59956 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640; FRL–8721–4] 

RIN 2060–AJ86 

Performance Specification and Quality 

Assurance Requirements for 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

Systems and Amendments to 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources; National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants; and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

Performance Specification 17, 

‘‘Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

Systems at Stationary Sources’’ and 

Procedure 4, ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Continuous Parameter 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary 

Sources.’’ The proposed performance 

specification and quality assurance 

requirements establish procedures and 

other requirements to ensure that the 

systems are properly selected, installed, 

and placed into operation. This action 

also proposes minor amendments to 

Procedure 1 of the ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Gas Continuous 

Emission Monitoring Systems Used for 

Compliance Determinations’’ to address 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems that are used for monitoring 

multiple pollutants. Minor changes to 

the General Provisions for the Standards 

of Performance for New Stationary 

Sources, the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 

and the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 

Categories are also proposed to ensure 

consistency between the proposed 

Performance Specification 17, 

Procedure 4, and the General Provisions 

and to clarify that Performance 

Specification 17 and Procedure 4 apply 

instead of requirements that pertain 

specifically to continuous parameter 

monitoring systems. Finally, this action 

proposes amendments to the current 

national emission standards for closed 

vent systems, control devices and 

recovery systems to ensure consistency 

with Performance Specification 17 and 

Procedure 4. These actions are needed 

to establish consistent requirements for 

ensuring and assessing the quality of 

data measured by continuous parameter 

monitoring systems and to provide 

quality assurance procedures for 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems used to monitor multiple 

pollutants. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 8, 2008. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before November 10, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0640, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Performance Specification 17 

and Procedure 4 for Continuous 

Parameter Monitoring Systems Docket, 

Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640, 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

Docket Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006– 

0640. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If 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: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. 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, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (D243–05), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 

5635; e-mail address: 

parker.barrett@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to you? 

B. What should you consider as you 

prepare your comments to EPA? 

C. Where can you get a copy of this 

document and other related information? 

D. Will there be a public hearing? 

II. Background 

A. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4? 

B. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed amendments to Procedure 1? 

C. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed amendments to the General 

Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63? 

D. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart SS? 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59957 

III. Summary of Proposed Performance 

Specification 17 

A. What is the purpose of PS–17? 

B. Who must comply with PS–17? 

C. When must owners or operators of 

affected CPMS comply with PS–17? 

D. What are the basic requirements of PS– 

17? 

E. What initial performance criteria must 

be demonstrated to comply with PS–17? 

F. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for PS–17? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4 

A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4? 

B. Who must comply with Procedure 4? 

C. When must owners or operators of 

affected CPMS comply with Procedure 

4? 

D. What are the basic requirements of 

Procedure 4? 

E. How often must accuracy audits and 

other QA/QC procedures be performed? 

F. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

Procedure 4? 

V. Summary of Proposed Amendments to 

Procedure 1 

A. What is the purpose of the 

amendments? 

B. To whom do the amendments apply? 

C. How do the amendments address CEMS 

that are subject to PS–9? 

D. How do the amendments address CEMS 

that are subject to PS–15? 

VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments to 

the General Provisions to Parts 60, 61, 

and 63 

A. What is the purpose of the amendments 

to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63? 

B. What specific changes are we proposing 

to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63? 

VII. Summary of the Proposed Amendments 

to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS 

A. What is the purpose of the amendments 

to subpart SS? 

B. What specific changes are we proposing 

to subpart SS? 

VIII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Requirements of Performance 

Specification 17 

A. What information did we use to develop 

PS–17? 

B. How did we select the applicability 

criteria for PS–17? 

C. How did we select the parameters that 

are addressed by PS–17? 

D. Why did we include requirements for 

flow CPMS in PS–17 if PS–6 already 

specifies requirements for flow sensors? 

E. How did we select the equipment 

requirements? 

F. How did we select the installation and 

location requirements? 

G. How did we select the initial QA 

measures? 

H. How did we select the methods for 

performing the initial validation check? 

I. How did we select the performance 

criteria for the initial validation check? 

J. How did we select the recordkeeping 

requirements? 

IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Requirements of Procedure 4 

A. What information did we use to develop 

Procedure 4? 

B. Why did we decide to apply Procedure 

4 to all CPMS that are subject to PS–17? 

C. How did we select the accuracy audit 

procedures? 

D. How did we select the accuracy audit 

frequencies? 

E. How did we select the performance 

criteria for accuracy audits? 

F. How did we select the recordkeeping 

requirements? 

X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Amendments to Procedure 1 

A. How did we select the amendments to 

Procedure 1 that apply to PS–9? 

B. How did we select the amendments to 

Procedure 1 that apply to PS–15? 

XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Amendments to the General Provisions 

to Parts 60, 61, and 63 

A. How did we select the amendments to 

the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63? 

XII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

SS 

A. How did we select the amendments to 

subpart SS? 

XIII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the impacts of PS–17 and 

Procedure 4? 

B. What are the impacts of the amendments 

to Procedure 1? 

C. What are the impacts of the amendments 

to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63? 

D. What are the impacts of the 

amendments to subpart SS? 

XIV. Solicitation of Comments and Public 

Participation 

XV. 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 & Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to you? 

The proposed Performance 

Specification 17 (PS–17) and Procedure 

4 would apply to any facility that is 

required to install a new continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS), 

relocate an existing CPMS, or replace an 

existing CPMS under any applicable 

subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63, 

with certain exceptions. Moreover, the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 would 

become effective upon permit renewal 

(or within 5 years for area sources that 

are exempt from title V permitting) for 

any affected facility subject to an 

applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts 60, 

61, or 63, with certain exceptions. Table 

1 of this preamble lists the applicable 

rules by subpart and the corresponding 

source categories to which the proposed 

PS–17 and Procedure 4 would apply. 

TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PS–17 AND PROCEDURE 4 

Subpart(s) Source category 

40 CFR part 63 

O ........................................................................................................................................ Commercial Ethylene Oxide Sterilization/Fumigation Facilities. 

R ........................................................................................................................................ Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline Breakout Stations). 

S ......................................................................................................................................... Pulp and Paper—Process Operations. 

X ......................................................................................................................................... Secondary Lead Smelters. 

EE ...................................................................................................................................... Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations. 

GG ..................................................................................................................................... Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework. 

HH ...................................................................................................................................... Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities. 

JJ ....................................................................................................................................... Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. 

KK ...................................................................................................................................... Printing and Publishing. 

MM ..................................................................................................................................... Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda & Sulfite Pulp & 

Paper Mills. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59958 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PS–17 AND PROCEDURE 4—Continued 

Subpart(s) Source category 

YY ...................................................................................................................................... Spandex. 

YY ...................................................................................................................................... Cyanide Chemical Manufacture. 

YY ...................................................................................................................................... Carbon Black Production. 

CCC ................................................................................................................................... Steel Pickling—HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric 

Acid Regeneration Plants. 

EEE .................................................................................................................................... Hazardous Waste Combustors. 

GGG ................................................................................................................................... Pharmaceuticals Production. 

HHH ................................................................................................................................... Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Facilities. 

MMM .................................................................................................................................. Pesticide Active Ingredient Production. 

NNN ................................................................................................................................... Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing. 

RRR ................................................................................................................................... Secondary Aluminum Production. 

UUU ................................................................................................................................... Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units. 

DDDD ................................................................................................................................. Plywood & Composite Wood Products. 

EEEE ................................................................................................................................. Organic Liquids Distribution (non-gasoline). 

FFFF .................................................................................................................................. Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. 

HHHH ................................................................................................................................. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production. 

IIII ....................................................................................................................................... Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks. 

JJJJ .................................................................................................................................... Paper & Other Web (surface coating). 

KKKK ................................................................................................................................. Surface Coating of Metal Cans. 

PPPP ................................................................................................................................. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts & Products. 

QQQQ ................................................................................................................................ Surface Coating of Wood Building Products. 

RRRR ................................................................................................................................. Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 

SSSS ................................................................................................................................. Surface Coating of Metal Coil. 

UUUU ................................................................................................................................. Cellulose Products Manufacturing. 

VVVV ................................................................................................................................. Boat Manufacturing. 

WWWW ............................................................................................................................. Reinforced Plastics Composites Production. 

XXXX ................................................................................................................................. Rubber Tire Manufacturing. 

YYYY ................................................................................................................................. Stationary Combustion Turbines. 

ZZZZ .................................................................................................................................. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. 

CCCCC .............................................................................................................................. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, & Battery Stacks. 

DDDDD .............................................................................................................................. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters. 

EEEEE ............................................................................................................................... Iron and Steel Foundries. 

FFFFF ................................................................................................................................ Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities. 

GGGGG ............................................................................................................................. Site Remediation. 

HHHHH .............................................................................................................................. Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing. 

MMMMM ............................................................................................................................ Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations. 

NNNNN .............................................................................................................................. Hydrochloric Acid Production. 

PPPPP ............................................................................................................................... Engine Test Cells/Stands. 

QQQQQ ............................................................................................................................. Friction Materials. 

RRRRR .............................................................................................................................. Taconite Iron Ore Processing. 

TTTTT ................................................................................................................................ Primary Magnesium Refining. 

ZZZZZ ................................................................................................................................ Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources. 

LLLLLL ............................................................................................................................... Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources. 

OOOOOO .......................................................................................................................... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication 

Area Sources. 

PPPPPP ............................................................................................................................. Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources. 

SSSSSS ............................................................................................................................. Glass Manufacturing Area Sources. 

40 CFR part 60 

Ea ....................................................................................................................................... Municipal Waste Combustors after December 20, 1989 

and on or before September 20, 1994. 

Ec ....................................................................................................................................... Hospital, Medical, and Infectious Waste Incinerators. 

J ......................................................................................................................................... Petroleum Refineries. 

O ........................................................................................................................................ Sewage Treatment Plants. 

T, U, V, W, X ..................................................................................................................... Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. 

Y ......................................................................................................................................... Coal Preparation Plants (>200 tons per day). 

Z ......................................................................................................................................... Ferroalloy Production Facilities. 

AA ...................................................................................................................................... Steel Plants: EAF’s and Oxygen Decarburization Vessels after October 21, 1974 and on or before August 

17, 1983. 

BB ...................................................................................................................................... Kraft Pulp Mills. 

HH ...................................................................................................................................... Lime Manufacturing Plants. 

LL ....................................................................................................................................... Metallic Mineral Processing Plants. 

NN ...................................................................................................................................... Phosphate rock plants (with prod. capacity >4 ton/hr). 

PP ...................................................................................................................................... Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture. 

RR ...................................................................................................................................... Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating 

Operations. 

FFF .................................................................................................................................... Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing. 

LLL ..................................................................................................................................... Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59959 

TABLE 1—SOURCE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PS–17 AND PROCEDURE 4—Continued 

Subpart(s) Source category 

UUU ................................................................................................................................... Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries. 

VVV .................................................................................................................................... Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities. 

AAAA ................................................................................................................................. Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units Constructed 

after August 30, 1999. 

40 CFR part 61 

K ......................................................................................................................................... Radionuclide Emissions from Elemental Phosphorus 

Plants. 

L ......................................................................................................................................... Benzene from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants. 

BB ...................................................................................................................................... Benzene Emissions from Benzene Transfer Operations. 

The requirements of the proposed PS– 

17 and Procedure 4 may also apply to 

stationary sources located in a State, 

District, Reservation, or Territory that 

adopts PS–17 or Procedure 4 in its 

implementation plan. The exceptions to 

the applicability criteria for PS–17 and 

Procedure 4 are those source categories 

that are subject to part 63 rules that 

specify that § 63.8(a)(2) of the General 

Provisions for the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Source Categories in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart A does not apply 

to the source category. Section 63.8(a)(2) 

specifies that rules promulgated under 

part 63 are subject to the monitoring 

provisions of § 63.8 upon promulgation 

of performance specifications (i.e., the 

proposed PS–17). Consequently, rules 

which specify that § 63.8(a)(2) does not 

apply, are not subject to PS–17 or 

Procedure 4. Table 2 of this preamble 

lists the part 63 rules that require CPMS 

but would not be subject to PS–17 or 

Procedure 4 for this reason. 

TABLE 2—PART 63 RULES NOT SUBJECT TO PS–17 OR PROCEDURE 4 

[§ 63.8(a)(2) does not apply] 

Subpart(s) Source category 

F, G, H, I ......................................................................................................................................................... Hazardous Organic NESHAP. 

U ...................................................................................................................................................................... Polymers and Resins (Group I). 

AA ................................................................................................................................................................... Phosphoric Acid Plants. 

BB ................................................................................................................................................................... Phosphate Fertilizer Production. 

CC ................................................................................................................................................................... Petroleum Refineries. 

DD ................................................................................................................................................................... Offsite Waste and Recovery Operations. 

DDD ................................................................................................................................................................ Mineral Wool. 

III ..................................................................................................................................................................... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production. 

JJJ ................................................................................................................................................................... Polymers and Resins (Group IV). 

LLL .................................................................................................................................................................. Portland Cement Manufacturing. 

OOO ................................................................................................................................................................ Amino/Phenolic Resins Production. 

PPP ................................................................................................................................................................. Polyether Polyols Production. 

AAAA ............................................................................................................................................................... Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

TTTT ............................................................................................................................................................... Leather Tanning and Finishing Operations. 

IIIII ................................................................................................................................................................... Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants. 

LLLLL .............................................................................................................................................................. Asphalt Roofing and Processing. 

The standard industrial classification 

(SIC) codes and North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes that correspond to potentially 

regulated entities are listed in Tables 3 

and 4 of this preamble, respectively. To 

determine the specific types of industry 

referenced by the SIC or NAICS codes, 

go to http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/ 

sic_manual.html or http:// 

www.osha.gov/oshstats/naicsmanual.html, respectively. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59960 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—SIC CODES FOR POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES

SIC code 

12, 42, 44, 47, 109, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 386, 1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1051, 1061, 1099, 1311, 1321, 1411, 

1422, 1423, 1429, 1442, 1445, 1446, 1454, 1455, 1459, 1474, 1475, 1479, 1492, 1496, 1499, 2034, 2035, 2046, 2099, 2211, 2241, 2295, 

2296, 2392, 2394, 2396, 2399, 2421, 2426, 2429, 2431, 2435, 2436, 2439, 2441, 2448, 2449, 2451, 2452, 2491, 2493, 2499, 2514, 2522, 

2531, 2542, 2599, 2611, 2621, 2631, 2652, 2653, 2655, 2656, 2657, 2671, 2672, 2673, 2674, 2675, 2676, 2677, 2678, 2679, 2711, 2721, 

2741, 2754, 2759, 2761, 2771, 2812, 2813, 2816, 2819, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2835, 2836, 2841, 2842, 2843, 2844, 

2851, 2861, 2865, 2869, 2873, 2874, 2875, 2879, 2891, 2892, 2893, 2895, 2899, 2911, 2951, 2952, 2992, 2999, 3011, 3021, 3052, 3053, 

3061, 3069, 3074, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3085, 3086, 3087, 3088, 3089, 3111, 3131, 3142, 3143, 3144, 3149, 3161, 3171, 3172, 

3199, 3211, 3221, 3229, 3274, 3281, 3291, 3292, 3295, 3296, 3299, 3312, 3313, 3315, 3316, 3317, 3321, 3322, 3324, 3325, 3329, 3331, 

3334, 3339, 3341, 3351, 3353, 3354, 3355, 3356, 3357, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3369, 3398, 3399, 3411, 3412, 3421, 3423, 3425, 3429, 

3431, 3432, 3441, 3442, 3443, 3444, 3446, 3448, 3449, 3451, 3452, 3462, 3463, 3465, 3466, 3469, 3471, 3479, 3482, 3483, 3484, 3489, 

3491, 3492, 3493, 3494, 3495, 3497, 3499, 3511, 3519, 3523, 3524, 3531, 3537, 3543, 3545, 3559, 3562, 3566, 3568, 3569, 3579, 3585, 

3592, 3599, 3621, 3634, 3639, 3644, 3645, 3646, 3647, 3663, 3677, 3691, 3693, 3694, 3695, 3711, 3713, 3714, 3715, 3716, 3720, 3721, 

3724, 3726, 3728, 3731, 3732, 3743, 3751, 3760, 3761, 3764, 3765, 3769, 3792, 3795, 3799, 3821, 3829, 3841, 3842, 3843, 3851, 3861, 

3911, 3914, 3915, 3931, 3942, 3944, 3949, 3951, 3952, 3953, 3955, 3961, 3965, 3991, 3993, 3995, 3996, 3999, 4225, 4226, 4512, 4581, 

4612, 4911, 4922, 4923, 4924, 4925, 4931, 4932, 4939, 4941, 4952, 4953, 4961, 4971, 5086, 5122, 5149, 5169, 5171, 5172, 5541, 5995, 

7218, 7231, 7241, 7391, 7397, 7399, 7534, 7538, 7539, 7641, 7699, 7911, 7999, 8062, 8063, 8069, 8071, 8072, 8091, 8211, 8221, 8222, 

8231, 8243, 8244, 8249, 8299, 8411, 8711, 8731, 8734, 8741, 8748, 8922, 9511, 9661, 9711 

TABLE 4—NAICS CODES FOR POTENTIALLY REGULATED ENTITIES

NAICS code 

211, 221, 316, 321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 331, 332, 336, 339, 611, 622, 2123, 2211, 3231, 3241, 3251, 3252, 3253, 3254, 3255, 3256, 3259, 

3271, 3273, 3274, 3279, 3327, 3328, 3329, 3332, 3335, 3339, 3341, 3342, 3343, 3344, 3361, 3362, 3363, 4227, 5622, 5629, 21221, 22121, 

22132, 31332, 32211, 32222, 32411, 32613, 32614, 32615, 32791, 33422, 33634, 33992, 33995, 42269, 42271, 45431, 48611, 48621, 

49311, 49319, 51113, 51114, 51223, 54171, 56220, 56221, 56292, 81142, 92411, 92711, 92811, 111998, 112519, 112910, 112990, 211111, 

211112, 212111, 212112, 212113, 212210, 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299, 212319, 212322, 212324, 212325, 212393, 212399,

213113, 221112, 221320, 238910, 311211, 311212, 311221, 311225, 311340, 311421, 311423, 311823, 311830, 311911, 311920, 311941,

311942, 311991, 311999, 313210, 313320, 314911, 314992, 315299, 315999, 321211, 321212, 321213, 321214, 321219, 321911, 321918,

321999, 322110, 322121, 322122, 322130, 322211, 322212, 322213, 322215, 322221, 322222, 322223, 322224, 322225, 322226, 322231,

322291, 322299, 323111, 323112, 323116, 323119, 324121, 324199, 325131, 325181, 325182, 325188, 325192, 325199, 325211, 325221,

325222, 325311, 325312, 325320, 325411, 325412, 325991, 326111, 326113, 326121, 326122, 326150, 326191, 326192, 326199, 326211,

326212, 326299, 327211, 327212, 327213, 327410, 327991, 327992, 327993, 327999, 331111, 331112, 331210, 331221, 331222, 331312,

331315, 331316, 331319, 331419, 331492, 331511, 331512, 331513, 331521, 331524, 332115, 332116, 332212, 332431, 332612, 332618,

332812, 332912, 332951, 332999, 333111, 333112, 333120, 333313, 333319, 333611, 333612, 333613, 333618, 334613, 335121, 335122,

335312, 335911, 336111, 336112, 336120, 336211, 336213, 336214, 336312, 336350, 336399, 336411, 336412, 336413, 336414, 336415,

336419, 336612, 336992, 336999, 337124, 337127, 337214, 337215, 339111, 339112, 339114, 339911, 339912, 339914, 339999, 424690,

424720, 425110, 425120, 481111, 483111, 483112, 483113, 483114, 483211, 483212, 484110, 484121, 484122, 484210, 484220, 484230,

487210, 488111, 488119, 488190, 488310, 488320, 488330, 488390, 488490, 492110, 492210, 493110, 493120, 493130, 493190, 511199,

531130, 532411, 541380, 541710, 541990, 561720, 562111, 562112, 562119, 562213, 562219, 611310, 611692, 622110, 622310, 713930,

811111, 811118, 811310, 811411, 811420, 924110, 928110 

The proposed amendments to 

Procedure 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F) would apply to any facility that 

operates a continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) that is 

subject to PS–9 or PS–15 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B) and also must comply 

with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. The 

proposed amendments to the General 

Provisions to 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 

63 would apply to the same facilities 

that the proposed PS–17 and Procedure 

4 would apply. The proposed 

amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

SS, would apply to producers and 

coproducers of hydrogen cyanide; 

sodium cyanide; carbon black by 

thermal-oxidative decomposition in a 

closed system, thermal decomposition 

in a cyclic process, or thermal 

decomposition in a continuous process; 

ethylene from refined petroleum or 

liquid hydrocarbons; and spandex by 

reaction spinning. 

To determine whether your facility 

would be regulated by this action, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in section 1.2 of proposed PS– 

17 and the applicability criteria in the 

part 60, 61, or 63 standard to which 

your facility is subject. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in § 63.13 of the 

General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A). 

B. What should you consider as you 

prepare your comments for EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), U.S. EPA, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0640. Clearly mark the part 

or all of the information that you claim 

to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 

or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59961 

C. Where can you get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of these 

proposed actions will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). A copy of this proposed action 

will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. 

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

D. Will there be a public hearing? 

The EPA will hold a public hearing 

on this proposed rule only if requested 

by November 10, 2008. The request for 

a public hearing should be made in 

writing and addressed to Mr. Barrett 

Parker, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (D243–05), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711. The hearing, if requested, will be 

held on a date and at a place published 

in a separate Federal Register notice. 

