regarding the observation of 

visible emissions from sources of 

fugitive emissions. Procedures, based on 

State agency studies and current State 

and Federal regulations, were compiled 

and incorporated into the proposed 

methods. 

Inclusion of an Implementation Tool 

Included with the proposed test 

methods is a revised sample Visible 

Emissions Observation (VEO) form for 

opacity observations. This form is 

appended to Method 203A aad is 

included to assist States in effectively 

using the proposed methods in 

enforcing SIP opacity limits. The sample 

form is intended to help States to 

establish a consistent recording and 

reporting format, thereby, improving 

program effectiveness. 

The sample VEO form will help 

ensure that all necessary compliance 

information is recorded during opacity 

observations. This includes information 

other than the actual readings, such as 

time of day, approximate wind speed 

and direction, aad presence and color of 

clouds. 

A memorandum that considers error, 

associated with opacity observations, 

has been placed in Docket No. A-84-22. 

The memorandum includes a discussion 

of the effect of observation error on 

compliance determinations for each 

method. EPA considers that this 

information would be useful to the 

States in setting and enforcing opacity 

standards. 

3. Rationale for Revisions to Proposed 

Method F-1 

Proposal as Three Distinct Methods 

Three distinct methods for 

determination of opacity of emissions 

are being proposed in order to provide 

data reduction procedures that are 

consistent with various types of opacity 

regulations included in SIP's. Opacity 

regulations fall into three general 

categories: Time-averaged regulations, 

time-exception regulations, and 

instantaneous limitation regulations. 

The existing available method, Method 

9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, calls 

for averaging 24 consecutive 15-second 

interval observations fore 6-minute 

average. These specifications are 

sometimes inconsistent with the 

requirements in SIP opacity regulations. 

The proposed array of methods enables 

States to specify methods that are 

consistent with actual SIP regulations 

and appropriate for accurate compliance 

determination. 

Proposed Method 203A for visual 

determination of opacity of emissions 

for time-averaged regulations calls for 

opacity readings at 15-second intervals, 

averaged over a time period of 2 

minutes or more as specified by the 

State regulation. This proposed method 

allows States to specify averaging 

periods other than 6 minutes. 

Method 203B for visual determination 

of opacity of emissions for timeexception regulations also calls for 

opacity readings at 15-second intervals. 

However, the data ore reduced by 

aggregating all observations above the 

level of th© opacity standard. This 

proposed method allows States to 

specify a method consistent with timeexception regulations. 

Method 203C for visual determination 

of opacify of emissions for 

instantaneous limitation regulations 

allows a State to specify either 15- or 5-

second observation intervals with a 1-
61644 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

P.7 

minute averaging period. This proposed 

method uses a shorter averaging period 

consistent with the intent of an 

instantaneous hmit. If a 5-second 

interval is not specified by the State, the 

15-second interval will be used. The 

selection of the observation interval 

allows the State to either increase the 

number of observations averaged for the 

period or maintain the same observation 

interval used for other opacity 

standards. This proposed method allows 

States to specify a method developed 

specifically for instantaneous limitation 

regulations. 

Proposed Changes to Data Reduction 

Procedures 

Only two technical changes have been 

made to the data reduction procedures 

of the proposed methods. 

First, the State has flexibility in 

specifying the interval between 

observations for Method 203C (for 

instantaneous limitation regulations) 

and the overall time period for which 

observations are averaged has also been 

reduced to 1 minute. This approximates 

more closely a truly "instantaneous" 

determination of opacity, while 

maintaining accuracy at about the level 

provided by the typical 6-minute 

average. EPA has received information 

from various States, since the proposal 

of Method F-1, which indicates that 

several visible emissions observation 

methods, developed at the State level, 

include a 5-second observation interval. 

Accordingly, EPA evaluated the 

accuracy of observations recorded at 5-

second intervals. A collaborative study 

performed with a group of certified 

observers, demonstrated that an average 

of 12 observations, taken at 5-second 

intervals, has about the same level of 

accuracy as an average of 24 

observations taken at 15-second 

intervals. The results of the study are 

presented in "Collaborative Study of 

Opacity Observations at Five-Second 

Intervals by Certified Observers" 

(Docket No. A-84-22). 

Some States may, however, prefer to 

avoid specifying a different observation 

interval than is already in use in many 

SIP's, even though the shorter averaging 

period is warranted. For this reason, 

EPA considered the effect of averaging 

only four observations. Further analysis 

of earlier data indicates that the 

accuracy of the averaging of four 15-

second observations is comparable to 

that of twelve 15-second observations. 

States are advised to consider the 

relative accuracy of the two observation 

intervals when specifying Method 203C 

and indicate which interval will be 

required. 

C. Rationale for Proposal as a 

Recommended Method in 40 CFR Part 

Si 

Method F-1 was first proposed for 

inclusion in appendix F of part 52 (51 

FR 31076, August 29,1986). Since that 

time, the new appendix M of part 51 

was promulgated. As described in 

section HD of this preamble, appendix 

M is the designated repository for 

recommended test methods for use in 

'SIP's. 

Methods in appendix M are available 

for States to specify in their SIP's 

without further review by EPA. EPA 

revised subpart K of 40 CFR part 51 to ~ 

emphasize that States must include 

enforceable test methods in their SIP's 

for each emission limit and directed 

States to appendix M for recommended 

test methods for use in determining 

compliance (55 FR 14249, April 17, 

1990). States are expected to specify a 

test method for each standard in their 

SIP's. Ail new or revised SIP's should 

include compliance test methods. The 

test method and the associated error can 

affect the implementation and 

stringency of any SIP-specified 

regulation. The specification of test 

methods within SIP regulations will 

ensure that test method procedures and 

accuracy are fully considered. 

Because part 52 addresses Federal 

approval of proposed SIP's, while part 

51 addresses development of SIP's, 

recommended test methods are most 

appropriately included in part 51. 

Today's proposed Methods 203A, 203B, 

and 203C are recommended test 

methods intended for use in SIP's and, 

therefore, clearly should be included in 

appendix M. 

