Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12575 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name Permit/order or registration number 

State effective date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 

citation 

* * * * * * * 

Reynolds Consumer Products 

Company.

Registration No. 50534 ................. 10/1/08 03/25/09 .........................................

[Insert page number where the 

document begins].

52.2420(d)(12) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–6663 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0074; FRL–8785–4] 

RIN 2060–AG21 

Performance Specification 16 for 

Predictive Emissions Monitoring 

Systems and Amendments to Testing 

and Monitoring Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

promulgate Performance Specification 

(PS) 16 for predictive emissions 

monitoring systems (PEMS). 

Performance Specification 16 provides 

testing requirements for assessing the 

acceptability of PEMS when they are 

initially installed. Currently, there are 

no Federal rules requiring the use of 

PEMS; however, some sources have 

obtained Administrator approval to use 

PEMS as alternatives to continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 

Other sources may desire to use PEMS 

in cases where initial and operational 

costs are less than CEMS and process 

optimization for emissions control may 

be desirable. Performance Specification 

16 will apply to any PEMS required in 

future rules in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, or 

63, and in cases where a source 

petitions the Administrator and receives 

approval to use a PEMS in lieu of 

another emissions monitoring system 

required under the regulation. We are 

also finalizing minor technical 

amendments. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0074. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Performance Specification 

16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring 

Systems Docket, Docket ID No. EPA– 

OAR–2003–0074, EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

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

Friday excluding legal holidays. The 

docket telephone number is (202) 566– 

1742. The Public Reading Room is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Foston Curtis, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (E143–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

1063; fax number (919) 541–0516; email address: curtis.foston@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This 

Action? 

III. Background 

IV. This Action 

A. PS–16 

B. Method 24 of Appendix A–7 of Part 60 

C. Performance Specification 11 of 

Appendix B of Part 60 

D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of 

Part 60 

E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63 

V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule 

A. Parameter Operating Level Terminology 

B. PS–16 Applicability to Market-Based 

Programs 

C. PS–16 and the Older Draft Performance 

Specifications on the EPA Web site 

D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency vs 

CEMS Stringency 

E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters 

F. Statistical Tests 

G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the 

Relative Accuracy Audit 

H. Potential Overlap Between PS–16 and 

PS–17 

I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit 

Frequency for Good Performance 

VI. Judicial Review 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Predictive emission monitoring 

systems are not currently required in 

any Federal rule. However, they may be 

used under certain New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) to 

predict nitrogen oxides emissions from 

small industrial, commercial, and 

institutional steam generating units. In 

some cases, PEMS have been approved 

as alternatives to CEMS for the initial 

30-day compliance test at these 

facilities. Various State and Local 

regulations are incorporating PEMS as 

an emissions monitoring tool. The major 

entities that are potentially affected by 

Performance Specification 16 and the 

amendments to the subparts are 

included in the following tables. 

Performance Specification 16 will 

neither apply to existing PEMS nor 

those covered under Subpart E of 40 

CFR part 75. 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially affected include the 

following: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12576 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION: PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 16 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

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

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

a North American Industry classification system. 

TABLE 2—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION: AMENDMENTS TO PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 11 

AND PROCEDURES 1 AND 2, APPENDIX F, PART 60 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry .............................................................................................................................................. 333298 Portland Cement Manufacturing. 

Industry .............................................................................................................................................. 562211 Hazardous Waste Incinerators. 

a North American Industry Classsification System. 

TABLE 3—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION: AMENDMENTS TO METHOD 24, APPENDIX A, PART

60 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 326211 Rubber Tire Manufacturing. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 323111 Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and 

Printing. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 334613 Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 326199 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 332812 Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 337124 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 336111 Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface 

Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 323111 Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure Printing. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 322222 Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 421620 Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 335931 Metal Coil Surface Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 332812 Beverage Can Surface Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. 33641 Aerospace. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Boat and Ship Manufacturing and Repair 

Surface Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Fabric Printing, Coating, and Dyeing. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Leather Finishing. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Paper and Other Web Surface Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Plastic Parts Surface Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Printing and Publishing Surface Coating. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Wood Building Products. 

Industry ................................................................................................................................. ................ Wood Furniture. 

a North American Industry classificatiion System. 

TABLE 4—MAJOR ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION: AMENDMENT TO METHOD 303, APPENDIX A, PART

63 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry .............................................................................................................................................. 33111111 Coke Ovens. 

a North American Industry classsification System. 

These tables are not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by these actions. These tables 

list examples of the types of entities 

EPA is now aware could potentially be 

affected by these final actions. Other 

types of entities not listed could also be 

affected. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12577 

II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This 

Action? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this rule 

will also be available on the Worldwide 

Web (www) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 

Administrator’s signature, a copy of the 

final rule will be placed on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at 

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

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

III. Background 

Performance Specification 16 and the 

amendments to PS–11, Procedures 1 

and 2, Method 24, and Method 303 were 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

August 8, 2005 with a public comment 

period that ended October 7, 2005. A 

public commenter asked that the 

comment period be reopened to allow 

for additional time to prepare their 

response since they were a leading 

vendor of PEMS and were significantly 

impacted by the rule. We reopened the 

comment period for two weeks, from 

November 2–16, 2005. A total of 42 

comment letters were received on the 

proposed rule. Most comment letters 

pertained to PS–16 and contained 

multiple comments. We have compiled 

and responded to the public comments 

and made appropriate changes to the 

rule based on the comments. 

IV. This Action 

A. PS–16 

This action finalizes PS–16 for PEMS. 

This performance specification was 

originally proposed by EPA on August 

8, 2005 (70 FR 45608). Performance 

Specification 16 establishes procedures 

that must be used to determine whether 

a PEMS is acceptable for use in 

demonstrating compliance with 

applicable requirements. Predictive 

emission monitoring systems predict 

source emissions indirectly using 

process parameters instead of measuring 

them directly. 

Additionally, the following 

amendments are made to the noted 

testing and monitoring provisions. 

B. Method 24 of Appendix A–7 of Part 

60 

Method 24, part 60, Appendix A–7 is 

used to determine the contents and 

properties of surface coatings under 

NSPS applications. Method 24 currently 

references ASTM D2369 as the method 

for determining volatiles content. The 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials has recommended that ASTM 

D6419 be allowed as an alternative to 

D2369 in this case. We have amended 

Method 24 to cite this optional method. 

C. Performance Specification 11 of 

Appendix B of Part 60 

The publication on January 12, 2004 

of PS–11 for Appendix B and Procedure 

2 for part 60, Appendix F contained 

technical and typographical errors and 

unclear instructions. We have revised 

the definition of confidence interval half 

range to clarify the language, replacing 

the word ‘‘pairs’’ with ‘‘sets’’ to avoid 

possible confusion regarding the use of 

paired sampling trains, corrected errors 

in Equations 11–22, 11–27, and 11–37, 

corrected the procedures in paragraphs 

(4) and (5) of section 12.3 for 

determining confidence and tolerance 

interval half ranges for the exponential 

and power correlation models, and 

added a note following paragraph (5)(v) 

concerning the application of 

correlation equations to calculate 

particulate matter (PM) concentrations 

using the response data from an 

operating PM CEMS. We have also 

renumbered some equations and 

references for clarification, consistency, 

and accuracy. 

D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of 

Part 60 

In Procedure 1 of Appendix F of part 

60, we revised obsolete language that 

describes the standard reference 

material that is required, and in 

Procedure 2, we added a needed 

equation for calculating an absolute 

correlation audit based on the 

applicable standard. 

E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63 

In Method 303 of Appendix A to part 

63, a statement on varying the time of 

day runs are taken that was deleted by 

mistake in a recent amendment of the 

method has been added. 

V. Public Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

A more detailed summary of the 

public comments and our responses can 

be found in the Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses document, 

which is available from several sources 

(see ADDRESSES section). The major 

public comments are summarized by 

subject as follows: 

A. Parameter Operating Level 

Terminology 

Several commenters suggested we 

revise the key parameter operating level 

used for the relative accuracy (RA) test 

from ‘‘normal’’ to ‘‘mid.’’ It was noted 

that some units normally operate in the 

high or low levels and that a revised 

listing of mid level would ensure that 

the intended three levels would be 

evaluated. We agree with the 

commenters and changed the reference 

from ‘‘normal’’ to ‘‘mid.’’ 

B. PS–16 Applicability to Market-Based 

Programs 

Several commenters objected to 

applying PS–16 to PEMS that are used 

in a market-based program. They noted 

that market-based PEMS are already 

covered in Subpart E of 40 CFR part 75 

and those requirements are different 

from proposed PS–16. This was deemed 

confusing from an applicability 

standpoint, especially for those PEMS 

that have already been approved under 

part 75. Other commenters stated that 

they did not understand why 

performance specifications for marketbased monitoring were being added to 

40 CFR part 60 since part 60 does not 

address marketing regulations. Some 

commenters asked whether PS–16 

would apply to PEMS already in use. 

We have dropped the proposed 

applicability of PS–16 to market-based 

PEMS and agree that part 75 is the better 

place to address market-based PEMS. 

Requirements for PEMS used in the part 

75 market-based program are already 

addressed in Subpart E of part 75, and 

we do not believe the more stringent 

requirements given there for marketbased PEMS are warranted for 

compliance monitoring under 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, and 63. We note in the final 

rule that PS–16 applies only to PEMS 

that are installed after the effective date 

of today’s action and to those used to 

comply with requirements in 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, or 63. 

C. PS–16 and the Older Draft 

Performance Specifications on the EPA 

Web Site 

A number of commenters asked that 

the draft ‘‘Example Specifications and 

Test Procedures for Predictive Emission 

Monitoring Systems’’ on the EPA Web 

site be adopted as PS–16 instead of the 

proposed provisions. They note that 

these specifications have been used in 

the past to approve prospective PEMS 

and felt the same guidelines should be 

used in the future. One commenter 

thought a departure from the draft 

requirements would result in a demise 

in PEMS use due to the increased costs 

of initial certification and ongoing 

maintenance. 

The ‘‘Example Specifications and Test 

Procedures for Predictive Emission 

Monitoring Systems’’ was a guidance 

document to give PEMS users and 

regulators a general idea of what could 

be expected of PEMS in light of the 

limited performance data available at 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12578 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

that time. It was primarily based on the 

existing requirements in PS–2 for CEMS 

and not on extensive research. The 

document was offered on the EMC Web 

site until the Agency could develop and 

finalize PS–16. Since then, we have 

acquired relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) data from a number of PEMS 

over time, and our understanding of 

their capabilities has increased. This 

data is presented in the docket and gives 

a better indication of PEMS performance 

than what is reflected in the guidance 

document (see EPA–OAR–2003–0074– 

0002, 0003, and 0004 docket entries). 