II. Background 

A. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4? 

Monitoring of emissions, control 

device operating parameters, and 

process operations has been a 

requirement of many of the emission 

standards that we have promulgated 

under the authority of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Recognizing the need for good 

quality data, we initially developed 

performance specifications for CEMS. 

These performance specifications 

stipulate CEMS equipment design, 

location, and installation requirements 

and focus on the initial performance of 

CEMS. To address the ongoing 

performance of CEMS, we developed 

quality assurance (QA) procedures. 

The basis for performance 

specifications for CPMS was initially 

established by the General Provisions 

for Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart A. Section 60.13(a), which 

addresses monitoring requirements, 

states that ‘‘* * * all continuous 

monitoring systems required under 

applicable subparts shall be subject to 

the provisions of this section upon 

promulgation of performance 

specifications for continuous 

monitoring systems under appendix B 

to this part * * *’’ As defined in § 60.2, 

these ‘‘continuous monitoring systems’’ 

include those systems that are used to 

measure and record process parameters. 

Section 60.13 specifies basic 

requirements for the installation, 

validation, and operation of continuous 

monitoring systems, including CPMS. 

General recordkeeping requirements for 

CPMS required under part 60 are 

specified in § 60.7(f). 

Section 61.14 of the NESHAP General 

Provisions in 40 CFR part 61, subpart A 

also addresses CPMS, although in less 

detail than does § 60.13. Included in the 

requirements for CPMS under part 61 

are provisions for the general operation 

and maintenance of continuous 

monitoring systems, monitoring system 

performance evaluations, and 

recordkeeping. 

With the enactment of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 

Amendments), we have placed 

increased emphasis on the collection 

and use of monitoring data as a means 

of ensuring continuous compliance with 

emission standards. In response to the 

mandates of the 1990 Amendments, we 

incorporated into the General Provisions 

to part 63, basic requirements for all 

continuous monitoring systems (CMS). 

Section 63.2 broadly defines CMS to 

include CPMS, as well as CEMS and 

other forms of monitoring that are used 

to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable regulations. In § 63.8(a)(2), 

the General Provisions specify that, 

‘‘* * * all CMS required under relevant 

standards shall be subject to the 

provisions of this section upon 

promulgation of performance 

specifications for CMS as specified in 

the relevant standard or otherwise by 

the Administrator.’’ As is the case for 

part 60, the General Provisions to part 

63 establish the need for performance 

specifications for CPMS. 

Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, 

and 63 generally require owners or 

operators of affected sources to use 

CPMS to monitor the performance of 

emission control devices associated 

with those sources. Although many of 

these standards specify general design, 

installation, and calibration 

requirements for CPMS, these rules do 

not include specific performance 

requirements for CPMS. In addition, 

neither the General Provisions nor the 

subparts to parts 60, 61, and 63 fully 

specify procedures and criteria for 

ensuring that CPMS provide good 

quality data initially and on an ongoing 

basis. By proposing a new performance 

specification and QA procedure 

specifically for CPMS, we would be 

establishing standards for the design, 

installation, operation, and maintenance 

of CPMS that will help to ensure the 

generation of good quality data on a 

consistent basis. 

The proposed requirements for CPMS 

also reflect EPA’s commitment to 

improving the quality of data collected 

and disseminated by the Agency. 

Although we have always recognized its 

importance, there has been increased 

emphasis on ensuring data quality in 

response to section 515 of the Treasury 

and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554), which directs the 

OMB to issue guidelines that ‘‘provide 

policy and procedural guidance to 

Federal agencies for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information 

* * * disseminated by Federal 

agencies.’’ On September 28, 2001, OMB 

issued final Guidelines for Ensuring and 

Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by Federal Agencies (66 

FR 49718). These guidelines require 

Federal agencies to adopt ‘‘* * * a basic 

standard of quality (including 

objectivity, utility, and integrity) as a 

performance goal and should take 

appropriate steps to incorporate 

information quality criteria into agency 

dissemination practices.’’ The 

guidelines also require agencies to 

‘‘* * * develop a process for reviewing 

the quality (including objectivity, 

utility, and integrity) of information 

before it is disseminated * * *’’ and 

that the process must ‘‘* * * enable the 

agency to substantiate the quality of the 

information it has disseminated through 

documentation or other means 

appropriate to the information.’’ 

In response to the OMB guidelines, 

we developed ‘‘Guidelines for Ensuring 

and Maximizing the Quality, 

Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency’’ 

(EPA/260R–02–008, October 2002). As 

noted in these guidelines, we are 

committed to ensuring the quality 

control of information collected through 

regulatory requirements, such as this 

proposed rule, by specifying analytical 

procedures for data collection and 

sample analysis that will produce good 

quality data. We believe the procedures 

specified in the proposed PS–17 and 

Procedure 4 will help to ensure the 

quality of data measured and recorded 

by affected CPMS, which may 

subsequently be collected and 

disseminated by EPA. 

This proposed rule also represents an 

important part of our efforts to 

implement the recommendations 

developed by the Air Quality 

Management Work Group in response to 

the National Research Council (NRC) 

report on Air Quality Management in 

the United States. Specifically, the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59962 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

recommendations developed by the 

Work Group call for improving 

emissions factors and other emissions 

estimation methods and reducing the 

uncertainty in emissions inventories 

and air quality modeling applications. 

When emissions factors and other 

methods are used to estimate emissions 

from controlled sources, the assumption 

is that the control device is operating 

properly. The improved monitoring of 

air pollution control device parameters 

that would be achieved by the proposed 

PS–17 and Procedure 4 would help to 

ensure that affected control devices are 

operated properly, and, when problems 

arise, corrective action is taken in a 

timely manner. Furthermore, the 

improved monitoring will help to 

reduce the uncertainty and improve the 

reliability of emission estimates that 

typically are based on the assumptions 

that emission controls are being 

operated properly and are performing as 

designed. 

B. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed amendments to Procedure 1? 

Quality Assurance Procedure 1 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, specifies QA 

procedures for CEMS. At the time that 

Procedure 1 was promulgated, affected 

CEMS were designed to monitor a single 

gaseous pollutant. Since that time, 

emission standards have been 

promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 

that require the installation and 

operation of CEMS that monitor 

multiple pollutants. Although most of 

the provisions of Procedure 1 can be 

applied directly to multiple pollutant 

CEMS, there are differences in how 

multiple pollutant CEMS operate and 

how their performance should be 

assessed. We are proposing amendments 

to Procedure 1 to address those 

differences. 

C. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed amendments to the General 

Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63? 

The only purpose of these proposed 

amendments to the General Provisions 

to parts 60 and 61 is to ensure 

consistency between those provisions, 

the applicable subparts to parts 60 and 

61 that require the use of CPMS, and the 

requirements of the proposed PS–17 and 

Procedure 4. As this is the initial 

proposal of PS–17 and Procedure 4, 

there is no regulatory history to these 

proposed amendments to the General 

Provisions to parts 60 and 61. 

We proposed amendments to the 

monitoring requirements of the General 

Provisions to part 63 on March 23, 2001 

(66 FR 16318) and promulgated those 

amendments on April 5, 2002 (67 FR 

16582). At the time we proposed those 

amendments, we had not yet developed 

PS–17 or Procedure 4. As a result, the 

amendments to the General Provisions, 

which were incorporated into § 63.8, are 

not consistent with the requirements of 

PS–17 and Procedure 4 that we are now 

proposing. With this proposal of PS–17 

and Procedure 4, we decided that 

additional amendments to the General 

Provisions to part 63 were needed to 

ensure consistency between subpart A 

of part 63, PS–17, Procedure 4, and the 

applicable subparts to part 63 that 

require CPMS. 

D. What is the regulatory history of the 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 

63, subpart SS? 

On June 29, 1999, we promulgated the 

consolidated rulemaking proposal for 

the ‘‘generic MACT standards’’ program 

(64 FR 34866). The generic MACT 

program established an alternative 

methodology for making maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

determinations for appropriate small 

categories by referring to previous 

MACT standards that have been 

promulgated for similar sources in other 

categories. Initially, the generic MACT 

standards applied to four source 

categories: Acetal Resins Production, 

Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers 

Production, Hydrogen Fluoride 

Production, and Polycarbonate 

Production. We included in the 

consolidated rulemaking package 

general control requirements for certain 

types of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions from storage vessels 

containing organic materials, process 

vents emitting organic vapors, and leaks 

from equipment components. We also 

established a separate subpart SS, which 

specifies requirements for closed vent 

systems, control devices, recovery 

devices and routing emissions to fuel 

gas systems or a process. We included 

in § 63.996 of subpart SS general 

monitoring requirements for control and 

recovery devices. On December 6, 2000, 

we proposed revisions to the monitoring 

requirements of subpart SS (65 FR 

76444). Those proposed revisions 

specified in greater detail the 

requirements for CPMS that are used to 

monitor temperature, pressure, or pH. 

At the time these revisions to subpart SS 

were proposed, we were in the early 

stages of developing PS–17 and 

Procedure 4 and had not yet refined 

many of the requirements for CPMS that 

we are proposing today. However, with 

this proposal of PS–17 and Procedure 4, 

we concluded that it would be 

appropriate to propose further 

amendments to subpart SS to ensure 

consistency with PS–17 and Procedure 

4. 

III. Summary of Proposed Performance 

Specification 17 

A. What is the purpose of PS–17? 

The purpose of PS–17 is to establish 

the initial installation and performance 

procedures that are required for 

evaluating the acceptability of a CPMS 

that is used to monitor specific process 

or control device parameters. The 

specific parameters that would be 

addressed by the proposed PS–17 are 

temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, 

gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and 

conductivity. Mass flow rate includes 

the mass flow of liquids as well as 

solids, such as the flow of powders or 

dry solid material into a processing unit. 

As proposed, the requirements for the 

selection, installation, and validation of 

CPMS specified in PS–17 would apply 

instead of the corresponding 

requirements in an applicable subpart to 

parts 60, 61, or 63 that requires the use 

of CPMS for monitoring temperature, 

pressure, flow rate, pH, or conductivity. 

B. Who must comply with PS–17? 

The proposed PS–17 would apply to 

CPMS that are used to monitor 

temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, 

gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or 

conductivity as indicators of good 

control device performance or emission 

source operation. If adopted as a final 

rule, owners and operators of emission 

sources that would be required to install 

and operate any such CPMS under any 

subpart of parts 60, 61, or 63 (listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble) would be 

required to comply with PS–17, with 

the exception of facilities that are 

subject to the part 63 rules that are 

listed in Table 2 of this preamble. In 

addition to new CPMS that are installed 

after the proposed effective date of PS– 

17, existing CPMS that are required 

under parts 60, 61, or 63 also would be 

required to comply with PS–17. 

C. When must owners or operators of 

affected CPMS comply with PS–17? 

Owners and operators of affected 

existing CPMS that were installed prior 

to the effective date of this rule and are 

located at facilities that are required to 

obtain a title V operating permit would 

be required to comply with PS–17 when 

they renew their title V permit, or when 

they replace any key components of an 

affected CPMS. The key components of 

a CPMS are the sensors, data recorders, 

and any other parts of the CPMS that 

affect overall system accuracy, 

measurement range, or measurement 

resolution. Owners and operators of 

affected existing CPMS that were 

installed prior to the effective date of 

this rulemaking and are located at area 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59963 

source facilities that are exempt from 

obtaining a title V operating permit 

would be required to comply with PS– 

17 within 5 years of the effective date 

of this rule, or when they replace any 

key components of an affected CPMS. 

Owners and operators of new affected 

CPMS would have to comply with the 

proposed PS–17 when they install and 

place into operation the affected CPMS. 

D. What are the basic requirements of 

PS–17? 

The proposed PS–17 would require 

owners and operators of affected CPMS 

to: (1) Select a CPMS that satisfies basic 

equipment design criteria; (2) install 

their CPMS according to standard 

procedures; (3) validate their CPMS 

prior to placing it into operation; and (4) 

record and maintain information on 

their CPMS and its operation. The 

technical rationales for proposed 

criteria, specifications, and other related 

requirements of PS–17 are described in 

section VIII of this document. 

1. Equipment Selection 

Two types of equipment would be 

needed for complying with PS–17: (1) 

the components that comprise the 

CPMS, and (2) the equipment that is 

used to validate the CPMS. For CPMS 

components, PS–17 would require the 

selection of equipment that can satisfy 

basic criteria for measurement range, 

resolution, and overall system accuracy. 

For CPMS components, PS–17 does 

not specify sensor design criteria, 

allowing affected owners and operators 

to select any equipment, provided the 

CPMS meets the accuracy requirements 

for the initial validation. However, PS– 

17 would identify voluntary consensus 

standards that can be used as guidelines 

for selecting specific types of sensors. 

For a temperature CPMS, PS–17 

would require a sensor that is consistent 

with one of the following standards: (1) 

ASTM E235–06, ‘‘Specification for 

Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for 

Nuclear or Other High-Reliability 

Applications’’; (2) ASTM E585/E585M– 

04, ‘‘Specification for Compacted 

Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base 

Metal Thermocouple Cables’’; (3) ASTM 

E608/E608M–06, ‘‘Specification for 

Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base 

Metal Thermocouples’’; (4) ASTM 

E696–07, ‘‘Specification for TungstenRhenium Alloy Thermocouple Wire’’; 

(5) ASTM E1129/E1129M–98 (2002), 

‘‘Standard Specification for 

Thermocouple Connectors’’; (6) ASTM E 

1159–98 (2003), ‘‘Specification for 

Thermocouple Materials, PlatinumRhodium Alloys, and Platinum’’; (7) 

ISA–MC96.1–1982, ‘‘Temperature 

Measurement Thermocouples’’; or (8) 

ASTM E 1137/E 1137M–04, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Industrial Platinum 

Resistance Thermometers’’ 

(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17) 

For a pressure CPMS that uses a 

pressure gauge as the sensor, PS–17 

would require a gauge that conforms to 

the design requirements of ASME 

B40.100–2005, ‘‘Pressure Gauges and 

Gauge Attachments’’ (incorporated by 

reference-see § 60.17). 

2. Range 

With respect to measurement range, 

this proposed rule would require that 

temperature, pressure, flow rate, and 

conductivity CPMS be capable of 

measuring the appropriate parameter 

over a range that extends at least 20 

percent beyond the normal expected 

operating range of values for that 

parameter. For example, if the pressure 

drop measurement across a scrubber 

typically ranges from 5.0 to 7.5 

kilopascals (kPa) (20 to 30 inches of 

water column (in. wc)), the range of the 

data recorder for a CPMS that monitors 

that pressure drop would have to extend 

from at least 4.0 to 9.0 kPa (16 to 36 in. 

wc). For pH CPMS, the proposed PS–17 

would require that the CPMS data 

recorder range covers the entire pH 

scale from 0 to 14. 

3. Resolution 

The data recording system associated 

with affected CPMS would require a 

resolution that is equal to or better than 

one-half of the required system 

accuracy. For example, if a temperature 

CPMS is required to have an accuracy 

of 1 °C, the required resolution for the 

CPMS would be 0.5 °C, or better. 

4. Accuracy 

The accuracy criteria for CPMS, 

which are a function of the parameter 

that is measured by the CPMS, are 

described in detail in section II.E of this 

document. 

For devices or instruments that are 

used to validate or check the initial 

accuracy of a temperature, pressure, or 

flow CPMS, PS–17 generally would 

require an accuracy hierarchy of three. 

In other words, the ratio of the required 

accuracy of the CPMS to the accuracy of 

the calibrated validation device would 

have to be at least three. For example, 

if the required accuracy of a temperature 

CPMS is ±1.0 percent, to satisfy the 

accuracy hierarchy of three criterion, 

the calibrated validation device would 

need an accuracy of ±0.33 percent or 

better (1.0 ÷ 0.33 = 3). A CPMS with an 

accuracy of 0.25 percent would satisfy 

the accuracy hierarchy criterion, but a 

CPMS with an accuracy of 0.5 percent 

would not satisfy the accuracy hierarchy 

criterion in this example. The accuracy 

of the equipment used to validate the 

CPMS also would have to be traceable 

to National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) standards. We have 

incorporated into the proposed PS–17 

two exceptions to the accuracy 

requirements for instruments that are 

used to validate CPMS. First, a mercuryin-glass or water-in-glass U-tube 

manometer could be used instead of a 

calibrated pressure measurement device 

with NIST-traceable accuracy when 

validating a pressure CPMS or a flow 

CPMS that uses a differential pressure 

flow meter. Secondly, for instruments 

and reagents that are used to validate a 

pH CPMS, the performance 

specification would require NISTtraceable accuracy of 0.02 pH units or 

better, rather than an accuracy hierarchy 

of three. 

5. Installation 

The PS–17 would require each CPMS 

sensor to be located so as to provide 

representative measurements of the 

appropriate parameter. The proposed 

PS–17 also lists voluntary consensus 

standards that could serve as guidelines 

for installing specific types of sensors. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, such as the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) or the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME). 

If required to install a flow CPMS and 

the sensor of the flow CPMS is a 

differential pressure device, turbine 

flow meter, rotameter, vortex formation 

flow meter or Coriolis mass flow meter, 

PS–17 would allow one of the following 

standards to be used as guidance: (1) 

ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement 

of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, 

Nozzle, and Venturi’’; (2) ANSI/ASME 

MFC–7M–1987 (R2001), ‘‘Measurement 

of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow 

Venturi Nozzles’’; (3) ANSI/ISA RP 

31.1–1977, ‘‘Recommended Practice: 

Specification, Installation, and 

Calibration of Turbine Flowmeters’’; (4) 

ANSI/ASME MFC 4M–1986 (R2003), 

‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine 

Meters’’ (if used for gas flow 

measurement); (5) ISA RP 16.5–1961, 

‘‘Installation, Operation, and 

Maintenance Instructions for Glass Tube 

Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)’’; (6) 

ISO 10790:1999(E), ‘‘Measurement of 

Fluid Flow in Closed ConduitsGuidance to the Selection, Installation 

and Use of Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, 

Density and Volume Flow 

Measurements); or (7) ANSI/ASME 

MFC–6M–1998 (R2005) ‘‘Measurement 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59964 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Vortex 

Flow Meters’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). 

There are also several voluntary 

consensus standards that can be used as 

alternative methods for checking the 

accuracy of specific types of CPMS 

sensors. Prior to validating the 

performance of a CPMS, owners and 

operators would be required to install 

work platforms, test ports, taps, valves, 

or any other equipment needed to 

perform the initial validation check. 

6. CPMS Validation 

Under this proposed rule, we would 

require owners and operators of affected 

CPMS to demonstrate that affected 

CPMS meet a minimum overall system 

accuracy. Several methods are specified 

for checking CPMS accuracy, and 

owners and operators of affected CPMS 

could choose among the methods 

specified for each type of CPMS. These 

validation methods generally would 

involve either: (1) Comparing 

measurements made by the affected 

CPMS to measurements made by a 

calibrated measurement device, or (2) 

simulating the signal generated by the 

CPMS sensor using a calibrated 

simulation device. Table 5 of this 

preamble lists the CPMS validation 

methods specified in the proposed PS– 

17 and their applicability. As part of 

specific validation methods, the 

proposed PS–17 specifies several 

voluntary consensus standards as 

alternative methods for checking sensor 

accuracy. 

TABLE 5—CPMS INITIAL VALIDATION METHODS

If your CPMS measures . . . You can validate your CPMS by . . . If the sensor of your CPMS is . . . 

1. Temperature ................................................... a. Comparison to a calibrated temperature 

measurement device.

Thermocouple, RTD, or any other type of 

temperature sensor. 

b. Temperature simulation ............................... Thermocouple, RTD, or any other type of sensor that generates an electronic signal that 

can be related to temperature magnitude. 

2. Pressure ......................................................... a. Comparison to a calibrated pressure measurement device.Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any 

other type of pressure sensor. 

b. Pressure simulation procedure using a calibrated pressure source.Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any 

other type of pressure sensor. 

c. Pressure simulation using a pressure 

source and a calibrated pressure measurement device.

Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any 

other type of pressure sensor. 

3. Liquid flow rate ............................................... a. Volumetric method ....................................... Any type of liquid flow meter. 

b. Gravimetric method ..................................... Any type of liquid flow meter. 

c. Differential pressure measurement method Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter. 

d. Pressure source flow simulation method .... Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter. 

e. Electronic signal simulation method ............ Turbine flow meter, vortex shedding flow 

meter, or any other type of liquid flow meter 

that generates an electronic signal that can 

be related to flow rate magnitude. 

4. Gas flow rate .................................................. a. Differential pressure measurement method Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of 

differential pressure gas flow meter other 

than a differential pressure tube. 

b. Pressure source flow simulation method .... Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of 

differential pressure gas flow meter other 

than a differential pressure tube. 

c. Electronic signal simulation method ............ Any type of gas flow meter that generates an 

electronic signal that can be related to flow 

rate magnitude. 

d. Relative accuracy test ................................. Any type of gas flow meter. 

5. Liquid mass flow rate ..................................... Gravimetric method .......................................... Any type of liquid flow meter. 

6. Solid mass flow rate ....................................... a. Gravimetric method ..................................... Any type of solid mass flow meter. 

b. Material weight comparison method ............ Belt conveyor with weigh scale, equipped with 

a totalizer. 