D. Rationale for Proposed Procedures 

for Fugitive Emissions Applications 

Fugitive emissions are those 

emissions that are emitted directly into 

the air from unenclosed sources such as 

stockpiles, roadways, and open railcars 

or truckbeds, or those which leak into 

the atmosphere from industrial sources 

or buildings. Another source of .fugitive 

emissions is open burning. Typical 

industrial sources of fugitive emissions 

include loading and transfer operations, 

coke oven pushing, sizing, crushing, 

milling, and sandblasting operations. 

Silvaculture contributes to fugitive 

emissions through both cutting and 

clearing activities. 

Fugitive emissions may not always be 

in the form of a distinct plume, but 

instead, may be in the form of a cloud 

or cover a broad area, rn some instances, 

fugitive emissions may represent only a 

part of a facility's overall emissions, as 

would be the case for a large 

petrochemical complex. Many 

situations exist in which fugitive 

emissions are the dominant source of air 

pollution. Examples include quarries, 

sawmills, and roadways cr parking lots. 

Many SIP's Include opacity limits for 

various industrial and commercial 

operations that include sources of 

fugitive emissions. For example, 

regulations in Ohio require that visible 

emissions be observed and recorded at 

coke oven doors during pushing 

operations; regulations in Tennessee 

require that industrial roads and parking 

lots meet an opacity limit of 10 percent 

in any area previously designated 

nonattainment for particulate matter. In 

some cases, as in the Ohio coke oven 

regulation, the opacity limit serves to 

indicate good operation and 

maintenance procedures, or to highlight 

equipment deterioration. In others, such 

as the Tennessee road/parking lot 

regulation, the opacity limit serves to 

accomplish a specific air quality goal, 

such as conforming to national ambient 

air quahty standards or reversing 

visibility impairment near an historic or 

scenic sita The inclusion of guidance 

and procedures for reading visible 

emissions from fugitive sources in 

Methods 203A, 203B and 203C will 

assist States in achieving many of these 

goals. 

The procedures for fugitive emissions, 

included in Method 203A, 203B, and 

203C, have been assembled from current 

State regulations (e.g., Ohio and 

Tennessee), national standards, and 

studies conducted in Florida and 

elsewhere. Since the promulgation of 

Method 9, understanding of the special 

considerations, necessary when 

observing visible emissions from 

fugitive sources, has grown. Currently, 

efforts are underway in several States, 

such as Illinois, to develop opacity 

methods that are applicable to specific 

source types or local concerns. These 

efforts may be time and resource 

intensive, and EPA hopes to reduce 

some of this burden through * 

promulgation of these recommended 

methods. 

The principal studies and regulations 

that EPA considered are summarized 

below, followed by a summary of 

general principles based on these end 

other studies. 

Data, Information and Analyses 

Tennessee visible emission evaluation 

Method 1. The State of Tennessee 

developed a visible emissions reading 

technique for roads and parking lots in 

1982 as part of an effort to bring a total 

suspended particulate (TSP), 

nonattainment area, into compliance 

through the use of a stringent opacity 
P.8 

Maral! IXGS&flQff I ^®L: S8„ Kto. 223 7 Moaday, No^mt a •%%, 5LSS3 I Ftropasdl M®3 @H©SS 

JMraaKssok 

W®F® conducted by th® Ttauaossss 

determine whet modifications to 

Method S mai d ba macossary. Thss© 

M d stadias pasulted fa th® . 

Emisdorcs Evaluation* Mathcd 1. Tha 15-

sscaadl rasdiag iatoval ami imaiay ©tte 

proosdw-so from Mathod © war® 

BStained, but the averaging period was 

shoifisasdl to 2 -mistote. Als©5 additional 

procedural guidamo® for visiM® 

ea-issicms obsswatioras from short-tom 

sporadic e? intaisiiittent ©zaissiom 

sources was provided. 

No^imsicMc mimmS pwcessing 

plants new somes performance 

standard. TMs mew sourc® parfesroanc® 

standard JNSPS) respires th® rass of 

Method ® procedures with ths following 

additional provisions: 

1. Obssyvatioffis should fe® used® at a. 

EaMiaraa of 5 Eaates-s (mil 125 feat (ft)) 

from tha scisrcs; 

2. Ths positioa of the cbseros? shosuld 

fc® sa'acted to mfaimi2® Jnterfazsmco 

from other ©mission sources; and 

3. Wheai wat e mist is present in th® 

plume, the obsarvation should bs mads 

at a point to the plume where th® mist 

is no longer visible. 

"foiri 

isssw. lilass® 

EFPO!? @nly mmeigimaMj 

whissii Bgfag Mathod"® pocsstass osa 

stack emissions. A escomd analysis was 

performed to this study to ©©aside:? tlh© 

accuracy of Method S cartlfied obsssvars 

inreadii 

should b® irapsatsdl tea-ass of a tog 

interruption. 

it tha standard, i 

observe?, was comipajad to that of the 

that from 58 to 88 percent of the time, 

above the level of the standard, as 

deteaataad by ths tFansnaissomet®?, or 

umdajstatsd th© timse ebova th® level of 

the standard. Stated aaothar way, tha 

study deimomstratad a stroag megativ© 

Principles of Observation of Fugitiv® 

Emission Sources 

.ve 

emissions may be generated by multiple 

sources fades® proximity to one 

i emissions may I 

.eavily from tho Tenmassaa Eaetkodl 

abov®, but adds two additional 

conditions: (1) ObssFvatioas should fe® 

mad® at th® point off highest opacity 

within th® plum®, ui 

abova OF downwind on ta© sourc®; ami 

(2) obsarvars are to 1 

CaMakomtiva study ofopasity 

observations of/ugfeV® eMikmoms-fmrn 

unpaved mads by osr-ified obssiwss^. 

This study by Eastern Technical 

Associates (ETA) favolvad vMM® 

emissions, specifically, fugitive 

ainissio-as from iiiQpavsd road 

Method 9 procedures over averaging 

periods of 15 seconds to ® minutas. 

Opacity cbssroeticos, takes Hay visiMa ' 

©missies tzhwivim. war® cosnpsisd .to 

measurements taken by a 

teeasEdsEsuste. Th® pjqposa ©f &o . 

study was to ©raiipar® tha asraifacy of 

opacity cboes-vEtSonc of fugitiv® 

emissions to fts osswetxy of opacity 

cboEfVaJioas of stationary so-uroo 

ainrssious. 