This data confirms that the performance 

levels set in PS–16 are achievable by the 

vast majority of PEMS in the data pool 

and are more reflective of the 

technology’s capabilities. We disagree 

with the commenter that the new 

requirements in PS–16 will result in the 

demise of PEMS due to increased cost 

for initial certification and ongoing 

maintenance. 

D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency 

vs. CEMS Stringency 

Some commenters objected to the 10 

percent relative accuracy limit for PEMS 

in PS–16 considering that the 

corresponding performance 

specifications for CEMS that are used 

for the same purposes have a 20 percent 

relative accuracy limit. They note that 

previous approvals of PEMS were based 

on the 20 percent criterion in the draft 

Web site performance specifications. 

They also argued that the added 

stringency of having to certify at a level 

twice as accurate as a CEMS under the 

same compliance conditions was not 

warranted. 

The 20 percent relative accuracy limit 

was set for CEMS in the 1970’s and 

reflects the performance capabilities of 

systems at that time. State-of-the-art 

CEMS are capable of much better 

performance as can be seen by their 

success under the tighter part 75 rules 

where a 10 percent relative accuracy is 

required. We have obtained 

performance data on a number of 

installed PEMS currently in use (see 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0074–0002, 0003, 

and 0004 docket entries), and the data 

show an overwhelming majority of the 

PEMS are capable of meeting a 10 

percent criterion on a repeated basis. 

We believe the quality of emissions data 

should parallel the increased 

capabilities of newer technologies, not 

the capabilities of older, outdated 

systems. Therefore, the 10 percent 

relative accuracy limit for PEMS is 

retained in this final rule. 

E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters 

Several commenters asked that 

alternative relative accuracy limits be 

allowed for low-emitting sources. They 

were concerned that the 10 percent 

relative accuracy limit would be 

problematic for low-emitters because 

the error in the reference method 

measurement plays a significant part in 

the accuracy determination at low 

concentrations. One commenter noted 

that many permits set emission limits 

just above the typical emission level of 

the source. This results in low-emitting 

sources running in the 75–95 percent of 

the emission standard range. The 

proposed alternative limits would only 

be of use when the unit is operating 

either below 25 or below 10 percent of 

the emission standard. They thought it 

would be more practical to base 

alternative criteria on the measured 

concentration ranges instead of the 

emission standard. Two commenters 

suggested scaling the relative accuracy 

requirement such that 10 percent would 

be the limit for measurements over 100 

ppm, 20 percent for measurements 

between 10 and 100 ppm, and within 2 

ppm for measurements under 10 ppm. 

We understand the commenters’ 

concerns and think their suggestion for 

alternative criteria for low emitters is a 

practical idea. We have added the 

suggested alternative criteria for 

concentrations between 10 and 100 ppm 

(20 percent RA) and below 10 ppm (± 

2 ppm difference between PEMS and 

reference method). 

F. Statistical Tests 

One commenter thought the relative 

accuracy requirements are, in some 

cases, too severe and would prevent (1) 

even most CEMS from certifying using 

standard reference method testing and 

(2) all but the most sophisticated PEMS 

from passing certification. Two 

commenters proposed using daily zero 

and span calibration checks and 

quarterly linearity checks as alternatives 

to the statistical tests and quarterly 

relative accuracy audits (RAA). Others 

recommended longer sampling times to 

obtain the needed data for the relative 

accuracy statistical tests similar to the 

40 CFR part 75, Subpart E requirements. 

Several commenters stated that they 

anticipated difficulty in meeting the 0.8 

r-correlation requirement in tests where 

process variations are small. One 

commenter recommended the proposed 

waiver of the correlation test be made 

permanent if the data are determined to 

be either auto-correlated or if the signalto-noise ratio of the data is less than 4. 

We do not believe the relative 

accuracy requirements are so severe as 

to prevent most CEMS or PEMS from 

certifying using standard reference 

method testing. Most PEMS are not 

amenable to daily zero and span checks 

or quarterly linearity checks of their 

sensors. The suggested long-term 

relative accuracy evaluation of PEMS 

similar to the requirements of Subpart E 

of part 75 would render PEMS use 

economically impractical under parts 

60, 61, and 63. Evaluation times similar 

to those currently required of CEMS 

should be sufficient. We have taken the 

recommendation that the correlation 

test be permanently waived in cases 

where the data are auto-correlated or 

have a signal-to-noise ratio less than 4 

and have made this change in PS–16. 

G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the 

Relative Accuracy Audit 

Several commenters opposed the use 

of portable analyzers for the quarterly 

relative accuracy audits. They felt the 

analyzers lacked sufficient accuracy to 

evaluate PEMS. Two commenters cited 

the report ‘‘Evaluation of Portable 

Analyzers for Use in Quality Assuring 

Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems 

for NOX’’ (a report prepared for EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets Division, 

Washington, DC, September 8, 2004) as 

proof of this inadequacy. They note that 

in the report the only analyzer that 

achieved accuracy better than 10 

percent was the more sophisticated 

analyzer using the reference method 

methodology. Additionally, a 

commenter suggested that sampling 

problems related to sampling point 

location, sample conditioning, highmoisture and volume, particulate, and 

high temperatures would render 

portable analyzers ineffective. Another 

commenter thought that portable 

analyzers, which were believed to be 

accurate to within 20 percent, would 

not be able to show that PEMS are 

accurate to within 10 percent. 

Three commenters asked that the 

quarterly audit requirements be 

removed altogether. One commenter 

stated that he/she did not see any added 

value in the audits because PEMS were 

thought to be inherently reliable, and 

two commenters urged a return to the 

Web site performance specification 

requirement to conduct biannual 

relative accuracy test audits instead of 

quarterly relative accuracy audits. 

We are not aware of and commenters 

did not present any data that supports 

the idea that PEMS are inherently 

accurate such that their performance is 

guaranteed over long periods of time. 

The performance of PEMS, like CEMS, 

depends on a number of criteria that are 

subject to change over time. The 

summary and findings of the noted 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12579 

report on portable analyzers state that 

‘‘The portable analyzers produced 

results that were comparable to those of 

the CEMS and Method 7E for the two 

natural gas-fired combustion sources 

and low concentrations tested.’’ Portable 

analyzers are offered as a cheaper 

testing option to add flexibility to the 

relative accuracy audits. However, 

reference methods may also be used in 

place of portable analyzers for the 

relative accuracy audit. A relative 

accuracy audit for a validated PEMS 

would not be valueless but would 

confirm that such a PEMS is still 

functioning properly. Therefore, 

quarterly relative accuracy audits are 

retained and may be performed using a 

portable analyzer or a reference method. 

H. Potential Overlap Between PS–16 

and PS–17 

Three commenters asked that we 

specifically state that PS–16 will not 

apply to parametric monitoring systems. 

We were asked to clarify that PS–16 

would not cover parametric systems that 

are already covered under PS–17. 

Performance Specification 17 applies 

to parametric monitoring systems (i.e., 

those that have associated parametric 

limits). Performance Specification 16 

applies to predictive emission 

monitoring systems (i.e., those that have 

associated emission limits). This 

difference has been noted in PS–16. 

I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit 

Frequency for Good Performance 

One commenter proposed that 

quarterly relative accuracy audit tests be 

required for the first year after initial 

certification. If all tests are passed 

through the second year relative 

accuracy test audit (without tuning or 

additional training), the second year of 

relative accuracy audits would be 

waived. In cases of failed relative 

accuracy audit or relative accuracy test 

audit attempts during the year or any 

PEMS retraining that triggers 

recertification would nullify this option 

until the subsequent year. The 

commenter felt this waiver option was 

important to the viability of PEMS use 

at remote sites. 

We believe the commenter’s 

suggestion has merit but think that at 

least a semiannual test at a time 

approximately one-half year from the 

previous RATA is needed to prevent 

extended malfunctions. We have 

therefore revised PS–16 to allow a single 

RAA or RATA midway the second year 

if three prior quarters of RAA and a 

second annual RATA are passed 

without PEMS training or tuning. 

VI. Judicial Review 

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

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

final rule is available by filing a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit by 

May 26, 2009. Under section 

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

objection to this final rule that was 

raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

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

CAA, the requirements established by 

this action may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This final 

rule does not add information collection 

requirements beyond those currently 

required under the applicable 

regulations. This final rule adds 

performance requirements and amends 

testing and monitoring requirements as 

necessary. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

whose parent company has fewer than 

100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 

4 billion kilowatt-hr per year of 

electricity usage, depending on the size 

definition for the affected North 

American Industry Classification 

System code; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities because 

it does not impose any additional 

regulatory requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments of 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This 

action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action adds procedures that apply when 

applicable parties choose to use a 

different monitoring tool than what is 

currently required. Other amendments 

are made to correct various errors in 

testing provisions. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This rule will 

benefit State and local governments by 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

providing performance specifications 

they can use to evaluate PEMS. Other 

amendments being made will correct 

PS–11, Procedures 1 and 2, Method 24, 

and Method 303. No added 

responsibilities or increase in 

implementation efforts or costs for State 

and local governments are being added 

by this action. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action adds an optional 

monitoring tool to the monitoring 

provisions that have already been 

mandated. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. This final rule does not 

relax the control measures on sources 

regulated by the rule and, therefore, will 

not cause emissions increases from 

these sources. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

will be effective April 24, 2009. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: March 16, 2009. 

Lisa Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7671q. 

■ 2. Section 6.7 is added to Method 24 

of Appendix A–7 to read as follows: 

Appendix A–7 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 19 through 25E 

* * * * * 

Method 24—Determination of Volatile 

Matter Content, Water Content, Density, 

Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface 

Coatings 

* * * * * 

6.7 ASTM D 6419–00, Test Method for 

Volatile Content of Sheet-Fed and Coldset 

Web Offset Printing Inks. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Performance Specification 11 of 

Appendix B is amended as follows: 

■ a. By revising Section 3.4. 

■ b. By revising Section 8.6, 

introductory text. 