7. pH ................................................................... a. Comparison to calibrated pH meter ............ Any type of pH meter. 

b. Single point calibration ................................ Any type of pH meter. 

8. Conductivity .................................................... a. Comparison to calibrated conductivity 

meter.

Any type of conductivity meter. 

b. Single point calibration ................................ Any type of conductivity meter. 

7. Temperature CPMS Validation 

Under this proposed rule, the 

performance of a temperature CPMS 

could be validated by comparing 

measured values to a calibrated 

temperature measurement device or by 

simulating a typical operating 

temperature using a calibrated 

temperature simulation device. When 

the calibrated temperature measurement 

device method is used, the sensor of the 

calibrated device would have to be 

located adjacent to the CPMS sensor and 

must be subjected to the same 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59965 

environmental conditions as the CPMS 

sensor. In addition, the measurements 

made using the CPMS and calibrated 

temperature measurement device would 

have to be concurrent. The method is 

based on ASTM E 220–07e1, ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Calibration of 

Thermocouples by Comparison 

Techniques’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). 

An alternative method for 

thermocouples is ASTM E 452–02 

(2007), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Calibration of Refractory Metal 

Thermocouples Using an Optical 

Pyrometer’’ and an alternative method 

for resistance temperature detectors is 

ASTM E 644–06, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Testing Industrial 

Resistance Thermometers’’ 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17). 

8. Pressure CPMS Validation 

To validate the performance of a 

pressure CPMS, owners and operators 

could choose from one of three 

methods: (1) Comparison to a calibrated 

pressure measurement device, (2) 

pressure simulation using a calibrated 

pressure source, or (3) pressure 

simulation using a pressure source and 

calibrated pressure measurement 

device. Prior to performing the initial 

validation check of a pressure CPMS, 

PS–17 would require a leak test on all 

connections between the process line 

that is monitored, the CPMS, and the 

calibrated device that is used as the 

basis for comparison. If the calibrated 

pressure measurement device 

comparison were used, the 

measurements by the CPMS and 

calibrated device would have to be 

concurrent. 

As an alternative to the initial 

validation check, PS–17 would allow 

the user to check the accuracy of the 

pressure sensor associated with the 

pressure CPMS using one of the 

following methods: (1) ASME B40.100– 

2005, ‘‘Pressure Gauges and Gauge 

Attachments’’ or (2) ASTM E 251–92 

(2003), ‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Performance Characteristics of Metallic 

Bonded Resistance Strain Gages’’ 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17). 

Users would also be required to check 

the accuracy of the overall CPMS. 

9. Flow CPMS Validation 

Under the proposed PS–17, the 

performance of a flow CPMS could be 

validated using one of seven methods. 

However, none of the methods could be 

applied universally to all types of flow 

CPMS; there would be limitations on 

the use of each specific method. The 

volumetric method, which could be 

used to validate any liquid flow rate 

measurement device, would entail 

collecting a volume of liquid for a timed 

period, then calculating the flow rate 

based on the volume collected and the 

length of the time period over which the 

liquid was collected. The gravimetric 

method is similar to the volumetric 

method except that the material 

collected would be weighed. The 

gravimetric method could be used to 

validate any liquid flow CPMS, liquid 

mass flow CPMS, and solid mass flow 

CPMS. Liquid mass flow rates and solid 

mass flow rates would be calculated 

based on the weight of the liquid or 

solid and the length of the time period 

over which the liquid or solid was 

collected. Liquid flow rate would be 

calculated based on the weight and 

density of the liquid and the length of 

the time period over which the liquid 

was collected. 

The volumetric and gravimetric 

methods are based on voluntary 

consensus standards and could be used 

to validate liquid flow CPMS. Both 

methods are described in the following 

standards: (1) ISA RP 16.6–1961, 

‘‘Methods and Equipment for 

Calibration of Variable Area Meters 

(Rotameters)’’; (2) ISA RP 31.1–1977, 

‘‘Specification, Installation, and 

Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’; 

and (3) ISO 8316:1987, ‘‘Measurement 

of Liquid Flow in Closed ConduitsMethod by Collection of Liquid in a 

Volumetric Tank’’ (incorporated by 

reference-see § 60.17). The gravimetric 

method also is described in the 

following standards: (1) ANSI/ASME 

MFC–9M–1988, ‘‘Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by 

Weighing Method’’; and (2) ASHRAE 

41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard Methods of 

Measurement of Flow of Liquids in 

Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’ 

(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17). 

The gravimetric method also could be 

used to validate liquid mass flow or 

solid mass flow CPMS. 

The differential pressure 

measurement method and the pressure 

source flow simulation method could be 

used to validate any flow CPMS that 

uses a differential pressure 

measurement flow device, such as an 

orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi 

tube. Both methods would entail 

measuring the differential pressure 

across a flow constriction, then 

calculating the corresponding flow rate 

based on the measured differential 

pressure using the manufacturer’s 

literature or the procedures specified in 

ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement 

of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, 

Nozzle, and Venturi’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17), the 

characteristics of the liquid, and the 

dimensions and design of the flow 

constriction. For CPMS that use an 

orifice flow meter, the flow rate can be 

calculated using procedures specified in 

ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard 

Methods of Measurement of Flow of 

Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice 

Flowmeters’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). 

In addition, prior to the validation 

check, both methods would require a 

leak test on all connections associated 

with the process line, CPMS, and 

pressure connections. Neither the 

differential pressure measurement 

method nor the pressure source flow 

simulation method could be used to 

validate a gas flow CPMS that uses one 

or more differential pressure tubes as 

the flow sensor. A differential pressure 

tube is defined as a device, such as a 

pitot tube, that consists of one or more 

pairs of tubes that are oriented to 

measure the velocity pressure and static 

pressure at one of more fixed points 

within a duct for the purpose of 

determining gas velocity. 

The electronic signal simulation 

method could be used to validate any 

flow CPMS that operates with a sensor 

that generates an electronic signal, 

provided the electronic signal can be 

simulated and is related to the 

magnitude of the flow rate. Examples of 

this type of flow sensor are turbine 

meters and vortex shedding flow meters. 

The electronic signal simulation method 

would entail simulating an electronic 

signal using a calibrated signal 

simulator, then calculating the flow rate 

that corresponds to the value of the 

simulated signal. 

Owners or operators of flow CPMS 

that are used for monitoring gas flow 

rate could validate their CPMS by 

performing a relative accuracy (RA) test 

using Reference Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 

2D, or 2F (40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A– 

2). The RA test is the only method 

specified in the proposed PS–17 for 

validating a gas flow CPMS that 

incorporates a differential pressure tube. 

Finally, the material weight 

comparison method could be used to 

validate a solid mass flow CPMS that 

uses a combination belt conveyor and 

weigh scale equipped with a totalizer. 

The method is based on the BeltConveyor Scale Systems Method, which 

is described in NIST Handbook 44— 

2002 Edition, ‘‘Specifications, 

Tolerances, And Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17) as adopted by 

the 86th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures in 2001. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59966 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

10. pH CPMS Validation 

To validate the performance of a pH 

CPMS, two methods are specified in the 

proposed PS–17. In the first method, the 

pH measured by the CPMS would be 

compared to the pH measured by a 

calibrated pH meter. In the second 

method, the single point calibration 

method, the value measured by the 

CPMS would be compared to the pH 

measurement of a certified buffer 

solution. If the CPMS did not satisfy the 

accuracy requirement, a two-point 

calibration method, based on ASTM D 

1293–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for pH of Water’’ (incorporated 

by reference—see § 60.17), would be 

suggested. 

11. Conductivity CPMS Validation 

The proposed PS–17 would specify 

two methods for validating conductivity 

CPMS. The two methods parallel the 

methods for validating pH CPMS: 

comparison to a calibrated conductivity 

meter and the single point calibration 

method using a standard conductivity 

solution. 

If the conductivity CPMS did not 

satisfy the accuracy requirement, 

calibration based on the procedures 

specified in the manufacturer’s owner’s 

manual would be suggested. If the 

manufacturer’s owner’s manual does not 

specify a calibration procedure, 

calibration should be performed based 

on one of the following standards: (1) 

ASTM D 1125–95 (2005), ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity 

and Resistivity of Water’’; or (2) ASTM 

D 5391–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Electrical conductivity and 

Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity 

Water Sample’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). 

12. Alternative Methods of CPMS 

Validation 

Owners and operators of affected 

CPMS could have the option of using 

alternative methods for validating their 

CPMS, provided the alternative method 

has been approved by us or by a 

delegated authority. In all cases, owners 

and operators of affected CPMS would 

be required to take corrective action if 

the initial validation check indicates 

that the CPMS does not satisfy the 

accuracy requirement. Alternative 

monitoring methods are addressed 

under the General Provisions to parts 

60, 61, and 63 in §§ 60.13(i), 61.14(g), 

and 63.8(f), respectively. Alternative 

monitoring methods also are addressed 

in the applicable subparts for each rule. 

E. What initial performance criteria 

must be demonstrated to comply with 

PS–17? 

Owners or operators of affected CPMS 

would be required to demonstrate that 

their CPMS meet a minimum system 

accuracy. Table 6 of this preamble 

summarizes the required accuracies. 

These minimum accuracies would 

pertain to the overall CPMS and not 

simply the sensor. 

TABLE 6—ACCURACY CRITERIA FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK

If the CPMS measures . . . The accuracy criteria for the initial validation check are . . . 

1. Temperature (in a non-cryogenic environment).System accuracy of ±1.0 percent of the temperature or 2.8 °C (5 °F), whichever is greater. 

2. Temperature (in a cryogenic environment) .... System accuracy of ±2.5 percent of the temperature or 2.8 °C (5 °F), whichever is greater. 

3. Pressure ......................................................... System accuracy of ±5 percent or 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), whichever is greater. 

4. Liquid flow rate ............................................... System accuracy of ±5 percent or 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min), whichever is greater. 

5. Gas flow rate .................................................. a. Relative accuracy of ±20 percent, if the relative accuracy test is used to demonstrate compliance, OR. 

b. System accuracy of ±10 percent, if the CPMS measures steam flow rate, OR. 

c. System accuracy of ±5 percent or 280 L/min (10 ft3/min), whichever is greater, for all other 

gases and validation test methods. 

6. Mass flow rate ................................................ System accuracy of ±5 percent. 

7. pH ................................................................... System accuracy of 0.2 pH units. 

8. Conductivity .................................................... System accuracy percentage of ±5 percent. 

In most cases, the required accuracies 

are expressed both as accuracy 

percentages and as accuracy values; for 

a specific parameter value, the accuracy 

criterion that results in the greater value 

would apply (i.e., the less stringent 

criterion would apply). For example, for 

liquid flow rate, the accuracy percentage 

would be ±5 percent, and the accuracy 

value would be 1.9 liters per minute (L/ 

min) (0.5 gallons per minute (gal/min)). 

If the actual flow rate were 30 L/min 

(7.9 gal/min), the accuracy percentage 

criterion would result in a value of 1.5 

L/min (0.4 gal/min). Therefore, the 

accuracy value criterion of 1.9 L/min 

(0.5 gal/min) would apply because 1.9 

L/min is greater than 1.5 L/min. 

For temperature CPMS, the proposed 

PS–17 would make a distinction 

between cryogenic and non-cryogenic 

environments; cryogenic environments 

are those characterized by a temperature 

less than 0 °C (32 °F), and non-cryogenic 

environments are those with a 

temperature of at least 0 °C (32 °F). The 

minimum accuracy for a temperature 

CPMS used in a non-cryogenic 

application would be the greater of ±1.0 

percent of the temperature measured on 

the Celsius scale (°C) and ±2.8 °C (5 °F). 

For example, for a temperature CPMS 

that is used to monitor a thermal 

oxidizer operating at 760 °C (1400 °F), 

the 1 percent accuracy criterion would 

require the CPMS to be accurate to 

within ±7.6 °C (±14 °F). Because 7.6 °C 

(±14 °F) is greater than 2.8 °C (5 °F), the 

1 percent accuracy criterion would 

apply. The minimum accuracy of a 

temperature CPMS used in a cryogenic 

application would be ±2.8 °C (5 °F) or 

±2.5 percent of the temperature 

measured on the Celsius scale, 

whichever is greater. For a temperature 

CPMS that is used to monitor a 

condenser operating with an outlet 

temperature of ¥12 °C (10 °F), the 

temperature value criterion would 

apply; the CPMS would have to be 

accurate to ±2.8 °C (±5 °F) because 2.8 

°C (5 °F) is greater than 2.5 percent of 

¥12 °C (10 °F), which is ±0.3 °C (±0.5 

°F). These criteria translate to the 

accuracies listed in Table 7 of this 

preamble. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59967 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF TEMPERATURE CPMS ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS

For temperatures that are . . . The required temperature 

CPMS accuracy is . . . 

1. Greater than 280 °C (540 °F) .............................................................................................................................. ±1 percent of temperature. 

2. Between ¥112 and 280 °C (¥170 and 540 °F) ................................................................................................. ±2.8 °C (5 °F). 

3. Less than ¥112 °C (¥170 °F) ............................................................................................................................ ±2.5 percent of temperature. 

The proposed PS–17 would require 

pressure CPMS to be accurate to within 

±5 percent or 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), 

whichever is greater. For example, a 

CPMS that is used to monitor a venturi 

scrubber with a pressure drop of 7.5 kPa 

(30 in. wc) would have to be accurate 

to 0.37 kPa (1.5 in. wc) or better, based 

on the ±5 percent criterion because 0.37 

kPa (1.5 in. wc) is greater than 0.12 kPa 

(0.5 in. wc). On the other hand, the 

required accuracy for a CPMS that 

monitored a pressure drop of 1.0 kPa (4 

in. wc) across a fabric filter would be 

0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc), or better, because 

the ±5 percent criterion would result in 

an accuracy of 0.05 kPa (0.2 in. wc). 

The required accuracy for flow CPMS 

would depend on the material that is 

being monitored. For liquid flow rate 

CPMS, the minimum accuracy would be 

1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or ±5 percent, 

whichever is greater. For example, to 

monitor a scrubber liquid flow rate of 

300 L/min (80 gal/min), the required 

CPMS accuracy would be 15 L/min (4 

gal/min) or better. For gas flow rate 

CPMS, PS–17 would require a minimum 

accuracy of 280 L/min (10 cubic feet per 

minute (ft3/min)) or ±5 percent, 

whichever is greater. Therefore, a fuel 

flow meter on a natural gas-fired 8 

MMBtu/hr incinerator with a gas flow 

rate of 3,700 L/min (130 ft3/min) would 

have to be accurate to 280 L/min (10 ft3/ 

min) or better. An exception to these 

accuracy requirements for flow meters 

would apply if an RA test is used to 

validate a gas flow CPMS. In such cases, 

the required RA would be 20 percent of 

the mean value of the reference method 

test data, or better. An exception to the 

gas flow CPMS accuracy requirements 

would also apply for steam flow rate 

CPMS. The proposed PS–17 stipulates 

the minimum accuracy for a CPMS that 

is used for monitoring steam flow rate 

would have to be ±10 percent or better. 

The minimum accuracy specified in the 

proposed PS–17 for mass flow CPMS 

would be ±5 percent. We would require 

pH CPMS to be accurate to within ±0.2 

pH units. Finally, conductivity CPMS 

would have to be accurate to ±5 percent. 

F. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for PS–17? 

The proposed PS–17 does not specify 

reporting requirements but would 

require owners and operators of affected 

CPMS to record and maintain 

information that identifies the CPMS, 

including the location of the CPMS, 

identification number assigned by the 

owner or operator, the manufacturer’s 

name and model number, and the 

typical operating range for each 

parameter that is monitored. In 

addition, owners and operators of 

affected CPMS would be required to 

document performance demonstrations. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Procedure 4 

A. What is the purpose of Procedure 4? 

The proposed Procedure 4 would 

have two primary purposes. First, the 

procedure would be used for evaluating 

the quality of data produced by CPMS 

on an ongoing basis. Second, the 

procedure would help evaluate the 

effectiveness of the QA and quality 

control (QC) programs that owners and 

operators develop for CPMS. As 

proposed, Procedure 4 would apply 

instead of the requirements for 

evaluating the operation and quality of 

the data produced by CPMS specified in 

an applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or 

63 that requires the use of CPMS for 

monitoring temperature, pressure, flow 

rate, pH, or conductivity. 

B. Who must comply with Procedure 4? 

This procedure would apply to any 

CPMS that is subject to PS–17. That is, 

any owner or operator who would be 

required under an applicable subpart to 

parts 60, 61, or 63 to install and operate 

a CPMS that is used to monitor 

temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or 

conductivity would be subject to both 

PS–17 and Procedure 4. 

C. When must owners or operators of 

affected CPMS comply with Procedure 

4? 

Owners and operators of affected 

CPMS would have to comply with 

Procedure 4 when they install and place 

into operation a CPMS that is subject to 

PS–17 or when an existing CPMS 

becomes subject to PS–17. 

D. What are the basic requirements of 

Procedure 4? 

The proposed Procedure 4 would 

require owners or operators to perform 

periodic accuracy audits, perform visual 

inspections and other operational 

checks, and develop and implement a 

QA/QC program for each affected 

CPMS. The technical rationales for 

specific proposed requirements of 

Procedure 4 are described in section IX 

of this document. 

1. Accuracy Audits 

The requirements for periodic 

accuracy audits would consist of 

equipment requirements and procedural 

requirements. As is the case for 

equipment used to perform initial 

validations under the proposed PS–17, 

the specific equipment required to 

perform an accuracy audit would 

depend on the type of CPMS and the 

method selected for evaluating the 

accuracy of the CPMS. However, all 

such equipment would have to be 

calibrated and would have to meet the 

same two general requirements for 

accuracy: (1) An accuracy hierarchy of 

at least three, and (2) an accuracy that 

is NIST-traceable. 

We have incorporated into the 

proposed Procedure 4 three exceptions 

to the accuracy requirements for 

instruments that are used to audit the 

accuracy of CPMS: (1) When performing 

an accuracy audit using a redundant 

sensor, the redundant sensor would 

have to have an accuracy equal to or 

better than the accuracy of your primary 

sensor; (2) a mercury-in-glass or waterin-glass U-tube manometer could be 

used instead of a calibrated pressure 

measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy when auditing the 

accuracy of a pressure CPMS or a flow 

CPMS that uses a differential pressure 

flow meter; and (3) when performing an 

accuracy audit of a flow CPMS using the 

volumetric or gravimetric methods, the 

container that is used to collect the 

liquid or solid material would not be 

required to have NIST-traceable 

accuracy. 

The procedural requirements for 

performing accuracy audits of a CPMS 

would depend on the type of CPMS. 

Owners or operators of affected CPMS 

generally could choose among several 

methods for performing CPMS accuracy 

audits. Many of these methods are 

identical to the methods for performing 

the initial validation check of CPMS, as 

specified in the proposed PS–17 and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59968 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

described in section III.D of this 

document. However, one significant 

difference between the initial validation 

methods specified in the proposed PS– 

17 and the accuracy audit methods 

specified in the proposed Procedure 4 is 

that the accuracy audit methods would 

require you to check the accuracy of 

each primary sensor, either separately or 

as part of the overall system accuracy 

audit. For PS–17, we assumed that 

newly installed sensors are calibrated, 

and a separate check of sensor accuracy 

would be unnecessary. However, for 

assessing ongoing QA, affected owners 

and operators would be required to 

perform accuracy audits on CPMS that 

have been in service, and the audit 

procedure would have to verify that the 

entire system, including the sensor, 

meets the accuracy criteria. Table 8 of 

this document lists the CPMS accuracy 

audit methods specified in the proposed 

Procedure 4 and the associated 

applicability. 

TABLE 8—ACCURACY AUDIT METHODS

If your CPMS measures . . . You can perform the accuracy audit of your 

CPMS by . . . If the sensor of your CPMS is . . . 

1. Temperature ................................................... a. Comparison to redundant temperature 

CPMS.

Any type of temperature sensor. 

b. Comparison to calibrated temperature 

measurement device.

Thermocouple, RTD, or any other type of 

temperature sensor. 

c. Separate sensor check and system check 

by temperature simulation.

Thermocouple or RTD. 

2. Pressure ......................................................... a. Comparison to redundant pressure sensor. Any type of pressure sensor. 

b. Comparison to calibrated pressure measurement device.Pressure transducer, pressure gauge, or any 

other type of pressure sensor. 

c. Separate sensor check and system check 

by pressure simulation using a calibrated 

pressure source.

Pressure gauge or metallic-bonded resistance 

strain gauge. 

d. Separate sensor check and system check 

by pressure simulation using a pressure 

source and a calibrated pressure measurement device.

Pressure gauge or metallic-bonded resistance 

strain gauge. 

3. Liquid flow rate ............................................... a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........ Any type of liquid flow meter. 

b. Volumetric method ....................................... Any type of liquid flow meter. 

c. Gravimetric method ...................................... Any type of liquid flow meter. 

d. Separate sensor check and system check 

by differential pressure measurement method.

Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter. 

e. Separate sensor check and system check 

by pressure source flow simulation method.

Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or other type of differential pressure liquid flow meter. 

4. Gas flow rate .................................................. a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........ Any type of gas flow meter. 

b. Separate sensor check and system check 

by differential pressure measurement method.

Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of 

differential pressure gas flow meter other 

than a differential pressure tube. 

c. Separate sensor check and system check 

by pressure source flow simulation method.

Orifice plate, flow nozzle, or any other type of 

differential pressure gas flow meter. 

d. Relative accuracy test ................................. Any type of gas flow meter. 