Tic® study fcuad that, depending on 

sv-r-ra-jJGg timo, fraas ?•_ to 30 peroeat ©ff 

r'l avarsgss had eitha2 mo positive erra? 

c:.v had poaitiv® amro? of Isss thaB 5 • 

•pEicenil opacity,, amd froam SO to 83 

psrcsnt fcadl 10 psEceiut oi Isss jjositiv® 

than are point-sourc® amissions. Sine® 

the overall purpose of visible opacity 

observation is to datormin® tha affect of 

the emission om th® obsarvair's viaw of 

the background, tha obssrvai? must stand 

at a distoncaaad fa a position that 

E

rovides a clear view of tha background, 

oth through tha ©mission, and beside 

th® emission. Th® provisions, 

incorporated in the nonmetallic mineral 

processing plants NSPS, ara intended to 

ensure that the observer clearly 

distinguishes th® plmao® frosa ©thai? 

emissiom sowess and, fa th® ossa of 

water mist, includes only the portion of 

concern. Often, even for roadways arad 

parking lots, whom fugitive emissions 

ar® plentiful os generated by multiple 

sources or sourc® types fa close 

S

roximsty to om® amothar, the contrast 

stween a given phm-aa or ths emissiosis, 

due to a spscific sourc® aad th® 

background opacity, is dimtoishsd. 

While the minimum distance of 5 m 

(15 ft) ensures tha observer can 

adequately segregate the smissicE &om 

tha background, care should be taken to 

select a distancs from th® sorarc® relative 

to the siaa of th® eaaission. 

Whem visibility at th® specified 

observation fatopifal is momeaiitaialy 

bloiied (e.g., by a p&sfag vshicls, etc.), 

tha reco?d!fag shsst should b® so 

marked, and tha set of observations 

extended to include aa appropriate 

muitnber of data pofats fe averagimg. fa 

som© casES, an oxtaraded 5®iigth of tin®, 

for which visibility is Woclssd, may 

render th® sat umiasabl®, Dissatioia wm&l • 

b® ussd to dscid® rjhaa am ovemagiEig sal 

observatioms across storsgs piles, &® 

observer skraM look acroso a spsdlc 

point fa th® pil® and nol follow Q 

moving plum®, fa tha cass of a 

continuoMsly-genaratod fat plumo, 

where wigo?ous wind ectiMty is 

continuously adding to th® upward 

movaaaaat of dust, obsssvsstions slhGMiid 

coffltfaua at tha sonne point cud haJglht 

above tha pila as initially Esad. 

A second caution involves th® 

situation wher® watar spray is ussil fcr 

dust supprsssioa. 11%a observer should 

assure iiat, whila reeding at the densest 

portion of th® plum®, tha opacity 

recorded is mot from the water spray. 

Roads and parking areas. The 

Tennessee and Ohio methods include a 

condition requiring that a series of 

opacity readings may include only 

plumes generated by vehicles traveling 

in the same direction. The obsarver is to 

select a target area Jo*? viewing and is to 

read th® opacity at that area for th® 

entir® averaging period, even when 

multiple vehicles pass through tha KES 

travailing to tha sauna direction. In soo® 

cases, a vehicle will be fa the line of 

sight wham a given reading is to be 

taken. For? ttheso roles, th® obsssrffetlo*n is 

suspandsd for any interval fa which a 

vehicle is dirsctly fa tha Mm® of sight. 

Ths spsss fbsr recording that obsaFretioa 

is marked with a "V." Observations ar® 

to be rasuced at tha najjt interval as if 

follorjfag tlfca last recorded observation, 

so long aa tks vahicla is traveling to th® -

saim® dfeaCiioffl es th® vehicle i^hich 

initiated tha fmgJtiv® aidssioiiis. 

If anothsr vehicle passes through th® 

area fa tha opposit© direction, readings 

must ba saspandsd. A maw set of 

readings cans bagfa after th® plums, 

gena-petsd by th® vshicla moving in th© 

opposit® dinsotion, has settled and a 

nev/ plrnim® is gasaratad. Th® disrupt®!?, 

set is then discaird-sd. 

An additional concern for TaicEsssss 

ia ssries i 

raprasantativa of tha roadway or prrikfcsf! 

lot. coaditiozis. Therafora, raedfags era 

not to be taken during a period of tima 

or fa aa araa ^vhich is not rapressnte^vo 

becans® of Hghly usQ-asual 

circumstaEcas (e.g., a brokam bag of 

cameat OF bale of hay on &® raadw5y3= 

Highly unusual di-ssijusfLaEcss must act 

only ba atypical of opa?atiQa coasiitisESs, 

thsy inaust also ba infesqueat. ThaFcfepa, 

a Stat® EiigLft ifsqBira that a!3 issa£fag2 Ibo 

racordsd aaal that egsncj? discKatioQ is 

used fa desidfag whether ail readings 

ara ta b® facl-adedl fa the avarags fe 

ptairposss of cosapliasic®. 
P.9 

er / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Docket 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

submitted to or otherwise considered by 

/ EPA in the development of this 

proposed rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file since material is added 

throughout the rulemaking 

• development. The docketing system is 

intended to allow members of the public 

and industries involved to identify and. 

locate documents so that they can 

effectively participate in the rulemaking 

process. Along with the statement of 

basis and purpose of the proposed and 

promulgated standards and EPA > 

responses to significant comments in 

the Federal Register notices and 

background documents, the contents of 

the docket, except for interagency 

review materials, will serve as the 

* record in case of judicial review (section 

307(d)(7)(A)). 

B. Executive Order 12291 

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA 

was required to judge whether a 

regulation was "major" and therefore 

subject to the requirement of a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). 

This action did not require any 

revision to existing SIPs or changes to 

any SIP regulation. This proposed 

regulation was not a major rule under 

E.O..12291 because it will neither have 

an effect on the economy of $100 

million or more, nor will it result in an 

increase in costs or prices to industry. 