■ c. By revising paragraphs (1)(ii), 

(1)(iii), (2), (4), and (5) of Section 12.3 

■ d. By revising paragraph (3)(ii) of 

Section 12.4. 

■ e. By revising paragraphs (2) and (3) 

of Section 13.2. 

■ f. By adding Sections 16.8 and 16.9. 

■ g. By revising Table 1 of Section 17.0 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 60—Performance 

Specifications 

* * * * * 

Performance Specification 11— 

Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Particulate Matter Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

3.4 ‘‘Confidence Interval Half Range (CI)’’ 

is a statistical term and means one-half of the 

width of the 95 percent confidence interval 

around the predicted mean PM concentration 

(y value) calculated at the PM CEMS 

response value (x value) where the 

confidence interval is narrowest. Procedures 

for calculating CI are specified in section 

12.3. The CI as a percent of the emission 

limit value (CI%) is calculated at the 

appropriate PM CEMS response value and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12581 

must satisfy the criteria specified in Section 

13.2 (2). 

* * * * * 

8.6 How do I conduct my PM CEMS 

correlation test? You must conduct the 

correlation test according to the procedure 

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

section. If you need multiple correlations, 

you must conduct testing and collect at least 

15 sets of reference method and PM CEMS 

data for calculating each separate correlation. 

* * * * * 

12.3 How do I determine my PM CEMS 

correlation? 

* * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Calculate the half range of the 95 

percent confidence interval (CI) for the 

predicted PM concentration (yˆ) at the mean 

value of x, using Equation 11–8: 

CI = t S

n df a L , / 1 2

1 − ⋅ (Eq. 11-8)

Where: 

CI = the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for the predicted PM 

concentration at the mean x value, 

tdf,1-a/2 = the value for the t statistic provided 

in Table 1 for df = (n - 2), and 

SL = the scatter or deviation of yˆ values about 

the correlation curve, which is 

determined using Equation 11–9: 

Calculate the confidence interval half range 

for the predicted PM concentration (yˆ) at the 

mean x value as a percentage of the emission 

limit (CI%) using Equation 11–10: 

CI CI

EL

% % = ⋅100 (Eq. 11-10)

Where: 

CI = the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for the predicted PM 

concentration at the mean x value, and 

EL = PM emission limit, as described in 

section 13.2. 

(iii) Calculate the half range of the 

tolerance interval (TI) for the predicted PM 

concentration (yˆ) at the mean x value using 

Equation 11–11: 

TI k S = ⋅ T L (Eq. 11-11)

Where: 

TI = the half range of the tolerance interval 

for the predicted PM concentration (yˆ) at 

the mean x value, 

kT = as calculated using Equation 11–12, and 

SL = as calculated using Equation 11–9: 

kuv T n df = ⋅ ′ (Eq. 11-12)

Where: 

n′ = the number of test runs (n), 

un′ = the tolerance factor for 75 percent 

coverage at 95 percent confidence 

provided in Table 1 for df = (n¥2), and 

vdf = the value from Table 1 for df = (n¥2). 

Calculate the half range of the tolerance 

interval for the predicted PM concentration 

(yˆ) at the mean x value as a percentage of the 

emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11–13: 

TI TI

EL

% % = ⋅100 (Eq. 11-13)

Where: 

TI = the half range of the tolerance interval 

for the predicted PM concentration (yˆ) at 

the mean x value, and 

EL = PM emission limit, as described in 

section 13.2. 

* * * * * 

(2) How do I evaluate a polynomial 

correlation for my correlation test data? To 

evaluate a polynomial correlation, follow the 

procedures described in paragraphs (2)(i) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(i) Calculate the polynomial correlation 

equation, which is indicated by Equation 11– 

16, using Equations 11–17 through 11–22: 

Where: 

yˆ = the PM CEMS concentration predicted by 

the polynomial correlation equation, and 

b0, b1, b2 = the coefficients determined from 

the solution to the matrix equation Ab=B 

Where: 

A

nS S

SSS

SSS

b

b

b

b

B

S

=

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

=

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

=

 

 

 

1 2

123

234

0

1

2

, ,

5

6

7

1 2

2

3

1

3

4

1

S

S

S xS x S xS i i

i

n

i

i

n

i

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

= ( ) = ( ) = ( ) = = = =

∑ ∑

.

, ,, 1

4

1

56 7

1

2

n

i

i

n

i ii

i

n

i i

x

S y S xy S x y

∑ ∑

∑

( )

= ( ) = ( ) = ( )

=

=

(Eq. 11-17)

, , . i

n

i

n

= =

∑ ∑ 1 1

(Eq. 11-18)

Where: 

Xi = the PM CEMS response for run i, 

Yi = the reference method PM concentration 

for run i, and 

n = the number of test runs. 

Calculate the polynomial correlation curve 

coefficients (b0, b1, and b2) using Equations 

11–19 through 11–21, respectively: 

b

SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS

0

524 137 263 722 335 461 = ( ) ⋅⋅+⋅⋅+⋅⋅−⋅⋅−⋅⋅−⋅⋅

det (Eq. 11-19)

1=

A

b

nS S S S S S S S S S S S ⋅⋅ + ⋅⋅ + ⋅⋅ − ⋅⋅ − ⋅ 64 532 217 262 7 SnSSS

A

b

nS S S S S S S

3 415

27 162 51

( ) ⋅− ⋅ ⋅

⋅⋅ +⋅⋅ + ⋅⋅

det (Eq. 11-20)

2 = S SSS SSnSSS

A

( ) 3 2 2 5 3 6 711 − ⋅ ⋅ − ⋅ ⋅− ⋅ ⋅

det (Eq. 11-21)


ER25MR09.063</MATH> ER25MR09.064</MATH> ER25MR09.065</MATH> ER25MR09.066</MATH> ER25MR09.067</MATH> ER25MR09.068</MATH> ER25MR09.069</MATH> ER25MR09.070</MATH> ER25MR09.071</MATH> sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: 

det ( A= n S S S S S S S S S S n+S S S S S S ⋅⋅ − ⋅⋅ +⋅⋅ −⋅⋅ ⋅⋅− ⋅⋅ 2 4 2 2 2 13 2 3 3 213 411 Eq. 11-22)

(ii) Calculate the 95 percent confidence 

interval half range (CI) by first calculating the 

C coefficients (Co to C5) using Equations 11– 

23 and 11–24: 

C

SS S

D

C

SS SS

D

C

SS S

C

0

24 3

2

1

32 14

2

13 2

2

3

= ( ) ⋅ − = ( ) ⋅−⋅ = ( ) ⋅ − , ,,

= ( ) − = ( ) ⋅ − = nS S ( ) −

D

C

S S nS

D

C

nS S

D

4 2

2

4

12 3

5

2 1

2

 , , (Eq. 11-23)

Where: 

D nS S S S S S S S S S S S = ⋅− ( ) 24 3 + ⋅−⋅ ( ) + ⋅− ( ) 2

132 14 213 2

2 (Eq. 11-24)

Calculate D using Equation 11–25 for each x 

value: 

Δ= + + + C Cx C C x Cx Cx 0 1 23 ( ) + + 2

4

3

5

4 2 2 2 (Eq. 11-25)

Determine the x value that corresponds to the 

minimum value of D (Dmin). Determine the 

scatter or deviation of yˆ values about the 

polynomial correlation curve (SP) using 

Equation 11–26: 

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval (CI) for the predicted PM 

concentration (yˆ) at the x value that 

corresponds to Dmin using Equation 11–27: 

CI t S =⋅ Δ df p min (Eq. 11-27)

Where: 

df = (n–3), and 

tdf = as listed in Table 1 (see section 17). 

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for the predicted PM 

concentration at the x value that corresponds 

to Dmin as a percentage of the emission limit 

(CI%) using Equation 11–28: 

CI CI

EL

% % = ⋅100 (Eq. 11-28)

Where: 

CI = the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for the predicted PM 

concentration at the x value that 

corresponds to Dmin, and 

EL = PM emission limit, as described in 

section 13.2. 

(iii) Calculate the tolerance interval half 

range (TI) for the predicted PM concentration 

at the x value that corresponds to Dmin, as 

indicated in Equation 11–29 for the 

polynomial correlation, using Equations 11– 

30 and 11–31: 

TI k S = ⋅ T P (Eq. 11-29)

Where: 

k uv T n df = ⋅

′

′ (Eq. 11-30)

n = (Eq. 11-31) 1

Δ

un′ = the value indicated in Table 1 for df = 

(n′–3), and 

vdf = the value indicated in Table 1 for df 

= (n′—3). 

Calculate the tolerance interval half range for 

the predicted PM concentration at the x value 

that corresponds to Dmin as a percentage of 

the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11– 

32: 

TI TI

EL % 100 Eq. 11-32 = ⋅ ( )

Where: 

TI = the tolerance interval half range for the 

predicted PM concentration at the x 

value that corresponds to Dmin, and 

EL = PM emission limit, as described in 

section 13.2. 

(iv) Calculate the polynomial correlation 

coefficient (r) using Equation 11–33: 

r P

2

y

2

S

S

 11-33 = − 1 Eq. ( )

Where: 

SP = as calculated using Equation 11–26, and 

Sy = as calculated using Equation 11–15. 

* * * * * 

(4) How do I evaluate an exponential 

correlation for my correlation test data? To 

evaluate an exponential correlation, which 

has the form indicated by Equation 11–37, 

follow the procedures described in 

paragraphs (4)(i) through (v) of this section: 


ER25MR09.072</MATH> ER25MR09.073</MATH> ER25MR09.074</MATH> ER25MR09.075</MATH> ER25MR09.076</MATH> ER25MR09.077</MATH> ER25MR09.078</MATH> ER25MR09.079</MATH> ER25MR09.080</MATH> ER25MR09.081</MATH> ER25MR09.082</MATH> sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12583 

(i) Perform a logarithmic transformation of 

each PM concentration measurement (y 

values) using Equation 11–38: 

y Ln y Eq i i

′ 11-38 = () ( ) .

Where: 

y′i = is the transformed value of yi, and 

Ln(yi) = the natural logarithm of the PM 

concentration measurement for run i. 

(ii) Using the values for y′i in place of the 

values for yi, perform the same procedures 

used to develop the linear correlation 

equation described in paragraph (1)(i) of this 

section. The resulting equation will have the 

form indicated by Equation 11–39. 

Where: 

yˆ′ = the predicted log PM concentration 

value, 

b′0 = the natural logarithm of b0, and the 

variables b0, b1, and x are as defined in 

paragraph (1)(i) of this section. 