5. Liquid mass flow rate ..................................... a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........ Any type of liquid mass flow meter. 

b. Gravimetric method ..................................... Any type of liquid mass flow meter. 

6. Solid mass flow rate ....................................... a. Comparison to redundant flow sensor ........ Any type of liquid mass flow meter. 

b. Gravimetric method ..................................... Any type of solid mass flow meter. 

c. Material weight comparison method ............ Combination belt conveyor, weigh scale, and 

totalizer. 

7. pH ................................................................... a. Comparison to redundant pH meter ............ Any type of pH meter. 

b. Comparison to calibrated pH meter ............ Any type of pH meter. 

c. Single point calibration ................................. Any type of pH meter. 

8. Conductivity .................................................... a. Comparison to redundant conductivity 

meter.

Any type of conductivity meter. 

b. Comparison to calibrated conductivity 

meter.

Any type of conductivity meter. 

c. Single point calibration ................................. Any type of conductivity meter. 

2. Temperature CPMS Accuracy Audit 

Methods 

To perform an accuracy audit of a 

temperature CPMS, owners and 

operators of affected CPMS could 

choose from three methods. The first 

method would apply to CPMS with 

redundant temperature sensors and 

would entail comparing the temperature 

measured by the primary sensor of your 

CPMS to that of the redundant 

temperature sensor. The second method 

would consist of comparing the 

temperature measured by the CPMS to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59969 

a separate calibrated temperature 

measurement device. The third method 

would require checking the temperature 

sensor independent of the other 

components of the CPMS. The 

temperature sensor could be checked 

using methods specified in any of the 

following voluntary consensus 

standards: (1) ASTM E 220–07e1, 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for Calibration 

of Thermocouples by Comparison 

Techniques’’ (for thermocouples); (2) 

ASTM E 452–02 (2007), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Calibration of Refractory 

Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical 

Pyrometer’’ (for thermocouples); or (3) 

ASTM E 644–06, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Testing Industrial 

Resistance Thermometers’’ (for 

resistance temperature detectors) 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17). 

The other components of the CPMS 

could be checked by simulating a 

temperature, then comparing the 

temperature recorded by the CPMS to 

the simulated temperature. Because the 

voluntary consensus standards specified 

in the proposed Procedure 4 would 

apply only to thermocouples and 

resistance temperature detectors (RTDs), 

this accuracy audit method would apply 

only to CPMS that use those types of 

temperature sensors. 

3. Pressure CPMS Accuracy Audit 

Methods 

For an accuracy audit of a pressure 

CPMS, the proposed Procedure 4 would 

specify four methods. The first method 

would apply to CPMS with redundant 

pressure sensors and would entail 

comparing the pressure measured by the 

primary pressure sensor of your CPMS 

to the pressure measured by the 

redundant pressure sensor. The second 

method would consist of comparing the 

pressure measured by your CPMS to the 

pressure measured by a separate 

calibrated pressure measurement 

device. The other two methods would 

involve checking the accuracies of the 

pressure sensor independent of the 

other components of the CPMS. For 

checking sensor accuracy, the proposed 

Procedure 4 would reference voluntary 

consensus standards. Because we were 

able to identify voluntary consensus 

standards only for pressure gauges 

(ASME B40.100–2005, ‘‘Pressure Gauges 

and Gauge Attachments’’) and metallicbonded resistance strain gauges (ASTM 

E 251–92 (2003), ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Performance Characteristics 

of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain 

Gages’’) (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17), these other two pressure CPMS 

accuracy audit methods would apply 

only to CPMS that use pressure gauge or 

metallic-bonded resistance strain gauge 

sensors. 

After checking sensor accuracy, the 

accuracy of the other components of the 

CPMS could be checked by either: (1) 

Pressure simulation using a calibrated 

pressure source, or (2) pressure 

simulation using a pressure source and 

a calibrated pressure measurement 

device. In either method, a simulated 

pressure would be compared to a 

calibrated pressure to determine 

accuracy. 

4. Liquid Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit 

Methods 

To perform an accuracy audit of a 

liquid flow CPMS, five methods are 

specified in the proposed Procedure 4. 

As is the case with other types of CPMS, 

owners and operators of affected CPMS 

could choose among the methods 

specified. The first method would apply 

to CPMS with redundant flow sensors 

and would entail comparing the flow 

rate measured by the primary flow 

sensor of your CPMS to the flow rate 

measured by the redundant flow sensor. 

The next two methods—the volumetric 

and gravimetric methods—are the same 

methods as specified for the initial 

CPMS validation in the proposed PS–17 

and described in section III.D of this 

document. The volumetric and 

gravimetric methods are based on 

voluntary consensus standards and 

could be used to validate liquid flow 

CPMS. Both methods are described in 

the following standards: (1) ISA RP 

16.6–1961, ‘‘Methods and Equipment 

for Calibration of Variable Area Meters 

(Rotameters)’’; (2) ISA RP 31.1–1977, 

‘‘Specification, Installation, and 

Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’; (3) 

ISO 10790:1999, ‘‘Measurement of Fluid 

Flow in Closed Conduits—Guidance to 

the Selection, Installation and Use of 

Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and 

Volume Flow Measurements)’’; and (4) 

ISO 8316:1987, ‘‘Measurement of Liquid 

Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by 

Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric 

Tank’’ (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17). The gravimetric method also is 

described in the following standards: (1) 

ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988, 

‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed 

Conduits by Weighing Method’’; and (2) 

ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard 

Methods of Measurement of Flow of 

Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice 

Flowmeters’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). The gravimetric 

method also could be used to validate 

liquid mass flow or solid mass flow 

CPMS. 

For liquid flow CPMS that use a 

differential pressure meter, such as an 

orifice plate, venturi tube, or flow 

nozzle, two accuracy audit methods are 

specified in the proposed Procedure 4. 

Both of these methods would require a 

separate visual inspection of the flow 

constriction and a check of the accuracy 

of the other components of the system. 

The accuracy of the other components 

would have to be checked by pressure 

simulation, using either a calibrated 

differential pressure source or a 

differential pressure source in 

combination with a calibrated 

differential pressure measurement 

device. The required pressure drop that 

corresponds to the normal operating 

flow rate expected for the flow CPMS 

can be calculated using ASME MFC– 

3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow 

in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and 

Venturi’’ (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 60.17). For CPMS that use an orifice 

flow meter, the pressure drop can be 

calculated using ASHRAE 41.8–1989, 

‘‘Standard Methods of Measurement of 

Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice 

Flowmeters’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). 

5. Gas Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit 

Methods 

The proposed Procedure 4 specifies 

four methods for checking the accuracy 

of a gas flow CPMS. One method would 

entail comparison to a redundant flow 

sensor and could be used with any gas 

flow CPMS. Two methods would apply 

only to gas flow CPMS that incorporate 

differential pressure meters. These are 

the same two methods that would apply 

to differential pressure liquid flow 

meter systems described in the previous 

paragraph. The final method specified 

in the proposed Procedure 4 for 

checking the accuracy of a gas flow 

CPMS is the RA test using Reference 

Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–1), or 2G (40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–2). This is the 

only method specified in Procedure 4 

that could be used to check the accuracy 

of gas flow CPMS that use differential 

flow tubes. 

6. Mass Flow CPMS Accuracy Audit 

Methods 

The accuracy of CPMS that measure 

either liquid mass flow or solid mass 

flow could be checked using the 

redundant sensor method and the 

gravimetric method, both of which are 

described in the previous section for 

liquid flow CPMS. The same two 

methods could be used for checking the 

accuracy of solid mass flow CPMS. The 

accuracy of solid mass flow CPMS also 

could be evaluated using the material 

weight comparison method, which is 

based on the Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems Method, described in NIST 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59970 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Handbook 44—2002 Edition, 

‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing 

and Measuring Devices’’ (incorporated 

by reference—see § 60.17), as adopted 

by the 86th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures in 2001. 

7. pH CPMS Accuracy Audit Methods 

To check the accuracy of pH CPMS, 

owners and operators of affected CPMS 

could choose between three methods: 

(1) Comparison to a redundant pH 

sensor, (2) comparison to a calibrated 

pH meter calibrated according to ASTM 

D1293–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for pH of Water’’ (incorporated 

by reference—see § 60.17), and (3) single 

point calibration. The redundant sensor 

method would require you to compare 

the pH measured by the primary pH 

sensor of your pH CPMS to that of a 

redundant pH sensor. The other two 

methods are the same as specified in the 

proposed PS–17 for the initial 

validation check. 

8. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy Audit 

Methods 

The proposed Procedure 4 specifies 

three methods for checking the accuracy 

of a conductivity CPMS. These methods 

(comparison to redundant conductivity 

sensor, comparison to calibrated 

conductivity meter, and single point 

calibration) are based on the same 

principles as the methods specified for 

pH CPMS accuracy audits in this 

proposed rule. 

Calibration of the conductivity CPMS 

should be performed according to the 

manufacturer’s owner’s manual. If not 

specified, calibration must be performed 

based on one of the following standards: 

(1) ASTM D 1125–95 (2005), ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity 

and Resistivity of Water’’; or (2) ASTM 

D 5391–99 (2005), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Electrical Conductivity and 

Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity 

Water Sample’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). 

9. Other Operational Checks 

In addition to accuracy audits, owners 

or operators of affected CPMS that do 

not use redundant sensors would be 

required to perform visual inspections 

and other checks of the operation of 

each affected CPMS. These checks 

would include such activities as 

inspecting the physical appearance of 

the CPMS for damage or wear and 

checking the electrical components for 

corrosion. 

10. QA/QC Program 

The Procedure 4 would require CPMS 

owners or operators to develop QA/QC 

programs for each affected CPMS. The 

QA/QC programs would have to address 

procedures for accuracy audits, system 

calibration, preventive maintenance, 

recordkeeping, and corrective action. 

E. How often must accuracy audits and 

other QA/QC procedures be performed? 

Table 9 of this document summarizes 

the required frequencies for accuracy 

audits and other QA/QC procedures that 

would be required under the proposed 

Procedure 4. 

TABLE 9—FREQUENCY OF ACCURACY AUDITS AND OTHER QC PROCEDURES

If your CPMS measures . . . You must perform . . . At least . . . 

1. Temperature ................................................... a. Accuracy audits ........................................... i. Quarterly; AND 

ii. Following any period of more than 24 hours 

throughout which the temperature exceeded 

the maximum rated temperature of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. 

b. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS 

operation.

Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant 

temperature sensor. 

2. Pressure ......................................................... a. Accuracy audits ........................................... i. Quarterly; AND 

ii. Following any period of more than 24 hours 

throughout which the pressure exceeded 

the maximum rated pressure of the sensor, 

or the data recorder was off scale. 

b. Checks of all mechanical connections for 

leakage.

Monthly. 

c. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation.Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant 

pressure sensor. 

3. Flow rate (liquid, gas, mass) .......................... a. Accuracy audits ........................................... i. Quarterly; AND 

ii. Following any period of more than 24 hours 

throughout which the flow rate exceeded 

the maximum rated flow rate of the sensor, 

or the data recorder was off scale. 

b. Checks of all mechanical connections for 

leakage.

Monthly. 

c. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation.Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant 

flow sensor. 

4. pH ................................................................... a. Accuracy audits ........................................... Weekly. 

b. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS 

operation.

Monthly, unless the CPMS has a redundant 

pH sensor. 

5. Conductivity .................................................... a. Accuracy audits ........................................... Quarterly. 

b. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS 

operation.

Quarterly, unless the CPMS has a redundant 

conductivity sensor. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59971 

For affected CPMS that are used to 

monitor temperature, pressure, or flow 

rate, owners and operators would be 

required to perform accuracy audits on 

a quarterly basis. For pH CPMS, 

accuracy audits would have to be 

performed weekly, and, for conductivity 

CPMS, monthly accuracy audits would 

be required. In addition, for 

temperature, pressure, and flow CPMS, 

an accuracy audit would be required 

following any periods of 24 hours or 

more, throughout which either: (1) The 

measured value exceeded the operating 

limit for the sensor, based on the 

manufacturer’s recommendations, or (2) 

the parameter value remained off the 

scale of the CPMS data recorder. As an 

example of the first condition, consider 

a Type J thermocouple with a rated 

operating temperature limit of 760 °C 

(1400 °F). If a temperature CPMS that 

uses a Type J thermocouple records a 

temperature in excess of 760 °C (1400 °F) 

for more than 24 hours, an accuracy 

audit of the CPMS would have to be 

performed within 48 hours. 

Visual inspections and other 

operational checks of temperature, 

pressure, and flow CPMS would be 

required quarterly, unless the CPMS is 

equipped with a redundant sensor. In 

addition, mechanical connections 

associated with pressure or flow CPMS 

would have to be checked monthly for 

leakage. For pH and conductivity CPMS 

that are not equipped with redundant 

sensors, owners or operators of affected 

units would have to visually inspect 

and perform operational checks of the 

affected CPMS on a monthly basis. 

F. What are the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

Procedure 4? 

The proposed Procedure 4 does not 

specify reporting requirements but 

would require owners and operators of 

affected CPMS to maintain records of all 

accuracy audits and corrective actions 

taken to return the CPMS to normal 

operation. These records would have to 

be maintained for a period of at least 5 

years. For the first 2 years, the records 

would have to be kept onsite. 

V. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

to Procedure 1 

A. What is the purpose of the 

amendments? 

The purpose of the amendments to 

Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

F is to revise the procedure to address 

CEMS that must comply with PS–9 or 

PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). 

Procedure 1 was developed for CEMS 

that are used to monitor a single 

pollutant or diluent. As a result, there 

may be some questions on how to apply 

Procedure 1 to CEMS subject to PS–9 or 

PS–15 that measure more than one 

pollutant. In addition, both PS–9 and 

PS–15 partially specify ongoing QA 

procedures. By amending the QA 

procedure, we are clarifying what 

owners or operators of CEMS subject to 

PS–9 or PS–15 must do to comply with 

Procedure 1 to ensure the quality of the 

data produced by these CEMS. The 

technical rationale for proposed changes 

to Procedure 1 is discussed further in 

section X of this document. 

B. To whom do the amendments apply? 

The amendments to Procedure 1 (40 

CFR part 60, appendix F) would apply 

to owners or operators of CEMS that are 

subject to PS–9 or PS–15 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B) and are used to 

demonstrate compliance on a 

continuous basis. Several subparts to 

parts 60, 61, and 63 require that owners 

and operators of affected sources 

demonstrate that those sources are in 

continuous compliance with the 

applicable emission standard. Any such 

standard that requires the use of gas 

chromatographic CEMS subject to PS–9 

or extractive Fourier Transfer Infrared 

(FTIR) CEMS subject to PS–15 would 

also require compliance with Procedure 

1, and these proposed amendments to 

Procedure 1 would apply specifically to 

such sources. 

C. How do the amendments address 

CEMS that are subject to PS–9? 

These proposed amendments would 

address CEMS that are subject to PS–9 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) by 

clarifying that the procedure can be 

used for multiple-pollutant CEMS and 

by modifying the requirements for daily 

calibration drift (CD) and data accuracy 

assessments so that the procedure can 

be applied specifically to CEMS that are 

subject to PS–9. The proposed 

amendments to section 4.1.1 of 

Procedure 1 specify that the daily CD 

can be performed using any of the target 

pollutants that are monitored by the 

CEMS. For example, if a CEMS is 

subject to PS–9 and is used to monitor 

benzene and toluene, the CD check 

could be performed using either 

benzene or toluene. 

The PS–9 requires neither relative 

accuracy test audits (RATA’s) nor 

relative accuracy assessments (RAA’s). 

Instead, PS–9 requires cylinder gas 

audits (CGA’s) every calendar quarter. 

To address data accuracy assessments 

for CEMS subject to PS–9, the 

amendments would add section 5.1.5 to 

Procedure 1. The new section would 

specify that the requirements for 

RATA’s and RAA’s do not apply to 

CEMS subject to PS–9. Instead, 

quarterly CGA’s of each target pollutant 

would be required. The amendments 

further would specify that the quarterly 

CGA’s are to be performed according to 

the procedure described in PS–9, except 

that the CGA’s would have to be 

performed at two points rather than the 

single point requirement of PS–9. 

Finally, the amendments would clarify 

that the CGA’s performed under the 

revised Procedure 1 satisfy the quarterly 

performance audit requirement of PS–9. 

D. How do the amendments address 

CEMS that are subject to PS–15? 

These proposed amendments would 

address extractive FTIR CEMS that are 

subject to PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B) by modifying the 

requirements for checking daily CD, 

data recording, and data accuracy 

assessments so that the procedure could 

be applied specifically to CEMS that are 

subject to PS–15. The amendments also 

would clarify what constitutes excessive 

CD for CEMS subject to PS–15 and the 

criteria for determining when the CEMS 

is ‘‘out of control.’’ These modifications 

would be addressed in the amendments 

by adding sections 4.1.2, 4.3.3, 4.4.1, 

and 5.1.6 to Procedure 1. Proposed 

section 4.1.2 of Procedure 1 would 

specify that the daily CD requirement 

must be satisfied by performing a daily 

Calibration Transfer Standards (CTS) 

Check, Analyte Spike Check, and 

Background Deviation Check. For the 

specific procedures to be followed, the 

amendments would reference the 

appropriate sections of PS–15, which 

describe how to perform these system 

assessments. 

Proposed section 4.3.3 of Procedure 1 

would specify the criteria for 

determining when a CEMS subject to 

PS–15 is out of control. The CEMS 

would be out of control under either of 

two conditions. The first condition 

would occur when the CTS Check, 

Analyte Spike Check, or Background 

Deviation Check exceeds twice the drift 

specification of ±5 percent for five 

consecutive daily periods. The second 

condition would occur when the CTS 

Check, Analyte Spike Check, or 

Background Deviation Check exceeds 

four times the drift specification of ±5 

percent during any daily check. 

Proposed section 4.4.1 of Procedure 1 

would specify data storage criteria for 

CEMS subject to PS–15. In addition to 

the recordkeeping requirements 

specified in section 4.4 of Procedure 1, 

the proposed amended procedure would 

require owners or operators of affected 

CEMS to satisfy the data storage 

requirements of section 6.3 of PS–15. 

That is, the data storage system would 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59972 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

have to have capacity sufficient to store 

all data collected over the course of one 

week. The data would have to be stored 

on either a write-protected medium or 

to a password-protected remote storage 

location. 

Proposed section 5.1.6 of Procedure 1 

would specify the criteria for data 

accuracy assessments of CEMS subject 

to PS–15. Instead of requiring data 

accuracy assessments by RATA’s, 

CGA’s, or RAA’s, as required for other 

types of CEMS, the amended Procedure 

1 would require quarterly data accuracy 

assessments according to the three audit 

procedures specified in section 9 of PS– 

15. The Audit Sample Check, which is 

specified in section 9.1 of PS–15, would 

be required at least once every four 

calendar quarters. The Audit Spectra 

Check, which is specified in section 9.2 

of PS–15, could be used to satisfy the 

data accuracy assessment requirement 

no more than once every four calendar 

quarters. The Submit Audit for 

Independent Analysis, which is 

specified in section 9.3 of PS–15, could 

be used to satisfy the data accuracy 

assessment in no more than three of 

every four consecutive calendar 

quarters. Proposed section 5.1.6(3) of 

Procedure 1 also would stipulate that 

the data accuracy audits performed 

under the QA procedure satisfy the PS– 

15 requirement for quarterly or 

semiannual QA/QC checks on the 

operation of the CEMS. 

VI. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

to the General Provisions to Parts 60, 

61, and 63 

A. What is the purpose of the 

amendments to the General Provisions 

to parts 60, 61, and 63? 

The purpose of the proposed 

amendments to the General Provisions 

to parts 60, 61, and 63 is to ensure that 

the monitoring requirements specified 

in the General Provisions that apply to 

CPMS are consistent with the 

requirements in the proposed PS–17 

and Procedure 4 and the requirements 

specified in the applicable subparts that 

require the use of the CPMS that are 

affected by this proposed rule. 

B. What specific changes are we 

proposing to the General Provisions to 

parts 60, 61, and 63? 

These proposed amendments to the 

General Provisions to part 60 would 

redesignate § 60.13(a) as § 60.13(a)(1) 

and would add § 60.13(a)(2). The new 

paragraph would state that performance 

specifications and QA procedures for 

CPMS, promulgated under part 60, 

appendices B and F, respectively, apply 

instead of requirements for CPMS 

specified in applicable subparts to part 

60. 

These proposed amendments to the 

General Provisions to part 61 would 

redesignate § 61.14(a) as § 61.14(a)(1) 

and would add § 61.14(a)(2). The new 

paragraph would state that performance 

specifications and QA procedures for 

CPMS, promulgated under part 60, 

appendices B and F, respectively, apply 

instead of requirements for CPMS 

specified in applicable subparts to part 

61. 

These proposed amendments to the 

General Provisions to part 63 would 

make several changes to § 63.8(c). 

Section 63.8(a)(2) would be revised to 

include new paragraph § 63.8(a)(2)(ii). 

The new paragraph would state that 

performance specifications and QA 

procedures for CPMS, promulgated 

under part 60, appendices B and F, 

respectively, apply instead of the 

requirements for CPMS specified in 

applicable subparts to part 63. 

Under these proposed amendments, 

the installation requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(2) would apply to all CMS, 

including CPMS. 

Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses 

continuous operation and cycle time for 

CEMS and COMS. These proposed 

amendments would expand the 

requirement of § 63.8(c)(4) to require 

that all CPMS also must be in 

continuous operation. These proposed 

amendments also would add paragraph 

§ 63.8(c)(4)(iii) to require that all CPMS 

complete one cycle of operation within 

the time period specified in the 

applicable rule. 

Section 63.8(c)(6) addresses daily drift 

checks. In this proposal, we would 

delete the last three sentences of 

paragraph (c)(6) that apply specifically 

to CPMS because the proposed PS–17 

and Procedure 4 would specify the 

applicable criteria. 

Section 63.8(c)(7) defines when a 

CMS is out of control. The proposed 

amendments would clarify in 

§ 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that the term ‘‘out of 

control’’, when defined in terms of 

excessive calibration drift, applies to 

CEMS and COMS and not to CPMS. We 

also would revise § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(B), 

which relates out of control to failed 

performance test audits, relative 

accuracy audits, relative accuracy test 

audits, and linearity test audits. In these 

proposed amendments, § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) 

and (B) would apply only to CEMS and 

COMS. These proposed amendments 

would add § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to clarify 

that a CPMS is out of control when the 

system fails an accuracy audit. 

Quality control programs for CMS are 

addressed in § 63.8(d). We are proposing 

to revise § 63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that 

written protocols for calibration drift 

determinations and adjustments would 

not necessarily apply to CPMS. 

Finally, we are proposing changes to 

§ 63.8(e), which address CMS 

performance evaluations. We are 

proposing to amend § 63.8(e)(2) and 

(3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice 

of performance evaluations and 

performance evaluation test plans are 

required for CEMS or COMS only. In 

addition, we are proposing to revise 

§ 63.8(e)(4) to clarify that CPMS 

performance evaluations must be 

performed in accordance with the 

applicable QA procedure (i.e., 

Procedure 4). 

VII. Summary of the Proposed 

Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart SS. 

A. What is the purpose of the 

amendments to subpart SS? 

We are proposing to amend subpart 

SS to ensure that the monitoring 

requirements for CPMS specified in 

subpart SS are consistent with the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4. 

B. What specific changes are we 

proposing to subpart SS? 

We are proposing several changes to 

the general monitoring requirements for 

control and recovery devices specified 

in § 63.996. The purpose of these 

changes is to clarify CPMS monitoring 

requirements and ensure that the 

requirements of subpart SS are 

consistent with the proposed PS–17 and 

Procedure 4. 

Under § 63.996(c)(7), we are 

proposing to require that you satisfy the 

requirements of applicable performance 

specifications and QA procedures 

established under 40 CFR part 60. In 

addition, the amended subpart SS 

would require a CPMS cycle time of no 

longer than 15 minutes and at least four 

equally-spaced measurements for each 

valid hour of data for all CPMS. Any 

device that is used to perform an initial 

validation or an accuracy audit of a 

CPMS would have to have NISTtraceable accuracy and an accuracy 

hierarchy of at least three. 

Section 63.996(c)(8), (9), and (10) of 

the amended subpart SS would specify 

requirements for temperature, pressure, 

and pH CPMS, respectively. Specific 

requirements would include the same 

minimum accuracies and data recording 

system resolution specified in the 

proposed PS–17 for the same type of 

CPMS. The proposed amendments to 

subpart SS would require owners or 

operators of affected CPMS to perform 

initial calibrations and initial 

validations of each CPMS. The initial 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59973 

validation of a temperature or pressure 

CPMS could be performed by 

comparison to a calibrated measurement 

device or by any other method specified 

in applicable performance specifications 

for CPMS established under 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B. The initial validation of 

a pH CPMS could be performed using a 

single point calibration or by any other 

method specified in applicable 

performance specifications for CPMS 

established under 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B. 

The proposed amendments to subpart 

SS also would require accuracy audits at 

the same frequencies that would be 

required by proposed Procedure 4: 

quarterly for temperature and pressure 

CPMS, and weekly for pH CPMS. 

Accuracy audits also would be required 

for temperature and pressure CPMS 

following any period of 24 hours 

throughout which the measured value 

(temperature or pressure) exceeded the 

manufacturer’s recommended maximum 

operating value. Owners or operators of 

affected temperature or pressure CPMS 

could perform accuracy audits by the 

redundant sensor method, by 

comparison to a calibrated measurement 

device, or by any other accuracy audit 

method specified in applicable QA 

procedures established under 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F. For pH CPMS, 

owners or operators could perform 

accuracy audits by the redundant sensor 

method, single point calibration 

method, or by any other accuracy audit 

method specified in applicable QA 

procedures established under 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F. In addition, 

quarterly visual inspections would be 

required for any temperature or pressure 

CPMS not equipped with a redundant 

sensor; for pH CPMS not equipped with 

a redundant sensor, monthly visual 

inspections would be required. 

VIII. Rationale for Selecting the 

Proposed Requirements of Performance 

Specification 17 

A. What information did we use to 

develop PS–17? 

To develop proposed PS–17, we 

considered the requirements of emission 

standards promulgated under 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, and 63; State agency 

requirements for CPMS; manufacturer 

and vendor recommendations; and 

current operational and design practices 

in industry. To the extent possible, we 

also considered voluntary consensus 

standards for CPMS specifications and 

requirements, and this proposed rule 

lists several voluntary consensus 

standards that can be used as alternative 

methods for checking instrument sensor 

accuracies. Our review of voluntary 

consensus standards that apply to 

parameter monitoring devices is 

summarized in section XV.I of this 

document. 

To obtain information on current 

practices and recommendations 

regarding CPMS design, installation and 

operation, we developed three separate 

surveys (hereafter referred to as the 

CPMS surveys). We sent one survey to 

nine State agencies, one survey to nine 

CPMS manufacturers and vendors, and 

the third survey to nine companies with 

facilities that currently are subject to 

emission standards. Although the 

responses to the CPMS survey were far 

from complete, the surveys did provide 

useful information on equipment 

accuracies, operation and maintenance 

procedures, and calibration frequencies. 

To the extent possible, we used the 

information presented in the CPMS 

survey responses in the selection of the 

requirements for PS–17. 

B. How did we select the applicability 

criteria for PS–17? 

To select the applicability criteria for 

PS–17, we considered the current 

parameter monitoring requirements that 

are now in effect under 40 CFR parts 60, 

61, and 63. The General Provisions to 

parts 60 and 63 clearly establish the 

need for performance specifications for 

CPMS. Although the monitoring 

provisions of the part 61 General 

Provisions are not as detailed as the 

General Provisions requirements of 

parts 60 and 63, we believe that the 

need for performance specifications for 

part 61 is also warranted. The need for 

CPMS performance specifications is 

most evident for part 63 in that 

standards promulgated under part 63 

establish enforceable operating limits 

for parameter monitoring systems. As 

stated in § 63.6(e)(iii), operation and 

maintenance requirements, which 

include parameter monitor operating 

limits, ‘‘* * * are enforceable 

independent of emissions limitations or 

other requirements in relevant 

standards.’’ As a result, there is a need 

for additional QA and QC for part 63 

rules to ensure that the equipment used 

to comply with those operating limits is 

properly designed, installed, operated, 

and maintained. 

We recognize that parameter 

monitoring data for sources subject to 

part 60 and 61 rules are not in 

themselves the basis for compliance 

determinations with the applicable 

rules, as is the case for sources subject 

to part 63 rules. Despite that, we believe 

that there still is a strong need for 

performance specifications to help 

ensure the quality of those monitoring 

system data. In addition, many of the 

sources regulated under parts 60 and 61 

are also regulated under part 63. For 

these reasons, and to achieve 

consistency among the requirements for 

all of our emission standards, we have 

decided to require PS–17 to apply 

uniformly to all sources for which 

CPMS are required under parts 60, 61, 

or 63. It should be noted that the 

proposed requirements for CPMS would 

not be retroactive, but would apply only 

to the operation, use, and maintenance 

of CPMS following promulgation of the 

final PS–17 and Procedure 4 for CPMS. 

C. How did we select the parameters 

that are addressed by PS–17? 

The parameters that currently are 

addressed by proposed PS–17 

(temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, 

and conductivity) were selected 

primarily for two reasons: (1) These 

parameters are generally accepted as 

reliable indicators of the performance of 

many types of emission control devices, 

and (2) most part 60, 61, and 63 

emission standards require continuous 

monitoring of one or more of these 

parameters. Temperature often is 

monitored as an indicator of the 

performance of incineration devices, 

such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic 

oxidizers, boilers, and process heaters 

used for the control of organic 

emissions. In addition, several part 60, 

61, and 63 standards require the 

monitoring of condenser outlet 

temperature or carbon adsorber bed 

regeneration temperature. Monitoring of 

the temperature of scrubber liquid also 

is required by some part 60, 61, and 63 

standards. Several existing standards 

require monitoring of pressure drop 

across control devices, such as wet 

scrubbers, mist eliminators, and 

baghouses. Several rules also require 

CPMS for monitoring scrubber liquid 

supply pressure. A number of part 60, 

61, and 63 standards require monitoring 

of gas or liquid flow rates. Gas flow rate 

generally is an indicator of residence 

time in control devices. The gas and 

liquid flow rates through a wet scrubber 

are used to determine the liquid-to-gas 

ratio, and several promulgated rules 

require wet scrubber liquid flow rate 

monitoring. Many standards require 

mass flow CPMS for monitoring process 

feed or production rates. In addition, 

some existing standards require 

monitoring of carbon adsorber 

regeneration steam flow rate. Scrubber 

liquid pH is an important indicator of 

the performance of acid gas control. 

Finally, monitoring wet scrubber liquid 

conductivity provides a good indication 

of the solids content of the scrubber 

liquid and the need for blowdown. We 

recognize that other parameters also are 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59974 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

used to indicate control device 

performance or to monitor process 

operations, but we believed it less 

critical to address those other 

parameters at this time. However, we 

intend to address additional parameters 

in PS–17 as the need arises and 

resources permit. 

D. Why did we include requirements for 

flow CPMS in PS–17 if PS–6 already 

specifies requirements for flow sensors? 

The requirements of PS–6 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B) apply specifically 

to continuous emission rate monitoring 

systems (CERMS), which generally 

include one or more sensors to measure 

exhaust gas flow rate in addition to the 

sensor for measuring the concentration 

of the target pollutant. The proposed 

PS–17 would have much broader 

application, such as natural gas flow, 

steam flow through a carbon bed 

adsorber, and exhaust gas flow through 

an emission control device. The 

proposed PS–17 also would apply to 

liquid flow and mass flow rate 

monitoring. In addition to applicability, 

there are other significant differences in 

the requirements for flow rate sensors 

under PS–6 and flow CPMS under the 

proposed PS–17. The PS–6 specifies CD 

and RA test requirements for the flow 

sensor component of CERMS and 

generally references PS–2 for other 

requirements. Specifying CD 

requirements for CERMS in PS–6 is 

appropriate because PS–6 is meant to 

apply to monitoring systems that are 

used for calculating emission rates for 

determining compliance with emission 

limits or caps. The proposed PS–17 

would have no provisions for checking 

CD because it is intended primarily for 

monitoring indicators of control device 

performance and process parameters 

rather than emission rates. 

Consequently, we believe that less 

rigorous performance assessments are 

appropriate for CPMS that would be 

subject to PS–17. Finally, unlike PS–6, 

PS–17 was developed specifically for 

CPMS. As a result, we were able to 

incorporate into the proposed PS–17 

more specific design, installation, and 

evaluation criteria than are provided in 

PS–6. 

E. How did we select the equipment 

requirements? 

In selecting the equipment 

requirements for PS–17, our intent was 

to specify criteria that would allow 

flexibility in the equipment that owners 

and operators of affected CPMS choose, 

without compromising the quality of 

data produced by that equipment. The 

proposed PS–17 would specify two 

types of equipment: (1) The components 

that comprise a CPMS, and (2) the 

equipment needed to validate that 

CPMS. 

1. CPMS Equipment Requirements 

For CPMS components, we selected 

equipment criteria for overall system 

accuracy and compatibility. The 

equipment requirements also would 

address the measurement range and 

resolution of the data recording system. 

The criterion for accuracy would simply 

be that the equipment must have a 

demonstrable capability of satisfying the 

accuracy requirement for the initial 

validation. We considered, but decided 

against, specifying sensor design 

criteria. By not specifying design 

criteria, we incorporated a considerable 

amount of flexibility into proposed PS– 

17 by allowing affected owners and 

operators to select any equipment, 

provided they can demonstrate that the 

CPMS meets the accuracy requirements 

for the initial validation. However, we 

do identify voluntary consensus 

standards that can be used as guidelines 

for selecting specific types of sensors. 

The proposed PS–17 would require a 

resolution of one-half the accuracy 

requirement or better to ensure that the 

accuracy of the CPMS can be calculated 

to at least the minimum number of 

significant figures for the data accuracy 

assessment to be meaningful. For 

example, if the data recorder of a 

pressure CPMS had a resolution of 0.24 

kPa (1.0 in. wc), it would not be 

possible to determine that the CPMS is 

satisfying the required accuracy of 0.12 

kPa (0.5 in. wc). Selecting a resolution 

of one-half the required accuracy 

ensures that measurements made during 

validation checks can be readily 

compared to the accuracy requirement. 

Furthermore, based on our review of 

equipment vendor catalogues, most 

CPMS on the market easily satisfy this 

minimum resolution. The requirements 

for measurement range were selected to 

ensure that the CPMS can detect and 

record measurements beyond the 

normal operating range. We believe that 

requiring a range of at least ±20 percent 

beyond the normal operating range is 

reasonable and the minimum 

measurement range needed to 

encompass most excursions. Owners 

and operators may want to select 

equipment with even wider ranges if it 

is likely that measurements beyond ±20 

percent of the normal operating range 

will occur. We made an exception to the 

measurement range requirement for pH 

CPMS by requiring the range of pH 

CPMS data recorders to cover the entire 

pH scale of 0 to 14 pH units. Our review 

of vendor literature indicates that, with 

few exceptions, pH CPMS are designed 

to record over the entire pH scale. 

Finally, the proposed PS–17 would 

require the electronic components of 

any CPMS to be internally compatible. 

We believe that internal compatibility is 

essential for ensuring the accuracy and 

durability of a CPMS. 

2. CPMS Validation Equipment 

Requirements 

Two types of equipment would be 

needed to perform the initial validation 

check of a CPMS: (1) A device that is 

used to directly check the accuracy of 

the CPMS, and (2) work platforms, test 

ports, fittings, valves, and other 

equipment that are needed to conduct 

the initial validation. For the devices 

used to check CPMS accuracy, we 

would require NIST-traceable accuracy 

and an accuracy hierarchy of at least 

three. We would require that the 

accuracy of the device be NIST-traceable 

as a way of ensuring the accuracy of the 

test device. We incorporated into PS–17 

two exceptions to the NIST-traceability 

requirement. First, a mercury-in-glass or 

water-in-glass U-tube manometer could 

be used instead of a calibrated pressure 

measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy when validating a 

pressure CPMS or a flow CPMS that 

uses a differential pressure flow meter. 

The reason for making this exception is 

that the accuracy of such manometers 

can be confirmed onsite by a simple 

measurement of the manometer scale. 

We also included an exception to the 

NIST-traceable accuracy and accuracy 

hierarchy for containers used to validate 

flow CPMS by either the volumetric or 

gravimetric methods. In such cases, the 

volume of the container could be 

determined onsite with sufficient 

accuracy to provide a reliable 

assessment of flow CPMS accuracy. 

In selecting the accuracy hierarchy for 

validation devices, we reviewed the 

requirements for existing standards and 

manufacturers’ recommendations. 

Several voluntary consensus standards, 

such as ISA–S37.3–1982 (R1995) and 

ISA–S37.6–1982 (R1995), which apply 

to pressure transducers, require that the 

testing or calibration device have an 

accuracy at least five times that of the 

device that is to be tested (i.e., an 

accuracy hierarchy of five). Other 

standards developed by the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) and Military Specifications 

(MIL–SPEC) require an accuracy of four 

times that of the equipment being 

tested, which establishes an accuracy 

hierarchy of four. At least one 

equipment owner’s manual specifies 

that testing devices have an accuracy of 

at least three times that of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59975 

equipment being tested. We believe that 

requiring an accuracy hierarchy of three 

is adequate for the purposes of PS–17. 

Furthermore, a review of manufacturers’ 

literature indicates that calibration 

devices with accuracies that would 

satisfy the accuracy hierarchy of the 

proposed PS–17 are readily available at 

reasonable cost. 

We decided to require owners and 

operators of affected CPMS to install 

work platforms, test ports, and other 

equipment needed for the initial 

validation check to ensure that the 

validation check and ongoing accuracy 

audits can be conducted properly. It is 

not necessary that a permanent work 

platform be installed. 

F. How did we select the installation 

and location requirements? 

In the proposed PS–17, we would 

require owners and operators of affected 

CPMS to locate CPMS sensors where 

they will provide measurements 

representative of the parameter that is 

being monitored. The objective of this 

requirement is to help ensure that 

affected CPMS produce quality data. 

The location and installation 

requirements specified in the proposed 

PS–17 are generally consistent with the 

requirements of rules promulgated 

under parts 60, 61, and 63. 

G. How did we select the initial QA 

measures? 

The initial QA measures specified in 

the proposed PS–17 include an 

electronic calibration and an initial 

validation check. The initial calibration 

generally is included as part of the 

manufacturer’s recommended 

procedures for the installation and 

startup of CPMS; we would require 

these initial calibrations as a means of 

further ensuring that the CPMS is 

placed into operation correctly. We 

consider the initial validation necessary 

for demonstrating that the CPMS is 

providing quality data from the outset. 

H. How did we select the methods for 

performing the initial validation check? 

In selecting the methods for validating 

CPMS, we considered existing voluntary 

consensus standards, State agency 

requirements, manufacturers’ and 

vendors’ recommendations, and 

practices used by industry. We tried to 

identify all methods that would provide 

a reliable measure of CPMS accuracy to 

allow owners and operators of affected 

CPMS as much flexibility as possible in 

choosing how to comply with PS–17. In 

general, the validation methods 

specified in the proposed PS–17 involve 

comparison of measurements made by 

the subject CPMS to measurements 

made using a calibrated device that 

measures or simulates the same 

parameter that is measured by the 

subject CPMS. A primary objective in 

selecting these methods is to identify 

procedures that assess the overall 

accuracy of the CPMS while assuring 

the quality of data that are used to 

assess compliance. The initial 

validation methods that rely on 

simulating sensor output actually 

measure how well the rest of the system 

responds to a simulated sensor signal 

and do not check the accuracy of the 

sensor itself. However, we believe that 

these methods are reliable because the 

sensors used in new CPMS are factorycalibrated and, therefore, should be 

accurate. 

Two general consensus standards 

were located, but they were rejected for 

use with the proposed PS–17 because 

they are general references for safe 

practices while working with 

electronics. The two standards are: (1) 

ANSI/ISA S82.02.01–1999, ‘‘Electric 

and Electronic Test, Measuring, 

Controlling, and Related Equipment: 

General Requirements’’; and (2) ANSI/ 

ISA S82.03–1988, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Electrical and Electronic Test, 

Measuring, Controlling, and Related 

Equipment (Electrical and Electronic 

Process Measurement and Control 

Equipment).’’ 

1. Temperature CPMS Validation 

Methods 

For validating temperature CPMS, the 

proposed PS–17 would specify two 

methods: (1) Comparison to a calibrated 

temperature measurement device, and 

(2) temperature simulation using a 

calibrated simulation device. The first 

method is based on ASTM E 220–07e1, 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for Calibration 

of Thermocouples by Comparison 

Techniques’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). Although the 

ASTM E220–07e1 was developed for 

thermocouples, it should be applicable 

to other types of temperature 

measurement devices. Handheld and 

otherwise portable temperature 

measurement devices with NISTtraceable accuracy are available from 

many equipment manufacturers and 

suppliers. 

The second validation method for 

temperature CPMS would involve the 

use of calibrated temperature 

simulators. Although this simulation 

method is not based on an existing 

standard method, calibrated simulators 

with NIST-traceable accuracy are 

readily available and often are used to 

check the accuracy of thermocouples 

and RTD’s. Therefore, we believe this 

method is appropriate for the initial 

validation of thermocouple-based or 

RTD-based temperature CPMS, as well 

as for any other type of CPMS for which 

the sensor response can be simulated. 

Two other consensus standards 

relating to temperature measurement 

were located, but they were both 

rejected for use with the proposed PS– 

17. The first standard, ASTM E839–05, 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for Sheathed 

Thermocouples and Sheathed 

Thermocouple Material’’ specifies tests 

that pertain to material quality and 

instrument assembly rather than direct 

indicators of instrument performance; 

many of the tests specified are either 

destructive or impractical to perform at 

the installation site. The second 

standard, ASTM E1350–07, ‘‘Standard 

Guide for Testing Sheathed 

Thermocouples, Thermocouple 

assemblies, and Connecting Wires Prior 

to, and After Installation or Service’’ 

specifies tests to determine if specific 

components of thermocouple assembly 

were damaged during storage, shipment, 

or installation, but the tests specified do 

not provide a measure of accuracy. 