There will be no adverse impact on the 

ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. Because 

this amendment was not a major 

regulation, no RIA was conducted. This 

regulation was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for ' 

review under Executive Order 12291. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Compliance 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.), whenever an 

agency is required to publish a general 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) 

which requires EPA to consider 

potential impacts of proposed 

regulations on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

. small governmental jurisdictions). The 

Administrator may certify, however, 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

These methods will have no adverse 

economic impact on small entities. No 

new SIP regulations aro being proposed. 

Since this proposal does not 

significantly change the status quo for 

such entities, I hereby certify that this 

proposed regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed regulation therefore does 

not require an RFA. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: November 11,1993. 

Carol Browner, 

Administrator. 

EPA proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I, part 51 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 51—[AMENDED] ' . 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2), 7475(e), 

7502(a) and (b), 7503, 7601(a)(1) smd 7620, 

unless otherwise noted. 

2. Appendix M is amended by adding 

Methods 203A, 203B and 203C and by 

adding the following method titles to 

the table of contents to read as follows: 

Appendix M to Part 51—Recommended 

Test Methods for State Implementation 

Plans 

* * « * a 

Method 203A—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Emissions From Stationary 

Sources for Time-Averaged Regulations. 

Method 203B—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Emissions From Stationary 

Sources for Time-Exception Regulations. 

Method 203C—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Emissions From Stationary 

Sources for Instantaneous Limitation 

Regulations 

Method 203 A—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Emissions From Stationary 

Sources for Time-Averaged Regulations 

Method 203A is virtually identical to 

EPA's Method 9 except for the data-reduction 

procedures, which provide for averaging 

times other than 6 minutes. That is, using 

Method 203 A with a 6-minute averaging time 

would be the same as following EPA Method 

9. Additionally, Method 203A provides 

procedures for fugitive dust applications. The 

certification procedures provided in section 

3 are virtually identical to Method 9 and are 

provided here, in full, for clarity and 

convenience. A sample visible emission 

observation form and instructions for its use 

are appended to this method, 

1. Applicability and Principle 

1.1 Applicability. This method is 

applicable for the determination of the 

opacity of emissions from sources of visible 

emissions for time-averaged regulations. A 

time-averaged regulation is any regulation 

that requires averaging visible emission data 

to determine the opacity of visible emissions 

over a specific time period. 

1.2 Principle. The opacity of emissions 

from sources of visible emissions is 

determined visually by an observer qualified 

according to the procedures of section 3. 

2. Procedures 

An observer qualified in accordance with 

section 3 of this method shall use the 

following procedures for visually 

determining the opacity of emissions. 

2.1 Procedures for Emissions from 

Stationary Sources. These procedures are 

applicable for visually determining the 

opacity of stack emissions by a qualified 

observer. The qualified observer should do 

the following: , 

2.1.1 Position. Stand at a distance 

sufficient to provide a clear view of the 

emissions with the sun oriented in the 140-

degree sector to the observer's back. 

Consistent with maintaining the above 

requirement as much as possible, make 

opacity observations from a position such 

that the line of vision is approximately 

perpendicular to the plume direction, and 

. when observing opacity of emissions from 

rectangular outlets (e.g., roof monitors, open 

baghouses, noncircular stacks), 

approximately perpendicular to the longer 

axis of the outlet. Do not include more than 

one plume in the line of sight at a time when 

multiple plumes are involved and, in any 

case, make opacity observations with the line 

of sight perpendicular to the longer axis of 

such a set of multiple stacks (e.g., stub stacks 

on baghouses). 

2.1.2 Field Records. Record the name of . 

the plant, emission location, type of facility, 

observer's name and affiliation, a sketch of 

the observer's position relative to the source, 

and the date on a field data sheet. A sample 

visible emission observation form is included 

in appendix 1 of Method 203A. Record the 

time, estimated distance to the emission 

location, approximate wind direction, 

estimated wind speed, description of the sky 

condition (presence and color of clouds), and 

plume background on the field data sheet at 

the time opacity readings are initiated and 

completed. 

2.1.3 Observations. Make opacity 

observations at the point of greatest opacity 

in that portion of the plume where 

condensed water vapor is not present. 

Do not look continuously at the plume but, 

instead, observe the plume momentarily at 

15-second intervals. 

2.1.3.1 Attached Steam Plumes. When 

condensed watar vapor is present within the 

. plume as it emerges from the emission outlet, 

make opacity observations beyond the point 

in the plume at which condensed water 

vapor is no longer visible. Record the 

approximate distance from the emission 
P.10 

FsdSeraH RegfeS©*? / Vol. 5®, No. 223 / Monday, Novomte 22, 293)3 / FRjposedl Roles MM7' 

outlet to tha point ia ths plasma at whicb tha 

observations era made. • 

2.1.3.2 DsJschsdl Steam Plamos. VJbs— 

wate? vEpo? in ths plume condeasas aad 

becomes visible al a distinct distance fee-as 

ths omission catlet, evaluate ths opadty of 

emissions at the emission outlet prior to the 

condensation of water vapor and the 

fomatica of tha steam plums. 

2.2 Procedures Sir Fugitive Process Dust 

Ecdssions. Tbase psoaedures aro applicable 

fine the determination of tha opacity of 

feptivs emissions by. a qualified observer. 

Tha quslifisd observer should do the 

following: 

2.2.2 PtesJtioa. Stand a! a position si least 

5 meters fr-osn the fugitive source in order to 

provide c clea;;' view of ths emissions with 

the ran oriented is tha 14Q-degree sseter to 

the bs.de Caarfstent ss much as possible with 

ira ".ntsiriJHg tbe abeve -feqpirs-Esatet ms'ts 

opacity observations firom a position Each, 

that the line cf vision is approximately 

perpendicular to the pluma aad wind 

direction. As much as possible, if multiple 

ph-as.es era involved, do act indude mora 

than OES plums in the line of sight at ons 

time. 