(iii) Using the values for y ′i in place of the 

values for yi, calculate the half range of the 

95 percent confidence interval (CI′), as 

described in paragraph (1)(ii) of this section 

for CI. Note that CI′ is on the log scale. Next, 

calculate the upper and lower 95 percent 

confidence limits for the mean value y′ using 

Equations 11–40 and 11–41: 

LCL y CI Eq ′ = ′ − ′ ( ) . 11-40

UCL y CI Eq ′ 11- = ′ + ′ ( ) . 41

Where: 

LCL′ = the lower 95 percent confidence limit 

for the mean value y′, 

UCL′ = the upper 95 percent confidence limit 

for the mean value y′, 

y′ = the mean value of the log-transformed 

PM concentrations, and 

CI′ = the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for the predicted PM 

concentration (yˆ′), as calculated in 

Equation 11–8. 

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval (CI) on the original PM 

concentration scale using Equation 11–42: 

CI e e Eq

UCL LCL

 = 11- − ( ) ′ ′

2 . 42

Where: 

CI = the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval on the original PM 

concentration scale, and UCL′ and LCL′ 

are as defined previously. 

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for the predicted PM 

concentration corresponding to the mean 

value of x as a percentage of the emission 

limit (CI%) using Equation 11–10. 

(iv) Using the values for y′ i in place of 

the values for yi, calculate the half range 

tolerance interval (TI′), as described in 

paragraph (1)(iii) of this section for TI. Note 

that TI′ is on the log scale. Next, calculate the 

half range tolerance limits for the mean value 

y′ using Equations 11–43 and 11–44: 

LTL TI Eq ′ y 11- = ′ − ′ ( ) . 43

UTL y TI Eq ′ + 11- = ′ ′ ( ) . 44

Where: 

LTL′ = the lower 95 percent tolerance limit 

for the mean value y′, 

UTL′ = the upper 95 percent tolerance limit 

for the mean value y′, 

y′, = the mean value of the log-transformed 

PM concentrations, and 

TI′ = the half range of the 95 percent 

tolerance interval for the predicted PM 

concentration (yˆ′), as calculated in 

Equation 11–11. 

Calculate the half range tolerance interval 

(TI) on the original PM concentration scale 

using Equation 11–45: 

TI e e Eq

UTL LTL

 = 11- − ( ) ′ ′

2 . 45

TI = the half range of the 95 percent tolerance 

interval on the original PM scale, and 

UTL′ and LTL′ are as defined previously. 

Calculate the tolerance interval half range for 

the predicted PM concentration 

corresponding to the mean value of x as a 

percentage of the emission limit (TI%) using 

Equation 11–13. 

(v) Using the values for y ′ i in place of the 

values for yi, calculate the correlation 

coefficient (r) using the procedure described 

in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section. 

(5) How do I evaluate a power correlation 

for my correlation test data? To evaluate a 

power correlation, which has the form 

indicated by Equation 11–46, follow the 

procedures described in paragraphs (5)(i) 

through (v) of this section. 

(i) Perform logarithmic transformations of 

each PM CEMS response (x values) and each 

PM concentration measurement (y values) 

using Equations 11–35 and 11–38, 

respectively. 

(ii) Using the values for x ′i in place of the 

values for xi, and the values for y ′i in place 

of the values for yi, perform the same 

procedures used to develop the linear 

correlation equation described in paragraph 

(1)(i) of this section. The resulting equation 

will have the form indicated by Equation 11– 

47: 

Where: 

yˆ′ = the predicted log PM concentration 

value, and 

x′ = the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS 

response values, 

b′0 = the natural logarithm of b0, and the 

variables b0, b1, and x are as defined in 

paragraph (1)(i) of this section. 

(iii) Using the same procedure described 

for exponential models in paragraph (4)(iii) 

of this section, calculate the half range of the 

95 percent confidence interval for the 

predicted PM concentration corresponding to 

the mean value of x′ as a percentage of the 

emission limit. 

(iv) Using the same procedure described 

for exponential models in paragraph (4)(iv) of 

this section, calculate the tolerance interval 

half range for the predicted PM concentration 

corresponding to the mean value of x′ as a 

percentage of the emission limit. 

(v) Using the values for y ′i in place of the 

values for yi, calculate the correlation 

coefficient (r) using the procedure described 

in paragraph (1)(iv) of this section. 

Note: PS–11 does not address the 

application of correlation equations to 

calculate PM emission concentrations using 

PM CEMS response data during normal 

operations of a PM CEMS. However, we will 

provide guidance on the use of specific 

correlation models (i.e., logarithmic, 

exponential, and power models) to calculate 

PM concentrations in an operating PM CEMS 

in situations when the PM CEMS response 

values are equal to or less than zero, and the 

correlation model is undefined. 

12.4 What correlation model should I 

use? 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Calculate the minimum value using 

Equation 11–48. 

min max (Eq. 11-48) or

b

b = − 1

2 2

* * * * * 

13.2 What performance criteria must my 

PM CEMS correlation satisfy? 

* * * * * 

(2) The confidence interval half range must 

satisfy the applicable criterion specified in 

paragraph (2)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, 

based on the type of correlation model. 

(i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, 

the 95 percent confidence interval half range 

at the mean PM CEMS response value from 

the correlation test must be within 10 percent 

of the PM emission limit value specified in 

the applicable regulation. Therefore, the CI% 

calculated using Equation 11–10 must be less 

than or equal to 10 percent. 

(ii) For polynomial correlations, the 95 

percent confidence interval half range at the 

PM CEMS response value from the 

correlation test that corresponds to the 

minimum value for D must be within 10 

percent of the PM emission limit value 

specified in the applicable regulation. 

Therefore, the CI% calculated using Equation 

11–28 must be less than or equal to 10 

percent. 

(iii) For exponential or power correlations, 

the 95 percent confidence interval half range 

at the mean of the logarithm of the PM CEMS 

response values from the correlation test 

must be within 10 percent of the PM 

emission limit value specified in the 

applicable regulation. Therefore, the CI% 

calculated using Equation 11–10 must be less 

than or equal to 10 percent. 

(3) The tolerance interval half range must 

satisfy the applicable criterion specified in 


ER25MR09.083</MATH> ER25MR09.084</MATH> ER25MR09.085</MATH> ER25MR09.086</GPH> ER25MR09.087</GPH> ER25MR09.088</GPH> ER25MR09.089</GPH> ER25MR09.090</GPH> ER25MR09.091</GPH> ER25MR09.092</GPH> ER25MR09.093</GPH> ER25MR09.106</GPH> sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12584 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraph (3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, 

based on the type of correlation model. 

(i) For linear or logarithmic correlations, 

the half range tolerance interval with 95 

percent confidence and 75 percent coverage 

at the mean PM CEMS response value from 

the correlation test must be within 25 percent 

of the PM emission limit value specified in 

the applicable regulation. Therefore, the TI% 

calculated using Equation 11–13 must be less 

than or equal to 25 percent. 

(ii) For polynomial correlations, the half 

range tolerance interval with 95 percent 

confidence and 75 percent coverage at the 

PM CEMS response value from the 

correlation test that corresponds to the 

minimum value for D must be within 25 

percent of the PM emission limit value 

specified in the applicable regulation. 

Therefore, the TI% calculated using Equation 

11–32 must be less than or equal to 25 

percent. 

(iii) For exponential or power correlations, 

the half range tolerance interval with 95 

percent confidence and 75 percent coverage 

at the mean of the logarithm of the PM CEMS 

response values from the correlation test 

must be within 25 percent of the PM 

emission limit value specified in the 

applicable regulation. Therefore, the TI% 

calculated using Equation 11–13 must be less 

than or equal to 25 percent. 

* * * * * 

16.0 Which references are relevant to this 

performance specification? 

* * * * * 

16.8 Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, 

William G. (1989), Statistical Methods, 

Eighth Edition, Iowa State University Press. 

16.9 Wallis, W. A. (1951) ‘‘Tolerance 

Intervals for Linear Regression,’’ in Second 

Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical 

Statistics and Probability, ed. J. Neyman, 

Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 

43–51. 

17.0 * * * 

TABLE 1—FACTORS FOR CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE AND TOLERANCE INTERVAL HALF RANGES

df Student’s t, tdf

Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95% 

confidence level 

vdf (95%) un′ (75%) kT

3 ....................................................................................................................... 3.182 2.920 1.266 3.697 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 2.776 2.372 1.247 2.958 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 2.571 2.089 1.233 2.576 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 2.447 1.915 1.223 2.342 

7 ....................................................................................................................... 2.365 1.797 1.214 2.183 

8 ....................................................................................................................... 2.306 1.711 1.208 2.067 

9 ....................................................................................................................... 2.262 1.645 1.203 1.979 

10 ..................................................................................................................... 2.228 1.593 1.198 1.909 

11 ..................................................................................................................... 2.201 1.551 1.195 1.853 

12 ..................................................................................................................... 2.179 1.515 1.192 1.806 

13 ..................................................................................................................... 2.160 1.485 1.189 1.766 

14 ..................................................................................................................... 2.145 1.460 1.186 1.732 

15 ..................................................................................................................... 2.131 1.437 1.184 1.702 

16 ..................................................................................................................... 2.120 1.418 1.182 1.676 

17 ..................................................................................................................... 2.110 1.400 1.181 1.653 

18 ..................................................................................................................... 2.101 1.384 1.179 1.633 

19 ..................................................................................................................... 2.093 1.370 1.178 1.614 

20 ..................................................................................................................... 2.086 1.358 1.177 1.597 

21 ..................................................................................................................... 2.080 1.346 1.175 1.582 

22 ..................................................................................................................... 2.074 1.335 1.174 1.568 

23 ..................................................................................................................... 2.069 1.326 1.173 1.555 

24 ..................................................................................................................... 2.064 1.316 1.172 1.544 

25 ..................................................................................................................... 2.060 1.308 1.172 1.533 

26 ..................................................................................................................... 2.056 1.300 1.171 1.522 

27 ..................................................................................................................... 2.052 1.293 1.170 1.513 

28 ..................................................................................................................... 2.048 1.286 1.170 1.504 

29 ..................................................................................................................... 2.045 1.280 1.169 1.496 

30 ..................................................................................................................... 2.042 1.274 1.168 1.488 

31 ..................................................................................................................... 2.040 1.268 1.168 1.481 