2. Pressure CPMS Validation Methods 

For validating pressure CPMS, the 

proposed PS–17 would specify three 

methods for performing the initial 

validation check. The first method 

would involve comparison to a 

calibrated pressure measurement 

device. This method is based on the 

same principle as is the temperature 

CPMS comparison method. Handheld 

and portable pressure measurement 

devices with NIST-traceable accuracy 

are available from many equipment 

suppliers. Therefore, we believe this 

method is appropriate for validating 

pressure CPMS. The other two pressure 

CPMS validation methods in the 

proposed PS–17 are similar to the 

simulation method for validating 

temperature CPMS and are based on the 

same principle. The difference between 

the temperature simulation method and 

the two pressure simulation methods is 

that the latter generate pressures instead 

of electronic signals. One pressure 

simulation method uses a calibrated 

pressure source with NIST-traceable 

accuracy. These devices can simulate a 

range of pressures to high degrees of 

accuracy. The other pressure simulation 

method allows the use of any pressure 

source. The pressure applied by the 

pressure source is measured 

concurrently by the subject CPMS and 

a separate calibrated pressure 

measurement device. We believe these 

methods also can provide reliable 

assessments of pressure CPMS accuracy. 

Two other voluntary consensus 

standards relating to pressure 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59976 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

measurement were located, but they 

were both rejected for use with the 

proposed PS–17. Both standards (ISA– 

S37.6–1982 (R1995), ‘‘Specifications 

and Tests for Potentiometric Pressure 

Transducers’’ and ISA–S37.3–1982 

(R1995), ‘‘Specifications and Tests for 

Strain Gage Pressure Transducers’’) 

provide general calibration procedures, 

but neither specifies criteria for 

evaluating performance. 

3. Flow CPMS Validation Methods 

For validating flow CPMS, the 

proposed PS–17 would specify seven 

methods. The volumetric and 

gravimetric methods are based on 

voluntary consensus standards and 

could be used to validate liquid flow 

CPMS. Both methods are described in 

ISA RP 16.6–1961, ‘‘Methods and 

Equipment for Calibration of Variable 

Area Meters (Rotameters),’’ and ISA RP 

31.1–1977, ‘‘Specification, Installation, 

and Calibration of Turbine Flow 

Meters’’ (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17). The gravimetric method also is 

described in ANSI/ASME MFC–9M– 

1988, ‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in 

Closed Conduits by Weighing Method,’’ 

and ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard 

Methods of Measurement of Flow of 

Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow 

Meters’’ (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17). These methods are relatively 

simple to perform provided that the 

process flow that is monitored can be 

diverted easily to a suitable container 

for measurement. The gravimetric 

method also could be used to validate 

liquid mass flow or solid mass flow 

CPMS. 

The differential pressure 

measurement and pressure flow source 

simulation methods for validating liquid 

or gas flow CPMS would apply to flow 

CPMS that use differential pressure 

meters. These methods would require 

accurate pressure measurements and are 

based on the same principles as are the 

methods used for validating pressure 

CPMS. The primary difference between 

the pressure CPMS methods and these 

flow CPMS methods is that the flow 

CPMS would require the calculation of 

flow rates based on the pressure 

differentials measured. The flow 

calculation methods are described in 

ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement 

of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, 

Nozzle, and Venturi’’ (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). The calibrated 

pressure measurement devices and 

calibrated pressure sources with NISTtraceable accuracy needed for these 

validation methods are readily 

available. Therefore, we believe these 

methods are appropriate for validating 

flow CPMS accuracy. 

The electronic simulation method is 

identical to the simulation methods 

described in this section for temperature 

and pressure CPMS. This method would 

apply only to flow CPMS that use flow 

sensors that generate electronic signals, 

which can be simulated. Examples of 

flow CPMS that can be validated using 

this method are CPMS that use turbine 

meters or vortex shedding flow meters. 

To validate flow CPMS that measure 

gas flow, PS–17 also would specify the 

RA test using Reference Method 2, 2A, 

2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2), as appropriate. The RA 

test for flow CPMS is similar to the RA 

test procedures specified in other 

performance specifications. We selected 

this method because it may be the 

method of choice for facilities that 

perform their own emissions testing, 

have the emissions test equipment, and 

are familiar with the procedures of the 

reference methods for determining stack 

gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. 

Finally, the proposed PS–17 would 

specify the material weight comparison 

method for validating solid mass flow 

CPMS. This method would apply only 

to CPMS that incorporate a belt 

conveyor, weigh scale, and totalizer. 

The method is based on the BeltConveyor Scale Systems Method, which 

is described in NIST Handbook 44— 

2002 Edition: Specifications, 

Tolerances, And Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17), as adopted by 

the 86th National Conference on 

Weights and Measures 2001. We 

selected this method because it is 

relatively simple and is the only method 

we could identify that applies 

specifically to belt conveyors systems, 

which are often used to monitor process 

raw material feed rates and/or 

production rates. 

Five other voluntary consensus 

standards relating to flow measurement 

were located, but they were rejected for 

use with the proposed PS–17. The first 

standard, ASTM D 3195–90 (2004), 

‘‘Standard Practice for Rotameter 

Calibration,’’ specifies calibration 

procedures for rotameters used to 

determine air sample volumes, but 

applies only to air at ambient 

temperature and pressure. The second 

standard, ANSI/ASME MFC–8M–2001, 

‘‘Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits— 

Connections for Pressure Signal 

Transmissions between Primary and 

Secondary Devices,’’ only applies to 

installations where very high accuracy 

is required. The third standard, ASTM 

D 3464–96 (2007), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Average Velocity in a Duct 

Using a Thermal Anemometer,’’ refers to 

another ASTM standard for calibration 

procedures. The fourth standard, ASTM 

D5540–94a (2003), ‘‘Standard Practice 

for Flow Control and Temperature 

Control for On-Line Water Sampling 

and Analysis,’’ details the sampling of 

the stream, but provides no information 

on the calibration of the flow. The fifth 

standard, ‘‘Process Monitors in the 

Portland Cement Industry’’ (published 

by the EPA) notes that nuclear weigh 

belts have 0.5 percent operational 

accuracy, while gravimetric and 

impaction plate weigh belts have 1 

percent accuracy; these accuracies may 

not hold true for all industries or 

applications. 

4. pH CPMS Validation Methods 

For validating pH CPMS, the 

proposed PS–17 would specify two 

methods. The first method would entail 

comparison to a calibrated pH meter 

and is similar to the comparison 

methods specified for temperature and 

pressure CPMS. The second method 

would be a single point calibration 

method using a standard buffer solution. 

We selected these methods because they 

are relatively simple and are in common 

use by many facilities to calibrate pH 

meters. 

5. Conductivity CPMS Validation 

Methods 

The proposed PS–17 would specify 

two methods for validation conductivity 

CPMS: Comparison to a calibrated 

conductivity meter and single point 

calibration. These methods are 

essentially the same as those used for 

validating pH CPMS, the only 

differences being the types of calibrated 

instrument and standard solutions used. 

We selected these methods because both 

are reliable, yet relatively simple to 

perform. 

Four other voluntary consensus 

standards relating to conductivity 

measurement were located, but they 

were rejected for use with the proposed 

PS–17. The first and second standards, 

ASTM E1511–93 (2005), ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Testing Conductivity 

Detectors Used in Liquid and Ion 

Chromatography,’’ and ASTM D3370– 

95a (2003)e1, ‘‘Standard Practices for 

Sampling Water from Closed Conduits,’’ 

detail the mixing of conductivity 

standards, so they are good calibration 

methods, but far more time-consuming 

than using readily available pre-mixed 

conductivity standards as specified in 

PS–17. The third standard, ASTM 

D6504–07, ‘‘Standard Practice for OnLine Determination of Cation 

Conductivity in High Purity Water,’’ 

references other standards for 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59977 

calibration procedures. The fourth 

standard, ASTM D3864–06, ‘‘Standard 

Guide for Continual On-Line Monitoring 

Systems for Water Analysis,’’ contains 

statistical methods that are more 

rigorous than needed. 

I. How did we select the performance 

criteria for the initial validation check? 

In selecting the performance criteria 

for the initial validation checks of 

CPMS, we considered the accuracies 

required by existing rules and the 

capabilities of off-the-shelf equipment 

available from the manufacturers and 

vendors of CPMS components. Based on 

our review of CPMS manufacturer and 

vendor literature, equipment that 

satisfies the accuracy requirements 

specified in this proposed rule is readily 

available. 

Existing rules that require the use of 

CPMS specify a range of instrument or 

system accuracies. For some of the 

affected source categories, the proposed 

PS–17 would specify a higher minimum 

accuracy than is specified in the 

applicable subpart. However, this 

proposed rule would not increase the 

stringency of the underlying emission 

standards in such cases. Instead, the 

proposed PS–17 would improve the 

accuracy and reliability of, and reduce 

the uncertainty in, data used to 

demonstrate compliance with those 

emission standards. 

1. Temperature CPMS Accuracy 

Several rules promulgated under parts 

60, 61, and 63 specify an accuracy 

requirement for temperature CPMS. 

Most of these rules specify temperature 

accuracy in units of temperature (°C) 

and as a percentage of the measured 

temperature. For example, 40 CFR part 

60, subpart EE, requires thermal 

incinerator temperature CPMS to have 

an accuracy of 2.5 °C or 0.75 percent. 

Although there is a wide range of 

accuracies specified in these rules, the 

accuracy required for temperature 

CPMS associated with high temperature 

applications, such as thermal oxidizers 

or boilers, generally range from 0.75 to 

1.0 percent or from 0.5 °C to 2.5 °C (0.9 

°F to 4.5 °F). For lower temperature 

applications, such as wet scrubbers, the 

specified percent accuracies often are 

not as stringent; that is, accuracies are 

specified as a higher percentage of the 

measured temperature. This distinction 

between low and high temperature 

applications is consistent with ANSI 

specifications for thermocouples. The 

minimum standard accuracies for ANSI 

Type J and K thermocouples in noncryogenic applications are °0.75 percent 

or ±2.2 °C (±4 °F), whichever is greater; 

for cryogenic applications, the 

minimum standard accuracies are ±2.0 

percent or ±2.2 °C (±4 °F), whichever is 

greater. The reason for specifying a 

higher percentage accuracy for lower 

temperature ranges is to offset the fact 

that the accuracy percentage applies to 

a lower value. In selecting the 

temperature accuracy requirements for 

the proposed PS–17, we decided to 

incorporate a similar distinction 

between higher temperatures (noncryogenic applications) and lower 

temperatures (cryogenic applications). 

Our selection of temperature accuracies 

of 2.8 °C (5 °F) or °1 percent for noncryogenic applications, and 2.8 °C (5 °F) 

or ±2.5 percent for cryogenic 

applications is consistent with the 

required accuracies for most standards, 

and we believe that the accuracies 

specified in proposed PS–17 are 

adequate for ensuring good quality data. 

In addition, our review of vendor 

literature indicates that temperature 

CPMS that satisfy these accuracy 

requirements are readily available at 

reasonable costs. 

2. Pressure CPMS Accuracy 

Among the part 60, 61, and 63 rules 

that require pressure monitoring and 

also specify a minimum accuracy, the 

accuracy specified generally is either 

0.25 to 0.5 kPa (1 to 2 in. wc) or 5 

percent for pressure drop, and 5 to 15 

percent for liquid supply pressure. 

These accuracies are easily achievable 

because most pressure transducers are 

accurate to 0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all 

but the lowest grade (Grade D) of ANSIrated pressure gauges have accuracies 

better than 5 percent. For the proposed 

PS–17, we selected an accuracy 

requirement of 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc) or 

±5 percent, whichever is greater. The 

0.12 kPa criterion would apply only in 

low pressure applications. Some 

existing rules require pressure CPMS to 

have accuracies of 0.24 kPa (1.0 in. wc) 

or better. However, those accuracies 

generally do not apply to pressure 

CPMS in low pressure applications, 

where the 0.12 kPa accuracy would 

apply. We believe this level of accuracy 

specified for pressure CPMS is 

appropriate, considering that some 

control devices operate with pressure 

drops of less than 1.2 kPa (5 in. wc). For 

applications with pressures in excess of 

2.5 kPa (10 in. wc), the 5 percent 

accuracy criterion would apply. This 

criterion is consistent with most rules 

that specify pressure device accuracies, 

and CPMS that are capable of achieving 

this accuracy are readily available. 

3. Flow CPMS Accuracy 

Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, 

and 63 that require flow rate monitoring 

all specify flow rate accuracy in terms 

of percent. For liquid flow rate 

measurement, these rules generally 

require accuracies of ±5 percent, and 

rules that require steam flow rate 

monitoring generally require an 

accuracy of ±10 percent or better. We 

believe that these accuracies are 

reasonable, and we have incorporated 

them into the proposed PS–17. 

According to our review of vendor 

literature, flow CPMS that can achieve 

these accuracies are readily available. 

Unlike rules that address temperature 

and pressure monitoring, most existing 

rules that require continuous flow rate 

monitoring do not specify flow rate 

monitoring device accuracies in units of 

flow rate. However, there is an 

advantage to specifying accuracy in 

units of measurement as well as a 

percent; in low flow rate applications, 

an accuracy criterion based solely on 

percent can result in an unreasonably 

stringent accuracy requirement. For that 

reason, we have incorporated into the 

proposed PS–17 accuracy criteria as a 

percent of flow rate and in units of flow 

rate. The exceptions are the accuracy 

criteria for liquid mass flow rate and 

solid mass flow rate, both of which 

would be specified only as a percentage 

(i.e., ±5 percent). We concluded that it 

would not be reasonable to specify 

accuracy criteria for mass flow in units 

of mass flow because of the wide range 

of flow rates that could be monitored 

(e.g., carbon injection rate vs. rotary kiln 

raw material feed rate). We based the 5 

percent accuracy criterion primarily on 

vendor literature. 

Recognizing the differences in the 

relative magnitudes and the commonly 

used units of flow rate measurement for 

liquids and gases, we have specified in 

the proposed PS–17 separate accuracy 

criteria for liquid and gas flow rates. For 

liquid flow rate CPMS, which typically 

are associated with wet scrubber 

operation, the minimum accuracy 

would be 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or ±5 

percent, whichever is greater. For gas 

flow rate CPMS, which often are used to 

monitor stack gas flow rate or natural 

gas fuel flow rate, PS–17 would require 

a minimum accuracy of 280 L/min (10 

ft3/min) or ±5 percent, whichever is 

greater. 

The proposed PS–17 also would 

specify a relative accuracy criterion for 

owners or operators who choose to 

validate a gas flow rate CPMS using the 

RA test, which is specified in section 

8.6(6) of PS–17. In such cases, owners 

or operators would have to demonstrate 

that the affected CPMS achieves a 

relative accuracy of 20 percent or better. 

The relative accuracy criterion of 20 

percent was selected because that value 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59978 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

is consistent with the relative accuracy 

required by most performance 

specifications promulgated under 40 

CFR part 60. 

4. pH CPMS Accuracy 

Although several subparts of 40 CFR 

parts 60, 61, and 63 require pH 

monitoring, the only rule to specify an 

accuracy requirement for pH CPMS is 

40 CFR part 61, subpart E; the accuracy 

required by that rule for pH 

measurement devices is ±10 percent. 

Our review of manufacturer and vendor 

literature indicates that pH CPMS 

generally have accuracies of ±0.01 to 

±0.15 pH units. Based largely on the 

vendor literature, we decided to require 

pH CPMS to have accuracies of 0.2 pH 

units or better. An accuracy of ±0.2 pH 

units should allow most facilities that 

currently monitor pH to continue using 

their pH CPMS, provided the CPMS 

satisfies the other equipment criteria 

specified in PS–17. 

5. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy 

Because none of the part 60, 61, or 63 

rules specify accuracy requirements for 

conductivity CPMS, we reviewed 

manufacturer and vendor literature, 

which indicates that conductivity CPMS 

generally have accuracies of ±1 to ±2 

percent. Conductivity measurements 

range from 0.1 to 200,000 micromhos 

per centimeter (μmhos/cm) (0.1 to 

200,000 microsiemens per centimeter 

(μS/cm)) at 25 °C (77 °F). To account for 

this large range and the accuracies that 

can be met by most available 

instruments, we decided to require 

conductivity CPMS to have accuracies 

of ±5 percent. An accuracy requirement 

of ±5 percent should allow most 

facilities that currently monitor 

conductivity to continue using their 

conductivity CPMS, provided their 

CPMS satisfies the other equipment 

criteria specified in PS–17. 

J. How did we select the recordkeeping 

requirements? 

The proposed PS–17 would require 

owners or operators of affected CPMS to 

maintain records that identify their 

CPMS and document performance 

evaluations, and to retain those records 

for a period of at least 5 years. These 

requirements are consistent with the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 

63. 

IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Requirements of Procedure 4 

A. What information did we use to 

develop Procedure 4? 

The information used to develop 

Procedure 4 is essentially the same 

information used to develop PS–17 and 

includes information from existing 

standards, manufacturer and vendor 

recommendations, and current practices 

in industry. Section VIII.A of this 

document provides additional details on 

how this information was obtained. 

B. Why did we decide to apply 

Procedure 4 to all CPMS that are subject 

to PS–17? 

Rules promulgated under part 63 

establish enforceable operating limits 

for parameter monitoring systems. As is 

the case for CEMS that are used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

and are subject to Procedure 1 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, there is a need for 

ongoing QA requirements to ensure that 

the data generated by CPMS are reliable 

and accurate. Although the data 

generated by CPMS that are required 

under parts 60 and 61 are not used 

directly to demonstrate compliance, we 

believe there still is a need to ensure the 

quality of those data is maintained. For 

that reason, we believe it is warranted 

to require that all part 60, 61, and 63 

sources that are required to install and 

operate CPMS be subject to PS–17 and 

Procedure 4. 

C. How did we select the accuracy audit 

procedures? 

With the exception of audit 

procedures for CPMS with redundant 

sensors, the accuracy audit procedures 

specified in the proposed Procedure 4 

would essentially be the same 

procedures that could be used to 

perform the initial validation checks 

that would be required by PS–17. For 

CPMS with redundant sensors, we 

selected the accuracy audit procedure of 

comparing the values of the parameter 

measured by the two sensors because 

that method currently is used by many 

industrial facilities to ensure the 

accuracy of their parameter monitoring 

systems. The most significant 

distinction between the audit 

procedures specified in the proposed 

Procedure 4 and the initial validation 

procedures specified in the proposed 

PS–17 is that the accuracy audit 

procedures address sensor accuracy, 

whereas some of the initial validation 

procedures do not address sensor 

accuracy. When CPMS are first 

installed, we assume sensors to have 

been manufactured and factorycalibrated under stringent QC 

requirements. Consequently, the 

proposed PS–17 does not require the 

initial validation check procedures to 

include sensor accuracy assessments. 

However, after a CPMS has been placed 

into operation, and the sensor is 

subjected to process environments, loss 

of calibration can occur quickly. 

Recognizing that possibility, we have 

incorporated a check of sensor accuracy 

into the accuracy audit procedures of 

the proposed Procedure 4. Some audit 

procedures assess the accuracy of the 

overall CPMS, including the sensor. For 

those procedures, a separate accuracy 

assessment of the sensor would not be 

necessary. For those audit procedures 

that do not assess the accuracy of the 

entire CPMS, we have incorporated into 

the proposed Procedure 4 a separate 

accuracy check of the CPMS sensor. 

These sensor accuracy assessments are 

based on voluntary consensus 

standards. 

D. How did we select the accuracy audit 

frequencies? 

To determine the appropriate audit 

frequencies, we reviewed the 

requirements of existing rules, the 

procedures practiced by industry, and 

vendor recommendations. Most of the 

rules promulgated under 40 CFR parts 

60, 61, and 63 do not specify calibration 

or audit frequencies. Those rules that do 

specify accuracy audit frequencies 

usually require annual calibrations; a 

few rules require semi-annual or 

quarterly calibrations of CPMS. The 

information provided by industry in its 

responses to the CPMS survey indicated 

that the typical calibration frequency for 

most CPMS is once per year. Two 

facilities perform calibrations on 

thermocouples semiannually. One of 

those facilities also checks pressure 

meter calibration semiannually. Another 

facility reported that it checks and 

calibrates its pH CPMS on a weekly 

basis. With the exception of pH CPMS, 

Procedure 4 would require quarterly 

accuracy audits. This frequency is 

comparable to the audit frequencies 

required for CEMS specified in many 

part 60, 61, and 63 standards, and we 

believe that quarterly accuracy 

assessments are warranted for CPMS to 

ensure that monitoring data are 

accurate. The available information 

indicates that pH sensors require more 

frequent calibration than do other types 

of sensors, and weekly calibration of pH 

CPMS is common. Therefore, we believe 

that weekly accuracy audits are 

warranted for pH CPMS. 

E. How did we select the performance 

criteria for accuracy audits? 

The performance criteria for the 

accuracy audits specified in Procedure 4 

are identical to those specified for the 

initial validation check required by PS– 

17. The rationale for the validation 

check accuracy requirements is 

described in section VIII.H of this 

document. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59979 

F. How did we select the recordkeeping 

requirements? 

The proposed Procedure 4 would 

require owners or operators of affected 

CPMS to maintain records of all 

accuracy audits and corrective actions 

taken to return the CPMS to normal 

operation and to retain those records for 

a period of at least 5 years. These 

requirements are consistent with the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 

63. 

X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Amendments to Procedure 1 

A. How did we select the amendments 

to Procedure 1 that apply to PS–9? 