2.2.2 Field Records. Raaord the nasse of 

the plant or sits, fugitive souixa location, 

source typa [pile, stock industrial ipccass 

tail, indnaratc?, opan burning oparEtion, 

activity, materiel handling (transfer, ioafcg, 

sorting, etc.}J, method of coated ussd, if any, 

observer's name, certification date end 

affiliation, a skstch cf tha ebssjvar's position 

relative to tha fugitive source, and date on a 

£ald data shaet, audi as ths esaspb visible 

emission chssrvaifan fain induded in 

appaadbi 1. Also, record tba time, estimated 

distance to Gse fugitive snares bcaiisE, 

approximate wind direction, estimated wind 

speeds dassriptioE af tha sky condition 

(srasanaa and color of dcuds}, obsasvar's 

position relative to She fugitive coa-rce, and 

color of th® plums aad typa of badigr-L-und 

on tho visibla easission observation loom 

whan opadty readings ass initiated and 

completed. Fai roads, storage piles, parking 

lets, record e. description of the sulfas® 

conditions {pieaancg of moisture}. 

2.2.3 Obssivatioas. Make opacity 

observations, to th© extent possib'a,, mskss a 

contrasting teakgiroumd thai is j-sipsndlicate 

to the lies of vision. For icads, stosage piles, 

and parMr^ late, make opacity ehsasvatiH-as • 

approximately 1 mete abova ths suriac© 

from which ths plums is gaEeiratei For oShar 

fcgitive so-xKSS, raali© opssiiy obssroatia-ass 

at tha point cf greatest opasity in that poison 

of the pJu-£3 vshsm oaadenssd roe's? -japar 

is nnl prosamL IFoi inisiBi-aKont so-osoas, tha 

iaitSsl ebssjestitta sbEEld bsgfai taamedlici'aly 

after a p!uEi3 lias baaa ssssted cboc® thes 

curfaca JE\-a!vcd. Ho net look coatlnaouEJy at 

ths plusaa but, frsts^d, obserra &3 -p-haes 

nicjaestEiily at 15-ssoond intervals. 

2.3 Keosn'dJr.g Obs-srv-nSiana Hescid 5b3 

opacity abssrectiess to tba nEarast S pjxcsaS 

evi-cy 26 Esoa-ada oa cm obsanratlass?, irecard 

sbsat such as tbs viaiblo esnisaioa 

observatiaa fcja ladadtsd Jn appandhs 1. 

Saab maoESEta-ry obssrv-ation reeaiaed 

reprscsEtc tbo c-jafC53 oparity of eaaissiaas 

for a IB-Eaoand psriod. Th© ovspall length of 

time for which observations are recorded 

shall ha epproprfata ts the averaging tims 

specified in tba Stats fsgulation. 

2.4 Bata Reductiota fewYtae-Averaged 

Reguiatioas. A set of observations is 

caiapased of sa appropriate number of 

consecutive observations determined by &s 

averaging time specified. Divide the -recorded 

observations into csto of appjeprfato tinas 

lengths for tha spscified averaging time. Sats 

must consist of coasscutivs obsawations; 

hov„'swr, obsereations iramadiately 

preceding end following intempted 

observations shall ba feassed oanssrutiva. 

Sats naad not to ocsisasutiws in tiias and in 

no case shall two sats oves'lap, psawlting fa 

nudtiple violations. Far each set of 

observations, calculate! the appropriate 

average opacity. 

3. Qualification arid Testing 

3.1 Certification Requirements. To 

receive cs-rtiScatian aa a qmaliSed c&ssrsst, 

a candidal xnst br tssteSl aad dsaxEoteatia 

the ability to assign opacity Feadiogs fa 5 

percent iBoramsnts to 25 dii&raat bkek 

plumes and 26 diifcent whits pteess, witb 

an Gisrar not to exceed 16 paxesnt opacity on 

any ona reading and en average arro? net ta 

esoEad 7.6 psiosat opaarty in each category. 

Candidates shall ba tasted coensdi-og to tha 

pmcsdisiREa dssadbEii fa pairag*?apb 3.2. Any 

smoke gensiatos* nsad p-^rsuant to pauagysph 

3.2 sbaB bs eauippsd oitb a EjEobs Eseti"2 

which masts ths rsijii)Srs3isnts of paiagrapb 

3.3. Cs-rtiSoation tests that do mot msst tba 

re-jilramamts of paragsaphs 3*2 and 3.3 EBB 

not valid. 

The certiSaetian sbail bs valid km a psiilod 

of 8 months, and aftar each 8-snontb pasrlod, 

the qualification procedures must be 

repeated by an observer in crde? to retain 

certiScation. 

5.2 Certification FfcocBdoro. Tbe 

certification test consists of showing the 

candidate a complete run cf 50 plumes, 25 

black plumes and 25 white plumes, 

generated by a smoke generator. Plumes shall 

ba presented in -random order within each sat 

of 25 black and 25 white pkraes. Tbe 

candidate assigns an opacity value to each 

plume and records the observation on a 

suitable fan. At tba canaplstioa of each mn 

of 50 readings, tba SCOBS of tba csndidat® io 

determinsd. If a candidata feilo ta spalify, tba 

complete run of 50 readings must ba rapsated 

ia any ratsst. Tha smaks test may ba 

administered as part of a smoke school OT 

training program, and inay be pracedsd by 

training or familiarization irons of tba smoba 

generator during which oaadidatas a*ns sbown 

black and whits pbjecea of known opedty.. 

3.3 SEK&Q Ganeratc? SpsaScations. Any 

smobs gene-rate? used fa? tba parposa of 

paragraph 3.2 sbaJS bs eq-ssippad rjitb a 

smoka -nastcr installed ta snaasiiafe opndty 

across the diamatar of tba -snnba gensuatcr 

stack. Tha smabe -meter output shall display 

in-staak eparity, bassa) Tapoa a patb Isnglb 

equal to ths stad; ajdt di-^ttsieir oa a fciU © 

to ICC percent chart recorder sacla. Tha 

smoke jester optical design and parfaEXBEae 

shall meet the specifications shown in Table 

1. The smoke nater shall ba calihratad as 

prescribed in paiagsapb 3.S.S prio? to 

conducting each smoke leading test At the 

completion of each test, the zero and span 

drift, obaJl ba cheated, and if tbe dria 

exceeds if percent opacity, the condition 

shall ba corrscted prior to caaducting cay 

subsequent test runs. The esnoha meter shall 

bs demonstrated at the tlms ofisstaMaticn to 

meet tbe specifications Hstad in TabZa 1. Tbig 

damonstration shall be repeated following 

oay subsequent repair or replacement of tba 

photocell or associated electronic circuitry 

including tbe chart recorder cs output mate, 

cr every 8 months, whichever cocurs Gist. 