32 ..................................................................................................................... 2.037 1.263 1.167 1.474 

33 ..................................................................................................................... 2.035 1.258 1.167 1.467 

34 ..................................................................................................................... 2.032 1.253 1.166 1.461 

35 ..................................................................................................................... 2.030 1.248 1.166 1.455 

36 ..................................................................................................................... 2.028 1.244 1.165 1.450 

37 ..................................................................................................................... 2.026 1.240 1.165 1.444 

38 ..................................................................................................................... 2.024 1.236 1.165 1.439 

39 ..................................................................................................................... 2.023 1.232 1.164 1.435 

40 ..................................................................................................................... 2.021 1.228 1.164 1.430 

41 ..................................................................................................................... 2.020 1.225 1.164 1.425 

42 ..................................................................................................................... 2.018 1.222 1.163 1.421 

43 ..................................................................................................................... 2.017 1.218 1.163 1.417 

44 ..................................................................................................................... 2.015 1.215 1.163 1.413 

45 ..................................................................................................................... 2.014 1.212 1.163 1.410 

46 ..................................................................................................................... 2.013 1.210 1.162 1.406 

47 ..................................................................................................................... 2.012 1.207 1.162 1.403 

48 ..................................................................................................................... 2.011 1.204 1.162 1.399 

49 ..................................................................................................................... 2.010 1.202 1.162 1.396 

50 ..................................................................................................................... 2.009 1.199 1.161 1.393 

51 ..................................................................................................................... 2.008 1.197 1.161 1.390 

52 ..................................................................................................................... 2.007 1.195 1.161 1.387 

53 ..................................................................................................................... 2.006 1.192 1.161 1.384 

54 ..................................................................................................................... 2.005 1.190 1.161 1.381 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12585 

TABLE 1—FACTORS FOR CALCULATION OF CONFIDENCE AND TOLERANCE INTERVAL HALF RANGES—Continued 

df Student’s t, tdf

Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95% 

confidence level 

vdf (95%) un′ (75%) kT

55 ..................................................................................................................... 2.004 1.188 1.160 1.379 

56 ..................................................................................................................... 2.003 1.186 1.160 1.376 

57 ..................................................................................................................... 2.002 1.184 1.160 1.374 

58 ..................................................................................................................... 2.002 1.182 1.160 1.371 

59 ..................................................................................................................... 2.001 1.180 1.160 1.369 

60 ..................................................................................................................... 2.000 1.179 1.160 1.367 

References 16.8 (t values) and 16.9 (vdf and un′ values). 

■ 4. In Appendix B, Performance 

Specification 16 is added to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 60—Performance 

Specifications 

* * * * * 

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 16— 

SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST 

PROCEDURES FOR PREDICTIVE EMISSION 

MONITORING SYSTEMS IN STATIONARY 

SOURCES 

1.0 Scope and Application 

1.1 Does this performance specification 

apply to me? If you, the source owner or 

operator, intend to use (with any necessary 

approvals) a predictive emission monitoring 

system (PEMS) to show compliance with 

your emission limitation under 40 CFR 60, 

61, or 63, you must use the procedures in this 

performance specification (PS) to determine 

whether your PEMS is acceptable for use in 

demonstrating compliance with applicable 

requirements. Use these procedures to certify 

your PEMS after initial installation and 

periodically thereafter to ensure the PEMS is 

operating properly. If your PEMS contains a 

diluent (O2 or CO2) measuring component 

and your emissions limitation is in units that 

require a diluent measurement (e.g. lbs/mm 

Btu), the diluent component must be tested 

as well. These specifications apply to PEMS 

that are installed under 40 CFR 60, 61, and 

63 after the effective date of this performance 

specification. These specifications do not 

apply to parametric monitoring systems, 

these are covered under PS–17. 

1.1.1 How do I certify my PEMS after it 

is installed? PEMS must pass a relative 

accuracy (RA) test and accompanying 

statistical tests in the initial certification test 

to be acceptable for use in demonstrating 

compliance with applicable requirements. 

Ongoing quality assurance tests also must be 

conducted to ensure the PEMS is operating 

properly. An ongoing sensor evaluation 

procedure must be in place before the PEMS 

certification is complete. The amount of 

testing and data validation that is required 

depends upon the regulatory needs, i.e., 

whether precise quantification of emissions 

will be needed or whether indication of 

exceedances of some regulatory threshold 

will suffice. Performance criteria are more 

rigorous for PEMS used in determining 

continual compliance with an emission limit 

than those used to measure excess emissions. 

You must perform the initial certification test 

on your PEMS before reporting any PEMS 

data as quality-assured. 

1.1.2 Is other testing required after 

certification? After you initially certify your 

PEMS, you must pass additional periodic 

performance checks to ensure the long-term 

quality of data. These periodic checks are 

listed in the table in Section 9. You are 

always responsible for properly maintaining 

and operating your PEMS. 

2.0 Summary of Performance Specification 

The following performance tests are 

required in addition to other equipment and 

measurement location requirements. 

2.1 Initial PEMS Certification. 

2.1.1 Excess Emissions PEMS. For a 

PEMS that is used for excess emission 

reporting, the owner or operator must 

perform a minimum 9-run, 3-level (3 runs at 

each level) RA test (see Section 8.2). 

2.1.2 Compliance PEMS. For a PEMS that 

is used for continual compliance standards, 

the owner or operator must perform a 

minimum 27-run, 3-level (9 runs at each 

level) RA test (see Section 8.2). Additionally, 

the data must be evaluated for bias and by 

F-test and correlation analysis. 

2.2 Periodic Quality Assurance (QA) 

Assessments. Owners and operators of all 

PEMS are required to conduct quarterly 

relative accuracy audits (RAA) and yearly 

relative accuracy test audits (RATA) to assess 

ongoing PEMS operation. The frequency of 

these periodic assessments may be shortened 

by successful operation during a prior year. 

3.0 Definitions 

The following definitions apply: 

3.1 Centroidal Area means that area in 

the center of the stack (or duct) comprising 

no more than 1 percent of the stack crosssectional area and having the same geometric 

shape as the stack. 

3.2 Data Recorder means the equipment 

that provides a permanent record of the 

PEMS output. The data recorder may include 

automatic data reduction capabilities and 

may include electronic data records, paper 

records, or a combination of electronic data 

and paper records. 

3.3 Defective sensor means a sensor that 

is responsible for PEMS malfunction or that 

operates outside the approved operating 

envelope. A defective sensor may be 

functioning properly, but because it is 

operating outside the approved operating 

envelope, the resulting predicted emission is 

not validated. 

3.4 Diluent PEMS means the total 

equipment required to predict a diluent gas 

concentration or emission rate. 

3.5 Operating envelope means the 

defined range of a parameter input that is 

established during PEMS development. 

Emission data generated from parameter 

inputs that are beyond the operating 

envelope are not considered quality assured 

and are therefore unacceptable. 

3.6 PEMS means all of the equipment 

required to predict an emission concentration 

or emission rate. The system may consist of 

any of the following major subsystems: 

sensors and sensor interfaces, emission 

model, algorithm, or equation that uses 

process data to generate an output that is 

proportional to the emission concentration or 

emission rate, diluent emission model, data 

recorder, and sensor evaluation system. 

Systems that use fewer than 3 variables do 

not qualify as PEMS unless the system has 

been specifically approved by the 

Administrator for use as a PEMS. A PEMS 

may predict emissions data that are corrected 

for diluent if the relative accuracy and 

relevant QA tests are passed in the emission 

units corrected for diluent. Parametric 

monitoring systems that serve as indicators of 

compliance and have parametric limits but 

do not predict emissions to comply with an 

emissions limit are not included in this 

definition. 

3.7 PEMS training means the process of 

developing or confirming the operation of the 

PEMS against a reference method under 

specified conditions. 

3.8 Quarter means a quarter of a calendar 

year in which there are at least 168 unit 

operating hours. 

3.9 Reconciled Process Data means 

substitute data that are generated by a sensor 

evaluation system to replace that of a failed 

sensor. Reconciled process data may not be 

used without approval from the 

Administrator. 

3.10 Relative Accuracy means the 

accuracy of the PEMS when compared to a 

reference method (RM) at the source. The RA 

is the average difference between the 

pollutant PEMS and RM data for a specified 

number of comparison runs plus a 2.5 

percent confidence coefficient, divided by 

the average of the RM tests. For a diluent 

PEMS, the RA may be expressed as a 

percentage of absolute difference between the 

PEMS and RM. Alternative specifications are 

given for units that have very low emissions. 

3.11 Relative Accuracy Audit means a 

quarterly audit of the PEMS against a 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12586 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

portable analyzer meeting the requirements 

of ASTM D6522–00 or a RM for a specified 

number of runs. A RM may be used in place 

of the portable analyzer for the RAA. 

3.12 Relative Accuracy Test Audit means 

a RA test that is performed at least once every 

four calendar quarters after the initial 

certification test while the PEMS is operating 

at the normal operating level. 

3.13 Reference Value means a PEMS 

baseline value that may be established by RM 

testing under conditions when all sensors are 

functioning properly. This reference value 

may then be used in the sensor evaluation 

system or in adjusting new sensors. 

3.14 Sensor Evaluation System means the 

equipment or procedure used to periodically 

assess the quality of sensor input data. This 

system may be a sub-model that periodically 

cross-checks sensor inputs among themselves 

or any other procedure that checks sensor 

integrity at least daily (when operated for 

more than one hour in any calendar day). 

3.15 Sensors and Sensor Interface means 

the equipment that measures the process 

input signals and transports them to the 

emission prediction system. 

4.0 Interferences [Reserved] 

5.0 Safety [Reserved] 

6.0 Equipment and Supplies 

6.1 PEMS Design. You must detail the 

design of your PEMS and make this available 

in reports and for on-site inspection. You 

must also establish the following, as 

applicable: 

6.1.1 Number of Input Parameters. An 

acceptable PEMS will normally use three or 

more input parameters. You must obtain the 

Administrator’s permission on a case-by-case 

basis if you desire to use a PEMS having 

fewer than three input parameters. 