Before drafting the proposed 

amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F), we reviewed the 

procedure and PS–9 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B) to identify those sections of 

Procedure 1 that did not address, or 

were inconsistent with, the specific 

requirements of PS–9. We identified 

three such sections of Procedure 1: 

section 1, Applicability and Principle; 

section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5, 

Data Accuracy Assessment. The 

applicability section of Procedure 1 

applies to CEMS that are used for 

monitoring a single pollutant or diluent. 

The section does not address CEMS that 

can be used for monitoring more than 

one pollutant, such as those that are 

subject to PS–9. Therefore, it is 

necessary to amend section 1 to clarify 

that Procedure 1 would apply to single 

and multiple pollutant CEMS. 

Section 4.1 of Procedure 1 requires 

owners or operators of affected CEMS to 

check the daily CD at two concentration 

values. In the case of a single pollutant 

CEMS, there is no ambiguity in this 

requirement. However, for multiple 

pollutant CEMS, Procedure 1 is unclear 

as to which pollutant can or must be 

used for the daily CD check. We are 

proposing to amend Procedure 1 to 

allow owners and operators of affected 

CEMS to perform the CD check using 

any of the target pollutants specified in 

the applicable subpart. 

Section 5 of Procedure 1, which 

addresses data accuracy audits, is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

PS–9. Procedure 1 requires RATA’s at 

least once every four calendar quarters; 

the accuracy audit requirement for the 

other three calendar quarters can be 

satisfied by performing either RATA’s, 

CGA’s, or RAA’s. However, PS–9 

requires quarterly CGA’s and does not 

address RATA’s or RAA’s. To resolve 

this inconsistency in Procedure 1, these 

proposed amendments would add 

section 5.1.5, which would clarify that 

owners and operators of CEMS subject 

to PS–9 are not required to perform 

RATA’s; the accuracy audit requirement 

would have to be satisfied by 

performing quarterly CGA’s. The CGA’s 

would have to be conducted at two 

points for each target pollutant specified 

in the applicable subpart. Finally, the 

proposed new section would clarify that 

these quarterly CGA’s satisfy the 

quarterly CGA requirement of PS–9. 

B. How did we select the amendments 

to Procedure 1 that apply to PS–15? 

After reviewing Procedure 1, we 

identified three sections that either were 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) or 

did not address the unique 

characteristics of CEMS that are subject 

to PS–15. The sections identified were 

section 1, Applicability and Principle; 

section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5, 

Data Accuracy Assessment. As 

explained in the section X.A of this 

document, these proposed amendments 

to section 1 of Procedure 1 would clarify 

that the procedure also applies to CEMS 

that are used for monitoring more than 

one pollutant or diluent. To address the 

CD assessment of CEMS subject to PS– 

15, we are proposing to add three 

paragraphs to section 4 of Procedure 1. 

Unlike other types of CEMS, extractive 

FTIR CEMS are not generally checked 

for CD. Instead, PS–15 specifies other 

procedures for checking these 

instruments on a daily basis. In these 

proposed amendments we are adding 

section 4.1.2 to Procedure 1 to specify 

the proper procedures for checking FTIR 

CEMS performance that are comparable 

to the CD checks of other types of 

CEMS. These daily assessments serve 

the same purpose as do the daily CD 

check requirements for other types of 

CEMS. We also recognize that the term 

‘‘excessive CD,’’ as defined in section 

4.3 of Procedure 1, needs to be clarified 

for CEMS subject to PS–15. To address 

this need, we are proposed to add 

section 4.3.3 to Procedure 1. Section 

4.3.3 would clarify how excessive CD is 

defined for CEMS subject to PS–15 and 

also would specify when such CEMS are 

out of control. 

Section 4.4 of Procedure 1 addresses 

CEMS data reporting and recordkeeping. 

Because of the unique data storage 

requirements for PS–15, we believe 

adding another paragraph to section 4.4 

of Procedure 1 is warranted. The new 

paragraph in section 4.4 essentially 

would reference the data storage 

requirements specified in PS–15. 

The Procedure 1 specifies three 

methods for assessing data accuracy: 

RATA’s, CGA’s, and RAA’s. On the 

other hand, PS–15 specifies a different 

set of accuracy audit procedures: audit 

sample checks, audit spectra checks, 

and an independent accuracy 

assessment performed by us. 

Consequently, there is an obvious need 

to amend Procedure 1 if we were to 

extend the applicability of Procedure 1 

to include CEMS subject to PS–15. To 

resolve this inconsistency, we would 

add section 5.1.6 to Procedure 1. We 

modeled section 5.1.6 after the accuracy 

audit requirements that were already 

incorporated in Procedure 1. The most 

rigorous of the accuracy assessment 

methods specified in PS–15 is the audit 

sample check. In this respect, the audit 

sample check is analogous to the RATA. 

For consistency with the requirements 

for other types of CEMS, we would 

require audit sample checks for CEMS 

subject to PS–15 to be performed at least 

once every four calendar quarters, as is 

the case for RATA’s for other types of 

CEMS. For the other three calendar 

quarters, we would allow owners and 

operators of CEMS subject to PS–15 to 

perform any of the three audit 

procedures specified in PS–15 (audit 

sample check, audit spectra check, and 

submitting spectra for independent 

analysis), with one exception. The audit 

spectra check assesses the accuracy of 

the analytical measurement but not the 

sampling system measurement. 

Therefore, we would allow owners and 

operators of CEMS subject to PS–15 to 

use the audit spectra check only once 

every four quarters to satisfy the 

accuracy audit requirement of 

Procedure 1. Finally, proposed section 

5.1.6 of Procedure 1 would clarify that 

the quarterly accuracy assessments 

required by Procedure 1 satisfy the 

quarterly or semiannual QA/QC checks 

required by PS–15. 

XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed 

Amendments to the General Provisions 

to Parts 60, 61, and 63 

A. How did we select the amendments 

to the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63? 

The proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 

would specify CPMS accuracies, audit 

frequencies, and other requirements that 

differ from some of the requirements for 

CPMS specified in applicable subparts 

to parts 60, 61, and 63. Eliminating the 

resulting discrepancies would require 

either amending each of the applicable 

subparts or amending the General 

Provisions to those parts. We concluded 

that amending the General Provisions 

would be the preferred approach for 

avoiding such conflicts or 

discrepancies. 

After reviewing the General 

Provisions to parts 60 and 61 that apply 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59980 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

specifically to monitoring (i.e., §§ 60.13 

and 61.14), we decided to amend only 

the applicability sections of those parts. 

By stating that, upon promulgation, 

performance specifications and QA 

procedures for CPMS (i.e., the proposed 

PS–17 and Procedure 4) apply to CPMS 

instead of requirements in the 

applicable subparts to parts 60 and 61, 

we believe we can eliminate any 

discrepancies between the applicable 

subparts and the proposed PS–17 and 

Procedure 4. We concluded that this 

proposed rule would not conflict with 

the monitoring requirements specified 

in subsequent sections of the General 

Provisions to parts 60 and 61, and 

further amendments to those General 

Provisions were unnecessary. 

With respect to the General Provisions 

to part 63, we identified several 

inconsistencies between the 

requirements specified in § 63.8 and the 

requirements in the proposed PS–17 

and Procedure 4. In this action, we are 

proposing several changes to § 63.8 to 

eliminate those inconsistencies. 

We believe that the installation 

requirement of § 63.8(c)(2) should apply 

to all CMS, and not simply CEMS; we 

are proposing to amend § 63.8(c)(2) 

accordingly. We believe that the 

requirement for continuous operation 

specified in § 63.8(c)(4) should apply to 

all CMS, and not just CEMS and COMS 

as now specified in the General 

Provisions. 

Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses cycle 

time for CEMS and COMS, but not for 

CPMS. We believe it is necessary to 

address CPMS cycle time also. 

Consequently, we are proposing to add 

§ 63.8(c)(4)(iii) for that purpose. 

The last three sentences of § 63.8(c)(6) 

address calibration and daily checks of 

CPMS. We are proposing to delete these 

provisions because the proposed PS–17 

and Procedure 4 would address CPMS 

operation and maintenance more 

thoroughly. 

Section 63.8(c)(7) of the General 

Provisions defines CMS that are out of 

control in terms of excessive calibration 

drift checks and periodic audits that 

apply to CEMS and COMS, but not to 

CPMS. Consequently, we are proposing 

to amend § 63.8(c)(7) to clarify that, for 

CPMS, out of control is defined in terms 

of failed accuracy audits only. The 

proposed amendments would clarify in 

§ 63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that out of control, 

when defined in terms of excessive 

calibration drift, applies to CEMS and 

COMS and not CPMS. We also would 

revise § 63.8(c)(7)(i)(B), which relates 

out of control to failed performance test 

audits, relative accuracy audits, relative 

accuracy test audits, and linearity test 

audits that apply to CEMS and COMS, 

but not to CPMS. We propose adding 

§ 63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to clarify that a CPMS 

is out of control when it fails an 

accuracy audit. 

Quality control programs for CMS are 

addressed in § 63.8(d). We are proposing 

to revise § 63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that 

the requirement for written protocols for 

calibration drift determinations and 

adjustments would apply only to 

applicable CMS; that is, the requirement 

would apply to CEMS and COMS, but 

not to CPMS because calibration drift is 

not relevant to many CPMS. 

Finally, we are proposing changes to 

§ 63.8(e), which address CMS 

performance evaluations. We are 

proposing to amend § 63.8(e)(2) and 

(3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice 

of performance evaluations and 

performance evaluation test plans are 

required for CEMS or COMS only. 

Under the proposed PS–17 and 

Procedure 4, CPMS initial validations 

and/or accuracy audits would be 

required at least quarterly using 

procedures that are much simpler than 

those required for CEMS or COMS 

performance tests. Consequently, we 

believe that requiring written 

notifications and test plans is 

unnecessary for CPMS performance 

evaluations. We also are proposing to 

revise § 63.8(e)(4), which addresses 

conducting CMS performance 

evaluations during any required 

performance test. Currently, § 63.8(e)(4) 

states that CMS performance 

evaluations must be conducted in 

accordance to the applicable 

performance specification. We are 

proposing to clarify paragraph (e)(4) to 

state that such evaluations of CMS 

performance should be conducted in 

accordance with the applicable 

performance specification or QA 

procedure because procedures for 

performing CPMS accuracy audits 

would be specified in the proposed 

Procedure 4. 

XII. Rationale for Selecting the 

Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 

63, Subpart SS 

Our proposed amendments to subpart 

SS (65 FR 76444, December 6, 2000) 

included revisions to the general 

monitoring requirements specified in 

§ 63.996. At that time, we had not 

completed our development of 

performance specifications and QA 

procedures for CPMS, which we are 

now proposing as PS–17 and Procedure 

4, respectively. After reviewing the 

public comments on the December 6, 

2000 proposal and comparing the 

requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4 

to the proposed changes to § 63.996, we 

decided that further revisions to 

§ 63.996 are warranted to ensure 

consistency between the monitoring 

requirements of subpart SS, PS–17, and 

Procedure 4. We identified the 

requirements of the proposed PS–17 and 

Procedure 4 that were most relevant to 

the generic MACT source categories and 

incorporated those requirements into 

the amendments that we are proposing 

for subpart SS. We believe that these 

proposed amendments would ensure 

consistency with PS–17, Procedure 4, 

and subpart SS. 

XIII. Summary of Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the impacts of PS–17 and 

Procedure 4? 

The proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 

would apply only to CPMS that are 

required under an applicable subpart to 

40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63; that is, this 

proposed rulemaking would not require 

the installation or operation of CPMS, 

other than those already required by 

rule. The cost and economic impact 

analyses that are completed as part of 

the rulemaking process for any part 60, 

61, or 63 rule account for the costs 

associated with any required CPMS that 

would be subject to PS–17 and 

Procedure 4. Those costs, which are not 

attributable to this proposed 

rulemaking, include the capital costs for 

equipment, installation costs, the costs 

for operating and maintaining the 

CPMS, and the costs for maintaining 

records and reporting CPMS data. 

However, in some cases, the proposed 

PS–17 and Procedure 4 would require 

more accurate sensors and more 

frequent accuracy audits and 

inspections than would be required 

otherwise for some source categories. 

Therefore, the incremental costs 

associated with replacing those sensors 

and conducting additional audits and 

inspections can be attributed to the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4. 

Because the applicability of the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 will be 

phased in over a 5-year period, we 

estimated the costs for each of those 

initial 5 years. Based on those estimates, 

the nationwide additional annualized 

costs to implement the proposed PS–17 

and Procedure 4 amount to $17.7 

million for the first year, $26.4 million 

for the second, $35.0 million for the 

third year, $43.7 million for the fourth 

year, and $52.3 million for the fifth year 

of this proposed rule. The average 

annualized cost per source is estimated 

to be $320, $470, $610, $740, and $870 

for the first through fifth years, 

respectively. These costs are based on 

the assumption that affected facilities 

would not choose to use redundant 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59981 

sensors. If facilities elected to use 

redundant sensors, the estimated 

compliance costs for the proposed PS– 

17 and Procedure 4 would be reduced. 

The proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4 

would improve the quality of the data 

measured and recorded by CPMS and 

thereby would also reduce the 

uncertainty in those data. However, this 

proposed rulemaking would not require 

the installation or operation of 

additional CPMS. Therefore, with 

respect to other potential impacts 

associated with this proposed 

rulemaking, we have concluded that 

PS–17 and Procedure 4, as proposed, 

would have no energy or environmental 

impacts beyond those that have already 

been attributed by to the various part 60, 

61, and 63 rules that require the use of 

CPMS. 

B. What are the impacts of the 

amendments to Procedure 1? 

The proposed amendments to 

Procedure 1 clarify how owners and 

operators of CEMS subject to PS–9 or 

PS–15 must satisfy the requirements 

already established by Procedure 1. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

there are no additional impacts that 

should be attributed to these proposed 

amendments to Procedure 1. 

C. What are the impacts of the 

amendments to the General Provisions 

to parts 60, 61, and 63? 

The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

60.13 and 40 CFR 61.14 would 

eliminate any discrepancies between the 

requirements for CPMS specified in an 

applicable subpart to parts 60 or 61 and 

requirements for CPMS specified in the 

proposed PS–17 and Procedure 4. The 

amendments to 40 CFR 63.8 that we are 

proposing clarify how the monitoring 

requirements of the General Provisions 

to part 63 apply to CPMS. These 

proposed amendments do not add any 

additional requirements to what is 

already required by the General 

Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63. 

Consequently, we have concluded that 

the proposed amendments do not have 

any significant environmental, energy, 

or economic impacts on the affected 

source categories. 

D. What are the impacts of the 

amendments to subpart SS? 

The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart SS clarify the 

monitoring requirements for CPMS that 

are required under subpart SS and the 

General Provisions to part 63. 

Furthermore, these proposed 

amendments provide consistency 

between those monitoring requirements 

and the proposed requirements of PS–17 

and Procedure 4. For these reasons, we 

have concluded that there are no 

significant environmental, energy, or 

economic impacts associated with the 

proposed amendments. 

XIV. Solicitation of Comments and 

Public Participation 

We want to have full public 

participation in arriving at our final 

decisions, and we encourage comment 

on all aspects of this proposal from all 

interested parties. Interested parties 

should submit supporting data and 

detailed analyses with their comments 

so we can make maximum use of them. 

Information on where and when to 

submit comments is listed in 

‘‘Comments’’ under the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections. 

XV. 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 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2269.01. 

The information collection 

requirements for the proposed PS–17 

and Procedure 4 are based on the 

requirements in the General Provisions 

to parts 60, 61, and 63, which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

NSPS or NESHAP. These recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements are 

specifically authorized by section 114 of 

the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information submitted to EPA pursuant 

to the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to EPA’s policies set forth in 

40 CFR 2, subpart B. 

This proposed rule would not require 

any notifications or reports beyond 

those required by the General Provisions 

to parts 60, 61, and 63. The 

recordkeeping requirements require 

only the specific information needed to 

determine compliance. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

of information (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the rule) 

is estimated to be 318,662 labor hours 

per year at a total annual cost of $23.3 

million. This burden estimate includes 

time for the maintenance and evaluation 

of monitoring system operation. Total 

capital costs associated with the 

monitoring requirements over the 3-year 

period of the ICR are estimated at $18.2 

million. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640. Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to EPA and 

OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice for where to 

submit comments to EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after October 9, 2008, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by November 10, 2008. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

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 proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59982 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Because of the number of different 

source categories involved and the small 

cost per facility, a case study approach 

was used to assess the likelihood of 

significant impact on small entities. A 

subset of source categories that most 

likely would be the most impacted was 

chosen by two criteria. The first 

criterion was whether or not the 

underlying regulation was expected to 

have adverse small business impacts at 

the time of promulgation. The second 

criterion was the relative magnitude of 

the estimated costs for complying with 

the CPMS Rule on a per-plant basis. In 

none of the case studies were costs 

likely to approach 1 percent of sales 

because the average per facility costs 

were always less than 3 percent of the 

compliance costs of underlying 

regulation. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 

104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

we generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires us to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before we establish 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of our regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. The nationwide additional 

annualized costs to implement the 

proposed rule are estimated to be $52.3 

million in the fifth year of this proposed 

rule. Thus, this proposed rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4 

have already been addressed under the 

General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 

63, and in the applicable subparts that 

require the installation and operation of 

CPMS. Furthermore, the amendments to 

Procedure 1 merely clarify the 

applicability and requirements of the 

procedure. Finally, these proposed 

amendments to the monitoring 

requirements in the General Provisions 

to parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to 

subpart SS are made to ensure 

consistency with PS–17 and Procedure 

4. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires us 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 proposed 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. The 

requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4 

have already been addressed under the 

General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 

63, and in the applicable subparts that 

require the installation and operation of 

CPMS. Furthermore, these proposed 

amendments to Procedure 1 merely 

clarify the applicability and 

requirements of the procedure. Finally, 

these proposed amendments to the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63, as well as to subpart SS are 

made to ensure consistency with PS–17 

and Procedure 4. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with our policy to 

promote communications between us 

and State and local governments, we 

specifically solicit comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. The 

requirements of PS–17 and Procedure 4 

have already been addressed under the 

General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 

63, and in the applicable subparts that 

require the installation and operation of 

CPMS. Furthermore, these proposed 

amendments to Procedure 1 merely 

clarify the applicability and 

requirements of the procedure. Finally, 

these proposed amendments to the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, 

and 63, as well as to subpart SS are 

made to ensure consistency with PS–17 

and Procedure 4. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59983 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 

5–501 of the Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This proposed 

rule is not subject to Executive Order 

13045 because it does not establish an 

environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (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’’), Pub. L. 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 (VCS). 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

use the following VCS: American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) E220–07e1, ASTM D1293–99 

(2005), ASTM D1125–95 (2005), ASTM 

D5391–99 (2005), ASTM E251–92 

(2003), ASTM E452–02 (2007), ASTM 

E585/E 585M–04, ASTM E644–06, 

ASTM E235–06, ASTM E608/E 608M– 

06, ASTM E696–07, ASTM E1129/ 

E1129M–98 (2002), ASTM E1137/ 

E1137M–04, and ASTM E1159–98 

(2003); International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) MC96.1–1982 and 

ISO 10790:1999; American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B40.100– 

2005 and ASME MFC–3M–2004; 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) 41.8–1989; 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/ASME MFC–4M–1986 (R2003), 

ANSI/ASME MFC–6M–1998 (R2005), 

ANSI/ASME MFC–7M–1987 (R2001), 

ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988; ANSI/ 

Instrumentation, Systems, and 

Automation Society (ISA) RP 31.1–1977, 

ISA RP 16.6–1961, ISA RP 16.5–1961, 

and ISA 8316:1987; and National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Handbook 44—2002 Edition 

(incorporated by reference—see 40 CFR 

60.17). The Agency conducted a search 

to identify potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. While 

the Agency identified 15 VCS as being 

potentially applicable to PS–17 and 

Procedure 4, we do not propose to use 

these standards in this proposed 

rulemaking. The use of these VCS 

would be impractical for the purposes of 

this proposed rule. See the docket for 

this proposed rule for the reasons for 

these determinations for the standards. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. The 

proposed rule will help to ensure that 

emission control devices are operated 

properly and maintained as needed, 

thereby helping to ensure compliance 

with emission standards, which benefit 

all affected populations. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative Practice and Procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 61 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 22, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of the Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 60.13 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph 

(a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.13 Monitoring requirements. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) Performance specifications for 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems (CPMS) promulgated under 40 

CFR part 60, appendix B and quality 

assurance procedures for CPMS 

promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F apply instead of the 

requirements for CPMS specified in an 

applicable subpart upon promulgation 

of the performance specifications and 

quality assurance procedures for CPMS. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

a. Adding paragraphs (a)(93) through 

(a)(106); 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59984 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

b. Adding paragraphs (h)(5) through 

(h)(10); and 

c. Adding paragraphs (o), (p) and (q) 

to read as follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(93) ASTM E220–07e1, ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Calibration of 

Thermocouples by Comparison 

Techniques,’’ IBR approved for Table 6 

to Performance Standard 17 of appendix 

B to this part and Table 2 to Procedure 

4 of appendix F to this part. 

(94) ASTM E452–02 (2007), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Calibration 

of Refractory Metal Thermocouples 

Using an Optical Pyrometer,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 6 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part 

and Table 2 to Procedure 4 to appendix 

F of this part. 

(95) ASTM E585/E 585M–04, 

‘‘Specification for Compacted MineralInsulated, Metal-Sheathed, Base Metal 

Thermocouple Cables,’’ IBR approved 

for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 

of appendix B to this part. 