3.3.1 Calibration. The smoke teeter is 

calibrated aftsr allowing a *-nini*2i«-cffl cf 39 

minutes wann-up by alternately pjCCiiciiLg 

simulated opacity of 0 psreani aad 153 

percent. Whe"i stable response at 0 perssa! c" 

ICO percent ic noted, thQ snake rnete is 

adjusted to produce an Cutput cf JJ pEJSE-at 

o? 1C3 percent, as appropriate, This 

calibratici sbail ta rapeEted until stab'v: 0 

psrcsnt and Md percent readings are 

produced without adjustment. Simulated 0 

percent aa:d 1CS psroant opacity valaao aaay 

bs produced by altematsly switafcing tba 

power to tbe light source an aad off whils 

the smoke generator is not prad-jsaing rot!.:-*. 

3.3.2 Smoke Meter Evaluation. Tbe 

smoke meter design and psrirrmasaa c ? tt) 

ba evaluated as follows: 

3.3.2.1 Ligbt Source. Verf.% Scin 

manu&duier's data and from valises 

measuraments rneda at tba lamp, as iEsta!M, 

that tba lamp is oparated within ±5 parcsnt 

of tha ac-micd retad valtegs. 

. 3.3.2.2 SpscbalRespoas-jofPhBtaosJ). 

Verify &Q3t,nsE^fecta«r'o data that tba 

phptccoll bes a photopic respcase; i.s„ tho 

spsctral esasitivity of tba call shall dccsSy 

approximata tbe standard cpsctol-laffiinasity 

curve for photopic vision ivhich io -refsranE?d 

ia(b) of Table t, 

3.3.2.3 .Anglo of .View. Check 

constreation garanatry to ena\ra3 tbat tha tat-J 

angle of wj.sw of tha snjaks plumo, es rssa 

by tba pbotooall, dass not axcead 15 dags-aaa. 

Caloslats tba total ongla of vizvj cs follows: 

$v=2tan-- «1/2L, 

where: 

<>v=total angle of view, 

d=the pbotosell diameter + tbe dia-xeter cf 

tba ifaaiting Qpertiire; and 

L=distancs froa tbe photocell to tbe 

limiting epsitura. 

The limiting aparinre is tba point ia th® 

path batwaan tba photocell and tbe SUECIEB 

pluma wbare the angla of viaw is most 

restricted. Sa smcka geaarate smoke maters, 

this is normai)y sa orifica plats. 

3.-3.2.4 Angl® of Projacticn. Check 

construction geometry to SEEUMI that tba tatc-'J 

angle of promotion cf ths lassp om tbe snaka 

plume does not as-oasd 15 decrees. Calcakte 

the total angle of projection as fellows: 

^p=2tan-'d/2L 

whera: 

<jip=total angle of projection; 

d=the sen cf tbe length of the lamp 

fHajaeat + tie diaiaster cf tba Bmuing 

ajiarture; znd 

L=tba distaica &oii tbe lasp ts tba 

limiting aperture. 

3.3.2.5 Calibration Error. Using noutraldensity Sltars of known opadty, chadt the 

error between the actual response and the 

theoretical linear response of the smoke 
P.11 

61648 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

meter. This check is accomplished by first 

calibrating the smoke meter according to 

3.3.1 and then inserting a series of three 

neutral-density filters of nominal opacity of 

20, 50, and 75 percent in the smoke meter 

path length. Use filters calibrated within ±2 

percent. Care should be taken when inserting 

the filters to prevent stray light from affecting 

the meter. Make a total of five 

nonconsecutive readings for each filter. The 

maximum opadty error on any one reading 

shall be ±3 percent. 

3.3.2.6 Zero and Span Drift. Determine 

the zero and span drift by calibrating and 

operating the smoke generator in a normal 

manner over a 1-hour period. The drift is 

measured by checking the zero and span at 

the end of this period. 

3.3.2.7 Response Time. Determine the 

response time by producing the series of five 

simulated 0 percent and 100 percent opacity 

values and observing the time required to 

reach stable response. Opacity values of 0 

percent and 100 percent may be simulated by 

alternately switching the power to the light 

source off and on while the smoke generator 

is not operating. 

4. References 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources; appendix A; Method 9 for Visual 

Determination of the Opacity of Emissions 

from Stationary Sources. Final Rule. 39 FR 

219. Washington, DC. U.S. Government 

Printing Office. November 12,1974. 

2. Office of Air and Radiation. "Quality 

Assurance Guideline for Visible Emission 

Training Programs." EPA-600/S4-83-011. 

Quality Assurance Division. Research 

Triangle Park, N.C. May 1982. 

3. "Method 9—Visible Determination of 

the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary 

Sources." February 1984. Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement 

Systems. Volume III, section 3.1.2. Stationary 

Source Specific Methods. EPA-600-4-77-

027b. August 1977. Office of Research and 

Development Publications, 26 West Clair 

Street, Cincinnati, OH. 

4. Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. "Opacity Error for Averaging and 

Nonaveraging Data Reduction and Reporting 

Techniques." Final Report SR-1-6-85. 

Emission Measurement Branch, Research 

Triangle Park, N.C. June 1985. 

5. The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Preparation, Adoption, and 

Submittal of State Implementation Plans. 

Methods for Measurement of PMio Emissions 

from Stationary Sources. Final Rule. Federal 

Register. Washington, DC. U.S. Government 

Printing Office. Volumes 55. No. 74. pps. 

14246-14279. April 17, 1990. 

Method 203B—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Emissions From Stationary 

Sources for Time-Exception Regulations 

Method 203B is virtually identical to EPA's 

Method 9, except for the data-reduction 

procedures, which have been modified for 

application to time-exception regulations. 

Additionally, Method 203B provides 

procedures for fugitive dust applications 

which were unavailable when Method 9 was 

promulgated. The certification procedures in 

section 3 are identical to those in Method 9 

and are provided in Method 203A as well. 

Therefore, the certification procedures have 

not been repeated within this method. As an 

additional aid for observers, a sample visible 

emission observation form has been 

appended to Method 203A. 