6.1.2 Parameter Operating Envelopes. 

Before you evaluate your PEMS through the 

certification test, you must specify the input 

parameters your PEMS uses, define their 

range of minimum and maximum values 

(operating envelope), and demonstrate the 

integrity of the parameter operating envelope 

using graphs and data from the PEMS 

development process, vendor information, or 

engineering calculations, as appropriate. If 

you operate the PEMS beyond these 

envelopes at any time after the certification 

test, the data generated during this condition 

will not be acceptable for use in 

demonstrating compliance with applicable 

requirements. If these parameter operating 

envelopes are not clearly defined and 

supported by development data, the PEMS 

operation will be limited to the range of 

parameter inputs encountered during the 

certification test until the PEMS has a new 

operating envelope established. 

6.1.3 Source-Specific Operating 

Conditions. Identify any source-specific 

operating conditions, such as fuel type, that 

affect the output of your PEMS. You may 

only use the PEMS under the source-specific 

operating conditions it was certified for. 

6.1.4 Ambient Conditions. You must 

explain whether and how ambient conditions 

and seasonal changes affect your PEMS. 

Some parameters such as absolute ambient 

humidity cannot be manipulated during a 

test. The effect of ambient conditions such as 

humidity on the pollutant concentration 

must be determined and this effect 

extrapolated to include future anticipated 

conditions. Seasonal changes and their 

effects on the PEMS must be evaluated unless 

you can show that such effects are negligible. 

6.1.5 PEMS Principle of Operation. If 

your PEMS is developed on the basis of 

known physical principles, you must identify 

the specific physical assumptions or 

mathematical manipulations that support its 

operation. If your PEMS is developed on the 

basis of linear or nonlinear regression 

analysis, you must make available the paired 

data (preferably in graphic form) used to 

develop or train the model. 

6.1.6 Data Recorder Scale. If you are not 

using a digital recorder, you must choose a 

recorder scale that accurately captures the 

desired range of potential emissions. The 

lower limit of your data recorder’s range 

must be no eater than 20 percent of the 

applicable emission standard (if subject to an 

emission standard). The upper limit of your 

data recorder’s range must be determined 

using the following table. If you obtain 

approval first, you may use other lower and 

upper recorder limits. 

If PEMS is measuring. . . And if. . . Then your upper limit. . . 

Uncontrolled emissions, such as NOX at the 

stack of a natural gas-fired boiler.

No other regulation sets an upper limit for the 

data recorder’s range.

Must be 1.25 to 2 times the average potential 

emission level 

Uncontrolled emissions, such as NOX at the 

stack of a natural gas-fired boiler.

Another regulation sets an upper limit for the 

data recorder’s range.

Must follow the other regulation 

Controlled emissions .......................................... .......................................................................... Must be 1.5 to 2.0 times concentration of the 

emission standard that applies to your 

emission unit 

Continual compliance emissions for an applicable regulation........................................................................... Must be 1.1 to 1.5 times the concentration of 

the emission standard that applies to your 

emission unit 

6.1.7 Sensor Location and Repair. We 

recommend you install sensors in an 

accessible location in order to perform 

repairs and replacements. Permanently 

installed platforms or ladders may not be 

needed. If you install sensors in an area that 

is not accessible, you may be required to shut 

down the emissions unit to repair or replace 

a sensor. Conduct a new RATA after 

replacing a sensor. All sensors must be 

calibrated as often as needed but at least as 

often as recommended by the manufacturers. 

6.1.8 Sensor Evaluation System. Your 

PEMS must be designed to perform automatic 

or manual determination of defective sensors 

on at least a daily basis. This sensor 

evaluation system may consist of a sensor 

validation sub-model, a comparison of 

redundant sensors, a spot check of sensor 

input readings at a reference value, 

operation, or emission level, or other 

procedure that detects faulty or failed 

sensors. Some sensor evaluation systems 

generate substitute values (reconciled data) 

that are used when a sensor is perceived to 

have failed. You must obtain prior approval 

before using reconciled data. 

6.1.9 Parameter Envelope Exceedances. 

Your PEMS must include a plan to detect and 

notify the operator of parameter envelope 

exceedances. Emission data collected outside 

the ranges of the sensor envelopes will not 

be considered quality assured. 

6.2 Recordkeeping. All valid data 

recorded by the PEMS must be used to 

calculate the emission value. 

7.0 Reagents and Standards [Reserved] 

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, 

Storage, and Transport 

8.1 Initial Certification. Use the following 

procedure to certify your PEMS. Complete all 

PEMS training before the certification begins. 

8.2 Relative Accuracy Test. 

8.2.1 Reference Methods. Unless 

otherwise specified in the applicable 

regulations, you must use the test methods in 

Appendix A of this part for the RM test. 

Conduct the RM tests at three operating 

levels of the key parameter that most affects 

emissions (e.g., load level). Conduct the 

specified number of RM tests at the low 

(minimum to 50 percent of maximum), mid 

(an intermediary level between the low and 

high levels), and high (80 percent to 

maximum) key parameter operating levels, as 

practicable. If these levels are not practicable, 

vary the key parameter range as much as 

possible over three levels. 

8.2.2 Number of RM Tests for Excess 

Emission PEMS. For PEMS used for excess 

emission reporting, conduct at least the 

following number of RM tests at the 

following key parameter operating levels: 

(1) Three at a low level. 

(2) Three at a mid level. 

(3) Three at a high level. 

You may choose to perform more than nine 

total RM tests. If you perform more than nine 

tests, you may reject a maximum of three 

tests as long as the total number of test 

results used to determine the RA is nine or 

greater and each operating level has at least 

three tests. You must report all data, 

including the rejected data. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12587 

8.2.3 Number of RM Tests for Continual 

Compliance PEMS. For PEMS used to 

determine compliance, conduct at least the 

following number of RM tests at the 

following key parameter operating levels: 

(1) Nine at a low level. 

(2) Nine at a mid level. 

(3) Nine at a high level. 

You may choose to perform more than 9 

RM runs at each operating level. If you 

perform more than 9 runs, you may reject a 

maximum of three runs per level as long as 

the total number of runs used to determine 

the RA at each operating level is 9 or greater. 

8.2.4 Reference Method Measurement 

Location. Select an accessible measurement 

point for the RM that will ensure you 

measure emissions representatively. Ensure 

the location is at least two equivalent stack 

diameters downstream and half an equivalent 

diameter upstream from the nearest flow 

disturbance such as the control device, point 

of pollutant generation, or other place where 

the pollutant concentration or emission rate 

can change. You may use a half diameter 

downstream instead of the two diameters if 

you meet both of the following conditions: 

(1) Changes in the pollutant concentration 

are caused solely by diluent leakage, such as 

leaks from air heaters. 

(2) You measure pollutants and diluents 

simultaneously at the same locations. 

8.2.5 Traverse Points. Select traverse 

points that ensure representative samples. 

Conduct all RM tests within 3 cm of each 

selected traverse point but no closer than 3 

cm to the stack or duct wall. The minimum 

requirement for traverse points are as 

follows: 

(1) Establish a measurement line across the 

stack that passes through the center and in 

the direction of any expected stratification. 

(2) Locate a minimum of three traverse 

points on the line at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 

percent of the stack inside diameter. 

(3) Alternatively, if the stack inside 

diameter is greater than 2.4 meters, you may 

locate the three traverse points on the line at 

0.4, 1.2, and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct 

wall. You may not use this alternative option 

after wet scrubbers or at points where two 

streams with different pollutant 

concentrations are combined. You may select 

different traverse points if you demonstrate 

and provide verification that it provides a 

representative sample. You may also use the 

traverse point specifications given the RM. 

8.2.6 Relative Accuracy Procedure. 

Perform the number of RA tests at the levels 

required in Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3. For 

integrated samples (e.g., Method 3A or 7E), 

make a sample traverse of at least 21 minutes, 

sampling for 7 minutes at each traverse point. 

For grab samples (e.g., Method 3 or 7), take 

one sample at each traverse point, scheduling 

the grab samples so that they are taken 

simultaneously (within a 3-minute period) or 

at an equal interval of time apart over a 21- 

minute period. A test run for grab samples 

must be made up of at least three separate 

measurements. Where multiple fuels are used 

in the monitored unit and the fuel type 

affects the predicted emissions, determine a 

RA for each fuel unless the effects of the 

alternative fuel on predicted emissions or 

diluent were addressed in the model training 

process. The unit may only use fuels that 

have been evaluated this way. 

8.2.7 Correlation of RM and PEMS Data. 

Mark the beginning and end of each RM test 

run (including the exact time of day) on the 

permanent record of PEMS output. Correlate 

the PEMS and the RM test data by the time 

and duration using the following steps: 

A. Determine the integrated pollutant 

concentration for the PEMS for each 

corresponding RM test period. 

B. Consider system response time, if 

important, and confirm that the pair of 

results is on a consistent moisture, 

temperature, and diluent concentration basis. 

C. Compare each average PEMS value to 

the corresponding average RM value. Use the 

following guidelines to make these 

comparisons. 

If . . . Then . . . And then . . . 

The RM has an instrumental or integrated noninstrumental sampling technique.Directly compare RM and PEMS results.

The RM has a grab sampling technique ............ Average the results from all grab samples 

taken during the test run. The test run must 

include ≥3 separate grab measurements.

Compare this average RM result with the 

PEMS result obtained during the run. 

Use the paired PEMS and RM data and the 

equations in Section 12.2 to calculate the RA 

in the units of the applicable emission 

standard. For this 3-level RA test, calculate 

the RA at each operation level. 

8.3 Statistical Tests for PEMS that are 

Used for Continual Compliance. In addition 

to the RA determination, evaluate the paired 

RA and PEMS data using the following 

statistical tests. 

8.3.1 Bias Test. From the RA data taken 

at the mid-level, determine if a bias exists 

between the RM and PEMS. Use the 

equations in Section 12.3.1. 

8.3.2 F-test. Perform a separate F-test for 

the RA paired data from each operating level 

to determine if the RM and PEMS variances 

differ by more than might be expected from 

chance. Use the equations in Section 12.3.2. 

8.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Perform a 

correlation analysis using the RA paired data 

from all operating levels combined to 

determine how well the RM and PEMS 

correlate. Use the equations in Section 12.3.3. 

The correlation is waived if the process 

cannot be varied to produce a concentration 

change sufficient for a successful correlation 

test because of its technical design. In such 

cases, should a subsequent RATA identify a 

variation in the RM measured values by more 

than 30 percent, the waiver will not apply, 

and a correlation analysis test must be 

performed at the next RATA. 

8.4 Reporting. Summarize in tabular form 

the results of the RA and statistical tests. 