1. Applicability and Principle 

1.1 Applicability. This method is 

applicable for the determination of the 

opacity of emissions from sources of visible 

emissions for time-exception regulations. A 

time-exception regulation means any 

regulation that allows predefined periods of 

opacity above the otherwise applicable 

opacity limit. 

1.2 Principle. The opacity of emissions 

from sources of visible emissions is 

determined visually by a qualified observer. 

2. Procedures 

The observer qualified in accordance with 

section 3 of this method shall use the 

following procedures for visually 

determining the opacity of emissions. 

2.1 Procedures for Emissions From 

Stationary Sources. Same as in 2.1, Method 

203A. 

2.2 Procedures For Fugitive Process Dust 

Emissions. Same as 2.2, Method 203A. 

2.3 Recording Observations. Record 

opacity observations to the nearest 5 percent 

at 15-second intervals on an observational 

record sheet. Each momentary observation 

recorded represents the average opacity of 

emissions for a 15-second period. The overall 

length of time for which observations are 

recorded shall be appropriate to the 

applicable regulation for which opacity is 

being measured. 

2M Data Reduction for Time-Exception 

Regulations. For a time-exception regulation, 

reduce opacity observations as follows: count 

the number of observations above the 

applicable standard and multiply that 

number by 0.25 to determine the minutes of 

emissions above the target opacity. 

3. Qualification and Testing. Same as 

section 3, Method 203A. 

4. References. Same as Section 4, Method 

203A. 

Method 203C—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Emissions From Stationary 

Sources for Instantaneous Limitation 

Regulations 

Method 203C is virtually identical to EPA's 

Method 9, except for the data-reduction 

procedures, which have been modified for 

application to instantaneous limitation 

regulations. Additionally, Method 203C 

provides procedures for fugitive dust 

applications, which were unavailable when 

Method 9 was promulgated. The certification 

procedures in section 3 are identical to 

Method 9. These certification procedures are 

provided in Method 203A as well, and, 

therefore, have not been repeated in this 

method. As an additional aid for observers, 

a sample visible emission observation form 

has been appended to Method 203A. 

1. Applicability and Principle 

1.1 Applicability. This method is 

applicable for the determination of the 

opacity of emissions from sources of visible 

emissions for instantaneous limitations. An 

instantaneous limitation regulation is an 

opacity limit which is never to be exceeded. 

1.2 Principle. The opacity of emissions 

from sources of visible emissions is 

determined visually by a qualified observer. 

2. Procedures 

The observer qualified in accordance with 

section 3 of this method shall use the 

following procedures for visually 

determining the opacity of emissions. 

2.1 Procedures for Emissions From 

Stationary Sources. Same as 2.1, Method 

203A. 

2.1.1 Position. Same as 2.1.1, Method 

203A. 

2.1.2 Field Records. Same as 2.1.2, 

Method 203A. 

2.1.3 Observations. Make opacity 

observations at the point of greatest opacity 

in that portion of the plume where 

condensed water vapor is not present. 

Do not look continuously at the plume, 

instead, observe the plume momentarily at 

the interval specified in the subject 

regulation. Unless otherwise specified, a 15-

second observation interval is assumed. 

2.1.3.1 Attached Steam Plumes. Same as 

2.1.3.1, Method 203A.. 

2.1.3.2 Detached Steam Plumes. Same as 

2.1.3.1, Method 203A. 

2.2 Procedures for Fugitive Process Dust 

Emissions. 

2.2.1 Position. Same as section 2.2.1, 

Method 203A. 

2.2.2 Field Records. Same as section 

2.2.2, Method 203A. 

2.2.3 Observations. 

2.2.3.1 Observations for 15-second 

Observation Interval Regulations. Same as 

section 2.2.3, Method 203A. 

2.2.3.2 Observations for 5-second 

Observation Internal Regulations. Same as 

section 2.2.3, Method 203A, except, observe 

the plume momentarily at 5-second intervals. 

2.3 Recording Observations. Record 

opacity observations to the nearest 5 percent 

at the prescribed interval on an observational 

record sheet Each momentary observation 

recorded represents the average of emissions 

for the prescribed period. If a 5-second 

observation period is not specified in the 

applicable regulation, a 15-second interval is 

assumed. The overall time for which 

recordings are made shall be of a length 

appropriate to the regulation for which 

opacity is being measured. 

2.3.1 Recording Observations for 15-

second Observation Interval Regulations. 

Record opacity observations to the nearest 5 

percent at 15-second intervals on an 

observational record sheet. Each momentary 

observation recorded represents the average 

of emissions for a 15-second period. 

2.3.2 Recording Observations for 5-

second Observation Interval Regulations. 

Record opacity observations to the nearest 5 

percent at 5-second intervals on an 

observational record sheet Each momentary 

observation recorded represents the average 

of emissions for 5-second period. 

2.4 Data Reduction for Instantaneous 

Limitation Regulations. For an instantaneous 

Hmitation regulation, a 1-minute averaging 

time will be used. Divide the observations 
P.12 

sir / Vol. 58, No. 223 / Monday, November 22, 1993 / Proposed Rules 

recorded on the record sheet into sets of 

consecutive observations. A set is composed 

of the consecutive observations made in 1 

minute. Sets need not be consecutive in time, 

and in no case shall two sets overlap. Reduce 

opacity observations by dividing the sum of 

all observations recorded in a set by the 

number of observations recofded in each set. 

2.4.1 Data Reduction for 15-second 

Observation Intervals. Reduce opacity 

observations by averaging four consecutive 

observations recorded at 15-second intervals. 

Divide the observations recorded on the 

record sheet into sets of four consecutive 

observations. For each set of four 

observations, calculate the average by 

summing the opacity of the four observations 

and dividing this sum by four. 

2.-3.2 Data Reduction for 5-second 

Observation Intervals. Reduce opacity 

observations by averaging 12 consecutive 

observations recorded at 5-second intervals. 

Divide the observations recorded on the 

record sheet into sets of 12 consecutive 

observations. For each set of 12 observations, 

calculate the average by summing the opacity 

of the 12 observations and dividing this sum 

by 12. 