Include all data sheets, calculations, and 

charts (records of PEMS responses) necessary 

to verify that your PEMS meets the 

performance specifications. Include in the 

report the documentation used to establish 

your PEMS parameter envelopes. 

8.5 Reevaluating Your PEMS After a 

Failed Test, Change in Operations, or Change 

in Critical PEMS Parameter. After initial 

certification, if your PEMS fails to pass a 

quarterly RAA or yearly RATA, or if changes 

occur or are made that could result in a 

significant change in the emission rate (e.g., 

turbine aging, process modification, new 

process operating modes, or changes to 

emission controls), your PEMS must be 

recertified using the tests and procedures in 

Section 8.1. For example, if you initially 

developed your PEMS for the emissions unit 

operating at 80–100 percent of its range, you 

would have performed the initial test under 

these conditions. Later, if you wanted to 

operate the emission unit at 50–100 percent 

of its range, you must conduct another RA 

test and statistical tests, as applicable, to 

verify that the new conditions of 50–100 

percent of range are functional. These tests 

must demonstrate that your PEMS provides 

acceptable data when operating in the new 

range or with the new critical PEMS 

parameter(s). The requirements of Section 8.1 

must be completed by the earlier of 60 unit 

operating days or 180 calendar days after the 

failed RATA or after the change that caused 

a significant change in emission rate. 

9.0 Quality Control 

You must incorporate a QA plan beyond 

the initial PEMS certification test to verify 

that your system is generating qualityassured data. The QA plan must include the 

components of this section. 

9.1 QA/QC Summary. Conduct the 

applicable ongoing tests listed below. 

ONGOING QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTS

Test PEMS regulatory purpose Acceptability Frequency 

Sensor Evaluation .................................... All ............................................................. .................................................................. Daily 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12588 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ONGOING QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTS—Continued 

Test PEMS regulatory purpose Acceptability Frequency 

RAA .......................................................... Compliance .............................................. 3-test average ≤10% of simultaneous 

PEMS average.

Each quarter 

except 

quarter 

when 

RATA performed 

RATA ........................................................ All ............................................................. Same as for RA in Sec. 13.1 .................. Yearly in 

quarter 

when RAA 

not performed 

Bias Correction ......................................... All ............................................................. If davg ≤ |cc| .............................................. Bias test 

passed (no 

correction 

factor 

needed) 

PEMS Training ......................................... All ............................................................. If Fcritical ≥F r ≥0.8 .................................... Optional after 

initial and 

subsequent 

RATAs 

Sensor Evaluation Alert Test (optional) ... All ............................................................. See Section 6.1.8 .................................... After each 

PEMS 

training 

9.2 Daily Sensor Evaluation Check. Your 

sensor evaluation system must check the 

integrity of each PEMS input at least daily. 

9.3 Quarterly Relative Accuracy Audits. 

In the first year of operation after the initial 

certification, perform a RAA consisting of at 

least three 30-minute portable analyzer or 

RM determinations each quarter a RATA is 

not performed. The average of the 3 portable 

analyzer or RM determinations must not 

differ from the simultaneous PEMS average 

value by more than 10 percent of the analyzer 

or RM value or the test is failed. If a PEMS 

passes all quarterly RAAs in the first year 

and also passes the subsequent yearly RATA 

in the second year, you may elect to perform 

a single mid-year RAA in the second year in 

place of the quarterly RAAs. This option may 

be repeated, but only until the PEMS fails 

either a mid-year RAA or a yearly RATA. 

When such a failure occurs, you must resume 

quarterly RAAs in the quarter following the 

failure and continue conducting quarterly 

RAAs until the PEMS successfully passes 

both a year of quarterly RAAs and a 

subsequent RATA. 

9.4 Yearly Relative Accuracy Test Audit. 

Perform a minimum 9-run RATA at the 

normal operating level on a yearly basis in 

the quarter that the RAA is not performed. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

[Reserved] 

11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved] 

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis 

12.1 Nomenclature 

B = PEMS bias adjustment factor. 

cc = Confidence coefficient. 

di = Difference between each RM and PEMS 

run. 

d = Arithmetic mean of differences for all 

runs. 

ei = Individual measurement provided by the 

PEMS or RM at a particular level. 

em = Mean of the PEMS or RM measurements 

at a particular level. 

ep = Individual measurement provided by the 

PEMS. 

ev = Individual measurement provided by the 

RM. 

F = Calculated F-value. 

n = Number of RM runs. 

PEMSi = Individual measurement provided 

by the PEMS. 

PEMSiAdjusted = Individual measurement 

provided by the PEMS adjusted for bias. 

PEMS = Mean of the values provided by the 

PEMS at the normal operating range during 

the bias test. 

r = Coefficient of correlation. 

RA = Relative accuracy. 

RAA = Relative accuracy audit. 

RM = Average RM value (or in the case of the 

RAA, the average portable analyzer value). 

In cases where the average emissions for 

the test are less than 50 percent of the 

applicable standard, substitute the 

emission standard value here in place of 

the average RM value. 

Sd = Standard deviation of differences. 

S2 = Variance of your PEMS or RM. 

t0.025 = t-value for a one-sided, 97.5 percent 

confidence interval (see Table 16–1). 

12.2 Relative Accuracy Calculations. 

Calculate the mean of the RM values. 

Calculate the differences between the pairs of 

observations for the RM and the PEMS 

output sets. Finally, calculate the mean of the 

differences, standard deviation, confidence 

coefficient, and PEMS RA, using Equations 

16–1, 16–2, 16–3, and 16–4, respectively. For 

compliance PEMS, calculate the RA at each 

test level. The PEMS must pass the RA 

criterion at each test level. 

12.2.1 Arithmetic Mean. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of the differences between 

paired RM and PEMS observations using 

Equation 16–1. 

d n d Eq. i

i

n

 16-1 = =

∑1

1

12.2.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the 

standard deviation of the differences using 

Equation 16–2 (positive square root). 

s Eq. d =

−

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

−

=

=

∑

∑

d

d

n

n

i

i

n i

i

n

2

1

1

2

1

 16-2

12.2.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate 

the confidence coefficient using Equation 16– 

3 and Table 16–1. 

cc t

S

n

Eq. d 16-3 = 0 025 .

12.2.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the 

RA of your data using Equation 16–4. 

RA

d cc

RM Eq. = 16-

+

× 100 4

12.3 Compliance PEMS Statistical Tests. 

If your PEMS will be used for continual 

compliance purposes, conduct the following 

tests using the information obtained during 

the RA tests. For the pollutant measurements 

at any one test level, if the mean value of the 

RM is less than either 10 ppm or 5 percent 

of the emission standard, all statistical tests 

are waived at that specific test level. For 

diluent measurements at any one test level, 

if the mean value of the RM is less than 3 

percent of span, all statistical tests are 

waived for that specific test level. 

12.3.1 Bias Test. Conduct a bias test to 

determine if your PEMS is biased relative to 

the RM. Determine the PEMS bias by 

comparing the confidence coefficient 

obtained from Equation 16–3 to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER25MR09.094</MATH> ER25MR09.095</MATH> ER25MR09.096</MATH> ER25MR09.097</MATH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12589 

arithmetic mean of the differences 

determined in Equation 16–1. If the 

arithmetic mean of the differences (d ̄) is 

greater than the absolute value of the 

confidence coefficient (cc), your PEMS must 

incorporate a bias factor to adjust future 

PEMS values as in Equation 16–5. 

PEMS PEMS x B iAdjusted i = Eq. 16-5

Where: 

B = +

d

PEMS 1 Eq a . - 16 6

12.3.2 F-test. Conduct an F-test for each 

of the three RA data sets collected at different 

test levels. Calculate the variances of the 

PEMS and the RM using Equation 16–6. 

S

e e

n Eq.

i m

i

n

2

2

1

1 =

( ) −

−

=

∑

 16-6

Determine if the variance of the PEMS data 

is significantly different from that of the RM 

data at each level by calculating the F-value 

using Equation 16–7. 

F S PEMS

S RM = Eq. 

2

2 16 - 7

Compare the calculated F-value with the 

critical value of F at the 95 percent 

confidence level with n–1 degrees of 

freedom. The critical value is obtained from 

Table 16–2 or a similar table for Fdistribution. If the calculated F-value is 

greater than the critical value at any level, 

your proposed PEMS is unacceptable. For 

pollutant PEMS measurements, if the 

standard deviation of the RM is less than 

either 3 percent of the span or 5 ppm, use 

a RM standard deviation of either 5 ppm or 

3 percent of span. For diluent PEMS 

measurements, if the standard deviation of 

the reference method is less than 3 percent 

of span, use a RM standard deviation of 3 

percent of span. 

12.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Calculate the 

correlation coefficient either manually using 

Eq. 16–8, on a graph, or by computer using 

all of the paired data points from all 

operating levels. Your PEMS correlation must 

be 0.8 or greater to be acceptable. If during 

the initial certification test, your PEMS data 

are determined to be auto-correlated 

according to the procedures in 40 CFR 

75.41(b)(2), or if the signal-to-noise ratio of 

the data is less than 4, then the correlation 

analysis is permanently waived. 

r epev ep ev n

ep ep n ev ev n

= Eq − ( )( )

( − ( ) )( − ( ) ) ⎡

⎣⎢ ⎤⎦⎥

∑ ∑ ∑

∑ ∑∑ ∑

/

/ / 2 2 2 2

. 16 -8

12.4 Relative Accuracy Audit. Calculate 

the quarterly RAA using Equation 16–4. 

RAA PEMS RM

RM = x Eq. − 16-9 100

13.0 Method Performance 

13.1 PEMS Relative Accuracy. The RA 

must not exceed 10 percent if the PEMS 

measurements are greater than 100 ppm or 

0.2 lbs/mm Btu. The RA must not exceed 20 

percent if the PEMS measurements are 

between 100 ppm (or 0.2 lb/mm Btu) and 10 

ppm (or 0.05 lb/mm Btu). For measurements 

below 10 ppm, the absolute mean difference 

between the PEMS measurements and the 

RM measurements must not exceed 2 pppm. 

For diluent PEMS, an alternative criterion of 

± 1 percent absolute difference between the 

PEMS and RM may be used if less stringent. 

13.2 PEMS Bias. Your PEMS data is 

considered biased and must be adjusted if the 

arithmetic mean (d) is greater than the 

absolute value of the confidence coefficient 

(cc) in Equations 16.1 and 16.3. In such 

cases, a bias factor must be used to correct 

your PEMS data. 