3. Qualification and Testing 

Same as section 3, Method 203A. 

4. References 

Same as section 4, Method 203 A. 

1203C—Visual Determination of 

Opacity of Enmissioms From Stationary 

Sources for Instantaneous Limitation 

Regulations 

Method 203C is virtually identical to EPA's 

Method 9, except for the data-reduction 

procedures, which have been modified for 

application to instantaneous limitation 

regulations. Additionally, Method 203C 

provides procedures for fugitive dust 

applications, which were unavailable when 

Method 9 was promulgated. The certification 

procedures in section 3 are identical to 

Method 9. These certification procedures are 

provided in Method 203A as well, and, 

therefore, have not been repeated in this 

method. As an additional aid for observers, 

a sample visible emission observation form 

has been appended to Method 203A as well. 

1. Applicability and Principle 

1.1 Applicability. This method is 

applicable for the determination of the 

opacity of emissions from sources of visible 

emissions for instantaneous limitations. An 

instantaneous limitation regulation is an 

opacity limit which is never to be exceeded. 

1.2 Principle. The opacity of emissions 

from sources of visible emissions is 

determined visually by a qualified observer. 

2. Procedures 

The observer qualified in accordance with 

section 3 of this method shall use the 

following procedures for visually 

determining the opacity of emissions. 

2.1 Procedures for Emissions From 

Stationary Sources. Same as 2.1, Method 

203A. 

2.1.1 Position. Same as 2.1.1, Method 

203A. 

2.1.2 Field Records. Same as 2.1.2, 

Method 203A. 

2.1.3 Observations. Make opacity 

observations at the point of greatest opacity 

in that portion of the plume where 

condensed water vapor is not present. 

Do not look continuously at the plume, 

instead, observe the plume momentarily at 

the interval specified in the subject 

regulation. Unless otherwise specified, a 15-

second observation interval is assumed. 

2.1.3.1 Attached Steam Plumes. Same as 

2.1.3.1. Method 203A. 

2.1.3.2 Detached Steam Plumes. Same as 

2.1.3.2, Method 203A. 

2.2 Procedures for Fugitive Process Dust 

Emissions. 2.2.1 Position. Same as section 

2.2.1. Method 203A. 

2.2.2 Field Records. Same as section 

2.2.2. Method 203A. 

2.2.3 Observations. 

2.2.3.1 Observations for 15-second 

Observation Interval Regulations. Same as 

section 2.2.3, Method 203A. 

2.2.3.2 Observations for 5-second 

Observation Interval Regulations. Same as 

section 2.2.3, Method 203A, except, observe 

the plume momentarily at 5-second intervals. 

2.3 Recording Observations. Record 

opacity observations to the nearest 5 percent 

at the prescribed interval on an observational 

record sheet. Each momentary observation 

recorded represents the average of emissions 

for the prescribed period. If a 5-second 

observation period is not specified in the 

applicable regulation, a 15-second interval is 

assumed. The overall time for which 

recordings are made shall be of a length 

appropriate to the regulation for which 

opacity is being measured. 

2.3.1 Recording Observations for 15-

second Observation Interval Regulations. 

Record opacity observations to the nearest 5 

percent at 15-second intervals on an 

observational record sheet. Each momentary 

observation recorded represents the average 

of emissions for a 15-second period. 

2.3.2 Recording Observations for 5-

second Observation Interval Regulations. 

Record opacity observations to the nearest 5 

percent at 5-second intervals on an 

observational record sheet. Each momentary 

observation recorded represents the average 

of emissions for a 5-second period. 

2.4 Data Reduction for Instantaneous 

Limitation Regulations. For an instantaneous 

limitation regulation, a 1-minute averaging 

time will be used. Divide the observations 

recorded on the record sheet into sets of 

consecutive observations. A set is composed 

of the consecutive observations made in 1 

minute. Sets need not be consecutive in time, 

and in no case shall two sets overlap. Reduce 

opacity observations by dividing the sum of 

all observations recorded in a set by the 

number of observations recorded in each set. 

2.4.1 Data Reduction for 15-second 

Observation Intervals. Reduce opacity 

observations by averaging four consecutive 

observations recorded at 15-second intervals. 

Divide the observations recorded on the 

record sheet into sets of four consecutive 

observations. For each set of four 

observations, calculate the average by 

summing the opacity of the four observations 

and dividing this sum by four. 

2.4.2 Data Reduction for 5-second 

Observation Intervals. Reduce opacity 

observations by averaging 12 consecutive 

observations recorded at 5-second intervals. 

Divide the observations recorded on the 

record sheet into sets of 12 consecutive 

observations. For each set of 12 observations, 

calculate the average by summing tbe opacity 

of the 12 observations and dividing this sum 

by 12. 

3. Qualification and Testing 

Same as section 3, Method 203A. 

<5. References 

Same as section 4, Method 203A. 

TABLE 1.—SMOKE METER DESIGN AND 

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS 

Parameter 

b. Spectral response 

of photocell. 

, 

c. Angle of view 

d. Angle ot projection 

a. Calibration error .... 

t. Zero and span drift 

g. Response time 

Specification 

Incandescent lamp 

operated af nominal rated voltage. 

Photopic (daylight 

spectral response 

of ths human eye— 

Reference 4.1 of 

section 4). 

15 degrees maximum 

total angle. 

15 degrees maximum 

total angle. 

±3-parcant opacity, 

maKimum. 

±l-parcent opacity, 30 

minutes. 

^5 seconds. 

IFR Doc. 93-28619 Filed 11-19-93; 8:45 ami 

BILLING CODE GSS0-5O-? 

m cm (Part 721 

[OPPTS-50S10; FRL-3186-2J 

RUN 2070-AB27 

SI 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a significant 

new use rule (SNUR) under section 

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) for all acrylate esters falling 

within the definition proposed in this 

rule (acrylate substances). Persons 

wishing to manufacture, or import such 

substances, not appearing upon the 

TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory 

(the Inventory) as of the proposed date 

of this rule, for a significant new use, 

would be able to submit a combined 

Premanufactura (PMN) and Significant 

New Use Notice (SNUN). These persons 

wishing to manufacture, import, or 

process, for a significant new use, an 

acrylate substance subsequently placed