13.3 PEMS Variance. Your calculated Fvalue must not be greater than the critical Fvalue at the 95-percent confidence level for 

your PEMS to be acceptable. 

13.4 PEMS Correlation. Your calculated rvalue must be greater than or equal to 0.8 for 

your PEMS to be acceptable. 

13.5 Relative Accuracy Audits. The 

average of the 3 portable analyzer or RM 

determinations must not differ from the 

simultaneous PEMS average value by more 

than 10 percent of the analyzer or RM value. 

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

15.070 Waste Management [Reserved] 

16.0 References [Reserved] 

17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and 

Validation Data 

TABLE 16–1—T-VALUES FOR ONE-SIDED, 97.5 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR SELECTED SAMPLE SIZES* 

n–1 t0.025 n–1 t0.025

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 12.706 16 2.131 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 4.303 17 2.120 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 3.182 18 2.110 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 2.776 19 2.101 

6 ................................................................................................................................................... 2.571 20 2.093 

7 ................................................................................................................................................... 2.447 21 2.086 

8 ................................................................................................................................................... 2.365 22 2.080 

9 ................................................................................................................................................... 2.306 23 2.074 

10 ................................................................................................................................................. 2.262 24 2.069 

11 ................................................................................................................................................. 2.228 25 2.064 

12 ................................................................................................................................................. 2.201 26 2.060 

13 ................................................................................................................................................. 2.179 27 2.056 

14 ................................................................................................................................................. 2.160 28 2.052 

15 ................................................................................................................................................. 2.145 > 29 t-Table 

* Use n equal to the number of data points (n–1 equals the degrees of freedom). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER25MR09.098</MATH> ER25MR09.099</MATH> ER25MR09.100</MATH> ER25MR09.101</MATH> ER25MR09.102</MATH> ER25MR09.103</MATH> 
12590 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 16–2. F-VALUES FOR CRITICAL VALUE OF F AT THE 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL

d.f. for 

S2

RM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

d.f. for S2

PEMS

10 11 12 

1 ............... 161 199 215 224 230 234 236 238 240 241 243 243 

.4 .5 .7 .6 .2 .0 .8 .9 .5 .8 .0 .9 

2 ............... 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 

51 00 16 25 30 33 35 37 38 50 40 41 

3 ............... 10 9 .5 9 .2 9 .1 9 .0 8 .9 8 .8 8 .8 8 .8 8 .7 8 .7 8 .7 

13 52 77 17 14 41 87 45 12 86 63 45 

4 ............... 7 .7 6 .9 6 .5 6 .3 6 .2 6 .1 6 .0 6 .0 5 .9 5 .9 5 .9 5 .9 

09 44 91 88 56 63 94 41 99 64 35 12 

5 ............... 6 .6 5 .7 5 .4 5 .1 5 .0 4 .9 4 .8 4 .8 4 .7 4 .7 4 .7 4 .6 

08 86 10 92 50 50 76 18 73 35 03 78 

6 ............... 5 .9 5 .1 4 .7 4 .5 4 .3 4 .2 4 .2 4 .1 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 

87 43 57 34 87 84 07 47 99 60 27 00 

7 ............... 5 .5 4 .7 4 .3 4 .1 3 .9 3 .8 3 .7 3 .7 3 .6 3 .6 3 .6 3 .5 

91 34 47 20 71 66 87 26 77 37 03 75 

8 ............... 5 .3 4 .4 4 .0 3 .8 3 .6 3 .5 3 .5 3 .4 3 .3 3 .3 3 .3 3 .2 

18 59 66 38 88 81 01 38 88 47 12 84 

9 ............... 5 .1 4 .2 3 .8 3 .6 3 .4 3 .3 3 .2 3 .2 3 .1 3 .1 3 .1 3 .0 

17 57 63 33 82 74 93 30 97 37 02 73 

10 ............. 4 .9 4 .1 3 .7 3 .4 3 .3 3 .2 3 .1 3 .0 3 .0 2 .9 2 .9 2 .9 

65 03 09 78 26 17 36 72 20 78 42 13 

11 ............. 4 .8 3 .9 3 .5 3 .3 3 .2 3 .0 3 .0 2 .9 2 .8 2 .8 2 .8 2 .7 

44 82 87 57 04 95 12 48 96 54 17 88 

12 ............. 4 .7 3 .8 3 .4 3 .2 3 .1 2 .9 2 .9 2 .8 2 .7 2 .7 2 .7 2 .6 

47 85 90 59 06 96 13 49 96 53 17 87 

■ 5. In Procedure 1 of Appendix F, 

paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 and 

Section 8 is revised as follows: 

Appendix F to Part 60—Quality Assurance 

Procedures 

Procedure 1. Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Gas Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance 

Determination 

* * * * * 

5.1.2 Cylinder Gas Audit (CGA). 

* * * 

(3) Use Certified Reference Materials 

(CRM’s) (See Citation 1) audit gases that have 

been certified by comparison to National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

or EPA Traceability Protocol Materials 

(ETPM’s) following the most recent edition of 

EPA’s Traceability Protocol No. 1 (See 

Citation 2). Procedures for preparation of 

CRM’s are described in Citation 1. 

Procedures for preparation of ETPM’s are 

described in Citation 2. As an alternative to 

CRM’s or ETPM gases, Method 205 (See 

Citation 3) may be used. The difference 

between the actual concentration of the audit 

gas and the concentration indicated by the 

monitor is used to assess the accuracy of the 

CEMS. 

* * * * * 

8. Bibliography 

1. ‘‘A Procedure for Establishing 

Traceability of Gas Mixtures to Certain 

National Bureau of Standards Standard 

Reference Materials.’’ Joint publication by 

NBS and EPA–600/7–81–010, Revised 1989. 

Available from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Quality Assurance 

Division (MD–77). Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711. 

2. ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay 

And Certification Of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards.’’ EPA–600/R–97/121, September 

1997. Available from EPA’s Emission 

Measurement Center at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/emc. 

3. Method 205, ‘‘Verification of Gas 

Dilution Systems for Field Instrument 

Calibrations,’’ 40 CFR 51, Appendix M. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In Procedure 2 of Appendix F, 

Section 10.1, paragraph (3) of Section 

10.4, and paragraph (2) of Section 12.0 

are revised as follows: 

Procedure 2—Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Particulate Matter 

Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems at Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

10.1 When should I use paired trains 

for reference method testing? Although 

not required, we recommend that you 

should use paired-train reference 

method testing to generate data used to 

develop your PM CEMS correlation and 

for RCA testing. Guidance on the use of 

paired sampling trains can be found in 

the PM CEMS Knowledge Document 

(see section 16.5 of PS–11). 

* * * * * 

10.4 What are my limits for 

excessive audit inaccuracy? 

* * * * * 

(3) What are the criteria for excessive 

ACA error? Your PM CEMS is out of 

control if the results of any ACA exceed 

± 10 percent of the average audit value, 

as calculated using Equation 2–1a, or 

7.5 percent of the applicable standard, 

as calculated using Equation 2–1b, 

whichever is greater. 

* * * * * 

12.0 What calculations and data 

analysis must I perform for my PM 

CEMS? 

* * * * * 

(2) How do I calculate ACA accuracy? 

You must use either Equation 2–1a or 2– 

1b to calculate ACA accuracy for each 

of the three audit points. However, 

when calculating ACA accuracy for the 

first audit point (0 to 20 percent of 

measurement range), you must use 

Equation 2–1b to calculate ACA 

accuracy if the reference standard value 

(Rv) equals zero. 

ACA Accuracy = 

R

Eq. 2-1a CEM − ×

R

R

V

V

100%


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER25MR09.104</MATH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12591 

Where: ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at 

each audit point, in percent, 

RCEM = Your PM CEMS response to the 

reference standard, and 

RV = The reference standard value. 

ACA Accuracy = 

C

Eq. 2-1b CEM − × C

C

RV

S

100%

Where: 

ACA Accuracy = The ACA accuracy at 

each audit point, in percent, 

CCEM = The PM concentration that 

corresponds to your PM CEMS 

response to the reference standard, 

as calculated using the correlation 

equation for your PM CEMS, 

CRV = The PM concentration that 

corresponds to the reference 

standard value in units consistent 

with CCEM, and 

Cs = The PM concentration that 

corresponds to the applicable 

emission limit in units consistent 

with CCEM. 

* * * * * 

Part 63—[Amended] 

■ 7. The authority citation for Part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 8. In Method 303 of Appendix A, add 

a sentence to the end of Section 1.1 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods 

Method 303—Determination of Visible 

Emissions From By-Product Coke Oven 

Batteries 

1.1 Applicability. * * * In order for the 

test method results to be indicative of plant 

performance, the time of day of the run 

should vary. 

[FR Doc. E9–6275 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0759; FRL–8783–7] 

Delegation of National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories; State of 

California; Amador County Air 

Pollution Control District, San Diego 

County Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending certain 

regulations to reflect the current 

delegation status of national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants in 

California. Amador County Air 

Pollution Control District and San Diego 

County Air Pollution Control District 

requested delegation of these federal 

standards as they apply to non-major 

sources. Their delegation requests were 

approved by letter on September 4, 

2008. The purpose of this action is to 

update the listing in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. EPA Region IX is also 

waiving the need for duplicate reporting 

after a California district is delegated 

these federal standards applicable to 

non-major sources. 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 26, 

2009 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives relevant adverse comments by 

April 24, 2009. If EPA receives such 

comments, then it will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0759, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Delegation of NESHAP 

B. California Delegations 

C. Area Source Delegation Requests 

II. EPA Action 

A. Area Source Delegation Requests 

B. Waiver of Duplicate Reporting 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Delegation of NESHAP 

Section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990 (CAA), authorizes 

EPA to delegate to State or local air 

pollution control agencies the authority 

to implement and enforce the standards 

set out in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 63, National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Source Categories 

(NESHAP). On November 26, 1993, EPA 

promulgated regulations, codified at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart E (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Subpart E’’), establishing 

procedures for EPA’s approval of State 

rules or programs under CAA 112(l) (see 

58 FR 62262). The procedures of 

Subpart E were later amended on 

September 14, 2000 (see 65 FR 55810). 

Any request for approval under CAA 

section 112(l) must meet the approval 

criteria in 112(l)(5) and Subpart E. To 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULESER25MR09.105</MATH>