(96) ASTM E644–06, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Testing Industrial 

Resistance Thermometers,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 6 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part 

and Table 2 to Procedure 4 of appendix 

F to this part. 

(97) ASTM E235–06, ‘‘Specification 

for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, 

for Nuclear or for Other High-Reliability 

Applications,’’ IBR approved for Table 2 

to Performance Standard 17 of appendix 

B to this part. 

(98) ASTM E608/E 608M–06, 

‘‘Specification for Mineral-Insulated, 

Metal-Sheathed Base Metal 

Thermocouples,’’ IBR approved for 

Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of 

appendix B to this part. 

(99) ASTM E696–07, ‘‘Specification 

for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy 

Thermocouple Wire,’’ IBR approved for 

Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of 

appendix B to this part. 

(100) ASTM E1129/E 1129M–98 

(2002), ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Thermocouple Connectors,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 2 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part. 

(101) ASTM E1137/E 1137M–04, 

‘‘Standard Specification for Industrial 

Platinum Resistance Thermometers,’’ 

IBR approved for Table 2 to 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part. 

(102) ASTM E1159–98 (2003), 

‘‘Specification for Thermocouple 

Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, 

and Platinum,’’ IBR approved for Table 

2 to Performance Standard 17 of 

appendix B to this part. 

(103) ASTM E251–92 (2003), 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Performance Characteristics of Metallic 

Bonded Resistance Strain Gages,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 7 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part 

and Table 3 to Procedure 4 of appendix 

F to this part. 

(104) ASTM D1293–99 (2005), 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for pH of 

Water,’’ IBR approved for section 8.7 of 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part and section 8.4 of Procedure 

4 of appendix F to this part. 

(105) ASTM D1125–95 (2005), 

‘‘Standard Test Methods for Electrical 

Conductivity and Resistivity of Water,’’ 

IBR approved for section 8.8 of 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part and section 8.5 of Procedure 

4 of appendix F to this part. 

(106) ASTM D5391–99 (2005), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Electrical 

Conductivity and Resistivity of a 

Flowing High Purity Water Sample,’’ 

IBR approved for section 8.8 of 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part and section 8.5 of Procedure 

4 of appendix F to this part. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(5) ASME B 40.100–2005, ‘‘Pressure 

Gauges and Gauge Attachments,’’ IBR 

approved for section 6.3 and Table 7 to 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part and Table 3 to Procedure 4 

of appendix F to this part. 

(6) ASME MFC–3M–2004, 

‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes 

Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 3 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part 

and section 8.3 of Procedure 4 to 

appendix F of this part. 

(7) ANSI/ASME MFC–4M–1986 

(R2003), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by 

Turbine Meters,’’ IBR approved for 

Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of 

appendix B to this part. 

(8) ANSI/ASME MFC–6M–1998 

(R2005), ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in 

Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 3 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part. 

(9) ANSI/ASME MFC–7M–1987 

(R2001), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by 

Means of Critical Flow Venturi 

Nozzles,’’ IBR approved for Table 3 to 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part. 

(10) ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988, 

‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed 

Conduits by Weighing Method,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 5 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part 

and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix 

F to this part. 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available 

for purchase from the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 

West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, 

NY, 10036. 

(1) ISA–MC96.1–1982, ‘‘Temperature 

Measurement Thermocouples,’’ IBR 

approved for Table 2 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part 

and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix 

F to this part. 

(2) ASHRAE 41.8–1989, ‘‘Standard 

Methods of Measurement of Flow of 

Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice 

Flowmeters,’’ IBR approved for Table 5 

to Performance Standard 17 of appendix 

B to this part and Table 5 to Procedure 

4 of appendix F to this part. 

(3) ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977, 

‘‘Recommended Practice: Specification, 

Installation, and Calibration of Turbine 

Flow Meters,’’ IBR approved for Table 3 

to Performance Standard 17 of appendix 

B to this part and Table 5 to Procedure 

4 of appendix F to this part. 

(p) The following material is available 

for purchase from the Instrumentation, 

Systems, and Automation Society (ISA), 

67 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709. 

(1) ISA RP 16.6–1961, ‘‘Methods and 

Equipment for Calibration of Variable 

Area Meters (Rotameters),’’ IBR 

approved for Tables 4 and 5 to 

Performance Standard 17 of appendix B 

to this part and Tables 4 and 5 to 

Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part. 

(2) ISA RP 16.5–1961, ‘‘Installation, 

Operation, and Maintenance 

Instructions for Glass Tube Variable 

Area Meters (Rotameters),’’ IBR 

approved for Table 3 to Performance 

Standard 17 of appendix B to this part. 

(q) The following material is available 

for purchase from the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), 

1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CH–1211 

Geneva 20, Switzerland. 

(1) ISO 8316:1987, ‘‘Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits— 

Method by Collection of Liquid in a 

Volumetric Tank,’’ IBR approved for 

Table 4 to Performance Standard 17 of 

appendix B to this part and Table 4 to 

Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part. 

(2) ISO 10790:1999, ‘‘Measurement of 

Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits— 

Guidance to the Selection, Installation, 

and Use of Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, 

Density and Volume Flow 

Measurements),’’ IBR approved for 

Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of 

appendix B to this part and Table 4 to 

Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59985 

4. Appendix B to part 60 is amended 

by adding Performance Specification 17 

in numerical order to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 60—Performance 

Specifications 

* * * * * 

Performance Specification 17— 

Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems at 

Stationary Sources 

1.0 What is the purpose of Performance 

Specification 17? 

The purpose of Performance Specification 

17 (PS–17) is to establish the initial 

installation and performance procedures that 

are required for evaluating the acceptability 

of a continuous parameter monitoring system 

(CPMS). This performance specification 

applies instead of the requirements for 

applicable CPMS specified in any applicable 

subpart to 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, unless 

otherwise specified in the applicable subpart. 

This performance specification does not 

establish procedures or criteria for evaluating 

the ongoing performance of an installed 

CPMS over an extended period of time. 

Procedures for evaluating the ongoing 

performance of a CPMS are described in 

Procedure 4 of appendix F to 40 CFR part 40, 

Quality Assurance Procedures. 

1.1 Under what circumstances does PS– 

17 apply to my CPMS? This performance 

specification applies to your CPMS if your 

CPMS meets the conditions specified in 

section 1.2 of this specification and you meet 

either conditions (1) or (2) of this section: 

(1) You are required by any applicable 

subpart of 40 CFR parts 60 or 61 to install 

and operate the CPMS, or 

(2) You are required by any applicable 

subpart of 40 CFR part 63 to install and 

operate the CPMS, and § 63.8(a)(2) of the 

General Provisions applies to the applicable 

subpart. 

1.2 To what types of devices does PS–17 

apply? This performance specification 

applies if your total equipment meets the 

conditions of (1) and (2) of this section: 

(1) You are required by an applicable 

subpart to install and operate the total 

equipment on a continuous basis, and 

(2) You, as owner or operator, use the total 

equipment to monitor the parameters 

(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow 

rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and 

conductivity) associated with the operation 

of an emission control device or process unit. 

1.3 When must I comply with PS–17? 

You must comply with PS–17 when any of 

conditions (1) through (5) of this section 

occur: 

(1) At the time you install and place into 

operation a CPMS that is required by the 

applicable subpart after 90 days following the 

date of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, or 

(2) At the time you replace or relocate the 

sensor of an affected CPMS after 90 days 

following the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register, or 

(3) At the time you replace the electronic 

signal modifier or conditioner, transmitter, 

external power supply, data acquisition 

system, data recording system, or any other 

mechanical or electrical component of your 

CPMS that affects the accuracy, range, or 

resolution of your CPMS after 90 days 

following the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register, or 

(4) For CPMS located at facilities that are 

required to obtain a title V permit, at the time 

of your title V permit renewal. 

(i) Prior to submitting your title V permit 

renewal, you must comply with the basic 

requirements of this performance 

specification. 

(5) For CPMS located at area source 

facilities that are exempt from obtaining a 

title V permit, 5 years after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the Federal 

Register. 

2.0 What are the basic requirements of PS– 

17? 

This performance specification requires 

you, as an owner or operator of an applicable 

CPMS, to perform and record initial 

installation and calibration procedures to 

confirm the acceptability of the CPMS when 

it is installed and placed into operation. 

2.1 How does PS–17 address the 

installation and equipment requirements for 

my CPMS? This specification stipulates basic 

installation, location, and equipment 

requirements for CPMS and identifies 

applicable voluntary consensus standards 

that provide additional guidance on the 

selection and installation of specific types of 

sensors associated with CPMS. This 

specification also identifies the types of 

equipment needed to check the accuracy of 

your CPMS. General equipment requirements 

are identified in section 6 of this 

specification. Location and installation 

requirements are addressed in sections 8.1 

and 8.2 of this specification. 

2.2 What types of procedures must I 

perform to demonstrate compliance with PS– 

17? This specification requires you, as owner 

or operator of a CPMS, to demonstrate that 

your CPMS satisfies minimum requirements 

for accuracy. For each of the monitoring 

parameters addressed (currently temperature, 

pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass 

flow rate, pH, and conductivity), this 

specification offers you the choice of two or 

more methods that you can use to 

demonstrate that your CPMS meets the 

specified accuracy requirements. For 

accuracy demonstrations that involve 

measurement of gas or liquid pressures, this 

specification also requires you to perform a 

leak test on any pressure connections. 

Accuracy demonstration methods are 

described in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this 

specification; section 8.9 addresses 

alternative procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with this specification; and leak 

test procedures are described in section 8.10 

of this specification. 

2.3 What does PS–17 require me to do if 

my CPMS does not meet the specified 

accuracy requirements? If your CPMS does 

not meet the accuracy requirements, section 

8 of this specification requires you to take 

corrective action until you can demonstrate 

that your CPMS meets the accuracy 

requirement. 

2.4 What types of recordkeeping and 

reporting activities does PS–17 require? This 

specification does not have any reporting 

requirements but does require you to record 

and maintain data that identify your CPMS 

and show the results of any performance 

demonstrations of your CPMS. 

Recordkeeping requirements are described in 

section 14 of this specification. 

3.0 What special definitions apply to PS– 

17? 

3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness 

of a measurement to the true or actual value. 

3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the 

accuracy of a measurement instrument to the 

accuracy of a calibrated instrument or 

standard that is used to measure the accuracy 

of the measurement instrument. For example, 

if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature 

measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the 

accuracy of a thermocouple is 1.0 percent, 

the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 ÷ 0.2 = 5.0). 

3.3 Conductivity CPMS. The total 

equipment that is used to measure and record 

the conductivity of a liquid on a continuous 

basis. 

3.4 Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

System (CPMS). The total equipment that is 

used to measure and record a parameter 

(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow 

rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and 

conductivity) on a continuous basis in one or 

more locations. 

3.5 Cryogenic Application. An 

application of a temperature CPMS in which 

the sensor is subjected to a temperature of 

zero degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit) 

or less. 

3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device, 

such as a pitot tube, that consists of one or 

more pairs of tubes that are oriented to 

measure the velocity pressure and static 

pressure at one or more fixed points within 

a duct for the purpose of determining gas 

velocity. 

3.7 Electronic Components. The 

electronic signal modifier or conditioner, 

transmitter, and power supply associated 

with a CPMS. 

3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that 

is used to measure and record liquid flow 

rate, gas flow rate, or mass flow rate on a 

continuous basis. 

3.9 Integrator. The equipment that is used 

to calculate the material feed rate using two 

inputs: weight of the load on the material 

transfer system (e.g. belt conveyor) and the 

speed of the system. 

3.10 Mass flow rate. The measurement of 

solid, liquid, or gas flow in units of mass per 

time, such as kilograms per minute or tons 

per hour. 

3.11 Mechanical Component. Any 

component of a CPMS that consists of or 

includes moving parts or that is used to 

apply or transfer force to another component 

or part of the CPMS. 

3.12 pH CPMS. The total equipment that 

is used to measure and record the pH of a 

liquid on a continuous basis. 

3.13 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment 

that is used to measure and record the 

pressure of a liquid or gas at any location, or 

the differential pressure of a liquid or gas 

between any two locations, on a continuous 

basis. 

3.14 Resolution. The smallest detectable 

or legible increment of measurement. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59986 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

3.15 Sensor. The component or set of 

components of a CPMS that reacts to changes 

in the magnitude of the parameter that is 

measured by the CPMS (currently 

temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas 

flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or 

conductivity) and generates an output signal. 

Table 1 identifies the sensor components of 

some commonly used CPMS. 

3.16 Solid mass flow rate. The 

measurement of the rate at which a solid 

material is processed or transferred (in units 

of mass per time). Examples of solid mass 

flow rate are the rate at which ore is fed to 

a material dryer or the rate at which 

powdered lime is injected into an exhaust 

duct. 

3.17 Temperature CPMS. The total 

equipment that is used to measure and record 

the temperature of a liquid or gas at any 

location, or the differential temperature of a 

liquid or gas between any two locations, on 

a continuous basis. 

3.18 Total Equipment. The sensor, 

mechanical components, electronic 

components, data acquisition system, data 

recording system, electrical wiring, and other 

components of a CPMS. 

4.0 Interferences [Reserved] 

5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the 

safety of persons who perform the procedures 

specified in PS–17? 

The procedures required under this 

specification may involve hazardous 

materials, operations, site conditions, and 

equipment. This performance specification 

does not purport to address all of the safety 

issues associated with these procedures. It is 

the responsibility of the user to establish 

appropriate safety and health practices and 

determine the applicable regulatory 

limitations prior to performing these 

procedures. 

6.0 What equipment and supplies do I 

need? 

The types of equipment that you need to 

comply with this specification depend upon 

the parameter that is measured by your 

CPMS and upon site-specific conditions. You 

must select the appropriate equipment based 

on manufacturer’s recommendations, your 

site-specific conditions, the parameter that 

your CPMS measures, and the method that 

you choose for demonstrating compliance 

with this specification. For most CPMS, you 

will need the two types of equipment 

described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) The total equipment that is used to 

monitor and record the appropriate 

parameter, as defined in section 3.17 of this 

specification, and 

(2) The equipment needed to perform the 

initial validation check of your CPMS, as 

specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this 

specification. 

6.1 What design criteria must my CPMS 

satisfy? You must select a CPMS that meets 

the design specifications in paragraphs (1) 

through (5) of this section. 

(1) Your CPMS must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements of Table 8 of this specification. 

(2) Your CPMS must be capable of 

measuring the appropriate parameter 

(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow 

rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or 

conductivity) over a range that extends from 

a value that is at least 20 percent less than 

the lowest value that you expect your CPMS 

to measure, to a value that is at least 20 

percent greater than the highest value that 

you expect your CPMS to measure. 

(3) The signal conditioner, wiring, power 

supply, and data acquisition and recording 

system of your CPMS must be compatible 

with the output signal of the sensors used in 

your CPMS. 

(4) The data acquisition and recording 

system of your CPMS must be able to record 

values over the entire range specified in 

paragraph (2) of this section. 

(5) The data recording system associated 

with your CPMS must have a resolution of 

one-half of the required overall accuracy of 

your CPMS, as specified in Table 8 of this 

specification, or better. 

6.2 Are there any exceptions to the range 

requirements specified in section 6.1 of PS– 

17? A pH CPMS must be capable of 

measuring pH over the entire range of pH 

values from 0 to 14. 

6.3 What additional guidelines should I 

use for selecting the sensor of my CPMS? 

Additional guidelines for selecting 

temperature and pressure sensors are listed 

in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) For a temperature CPMS, you should 

select a sensor that is consistent with the 

standards listed in Table 2 of this 

specification. 

(2) If your pressure CPMS uses a pressure 

gauge as the sensor, you should select a 

gauge that conforms to the design 

requirements of ASME B40.100–2005, 

‘‘Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments’’ 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17). 

6.4 What types of equipment do I need 

for checking the accuracy of my CPMS? The 

specific types of equipment that you need for 

checking the accuracy of your CPMS depend 

on the type of CPMS and the method that you 

choose for conducting the initial validation 

check of your CPMS, as specified in sections 

8.4 through 8.8 of this specification. In most 

cases, you will need the equipment specified 

in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) A separate device that either measures 

the same parameter as your CPMS, or that 

simulates the same electronic signal or 

response that your CPMS generates, and 

(2) Any work platform, test ports, pressure 

taps, valves, fittings, or other equipment 

required to perform the specific procedures 

of the validation check method that you 

choose, as specified in sections 8.4 through 

8.8 of this specification. 

6.5 What are the accuracy requirements 

for the equipment that I use for checking the 

accuracy of my CPMS? Any measurement 

instrument or device that is used to conduct 

the initial validation check of your CPMS 

must have an accuracy that is traceable to 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) standards and must have 

an accuracy hierarchy of at least three. To 

determine if a measurement instrument or 

device satisfies this accuracy hierarchy 

requirement, follow the procedure described 

in section 12.1 of this specification. 

6.6 Are there any exceptions to the 

accuracy requirement of section 6.5 of 

PS–17? There are two exceptions to the 

NIST-traceable accuracy requirement 

specified in section 6.5 of this specification, 

as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) As an alternative for a calibrated 

pressure measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy specified in paragraphs (1) 

and (3) of section 8.5 and in paragraph (3) of 

section 8.6 of this specification, you can use 

a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube 

manometer to validate your pressure CPMS. 

(2) When validating a flow rate CPMS 

using the methods specified in paragraphs 

(1), (2), or (7) of section 8.6 of this 

specification, the container used to collect or 

weigh the liquid or solid is not required to 

have NIST-traceable accuracy. 

7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to 

comply with PS–17? 

The specific reagents and standards needed 

to demonstrate compliance with this 

specification depend upon the parameter that 

your CPMS measures and the method that 

you choose to check the accuracy of your 

CPMS. Section 8.3 of this specification 

identifies the specific reagents and standards 

needed for each initial validation check of 

CPMS accuracy. 

8.0 What performance demonstrations must 

I conduct? 

You must satisfy the installation 

requirements, perform an initial calibration, 

and perform an initial validation check of 

your CPMS using the procedures specified in 

sections 8.1 through 8.8 of this specification. 

8.1 How must I install my CPMS? The 

installation of your CPMS must satisfy the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) You must install each sensor of your 

CPMS in a location that provides 

representative measurement of the applicable 

parameter over all operating conditions, 

taking into account the manufacturer’s 

guidelines and any location specified in the 

applicable requirement. 

(2) You must also install any work 

platforms, test ports, pressure taps, valves, 

fittings, or other equipment needed to 

perform the initial validation check, as 

specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this 

specification. 

8.2 What additional guidelines can I use 

for installing my CPMS? If you are required 

to install a flow CPMS and the sensor of your 

flow CPMS is a differential pressure device, 

turbine flow meter, rotameter, vortex 

formation flow meter or Coriolis mass flow 

meter, you can use the standards listed in 

Table 3 of this specification as guidelines for 

installation. 

8.3 What initial quality assurance 

measures are required by PS–17 for my 

CPMS? You must perform an initial 

calibration of your CPMS based on the 

procedures specified in the manufacturer’s 

owner’s manual. You also must perform an 

initial validation check of the operation of 

your CPMS using the methods described in 

sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this specification. 

8.4 How do I perform the initial 

validation check of my temperature CPMS? 

To perform the initial validation check of a 

temperature CPMS, you can choose one of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59987 

the methods described in paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature 

Measurement Device. Place the sensor of a 

calibrated temperature measurement device 

adjacent to the sensor of your temperature 

CPMS so that the sensor of the calibrated test 

device is subjected to the same environment 

as the sensor of your temperature CPMS. The 

calibrated temperature measurement device 

must satisfy the accuracy requirements 

specified in section 6.5 of this specification. 

The calibrated temperature measurement 

device must also have a range equal to or 

greater than the range of your temperature 

CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the response 

of the calibrated temperature measurement 

device to reach equilibrium. With the process 

or control device that is monitored by your 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

concurrently record the temperatures 

measured by your temperature CPMS and the 

calibrated temperature measurement device. 

Using the temperature measured by the 

calibrated measurement device as the value 

for Vc, follow the procedure specified in 

section 12.2 to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification. If you determine that 

your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8, the validation check 

is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy 

the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification, check all system components 

and take any corrective action that is 

necessary to achieve the required minimum 

accuracy. Repeat this validation check 

procedure until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If 

you are required to measure and record 

temperatures at multiple locations, repeat 

this procedure for each location. 

(2) Temperature Simulation Procedure. 

Disconnect the sensor from your temperature 

CPMS and connect to your CPMS a calibrated 

simulation device that is designed to 

simulate the same type of response as the 

sensor of your CPMS. The calibrated 

simulation device must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements specified in section 6.5 of this 

specification. Simulate a typical temperature 

that is measured by your temperature CPMS 

under normal operating conditions. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated simulation device to reach 

equilibrium. Record the temperature that is 

indicated by your temperature CPMS. Using 

the temperature simulated by the calibrated 

simulation device as the value for Vc, follow 

the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

specification to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification. If you determine that 

your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8, the validation check 

is complete. If the calculated accuracy does 

not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 

8 of this specification, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation 

check procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification 

is satisfied. If you are required to measure 

and record temperatures at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

8.5 How do I perform an initial validation 

check of my pressure CPMS? To perform the 

initial validation check of your pressure 

CPMS, you can choose one of the methods 

described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of 

this section. 

(1) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure 

Measurement Device. Connect a mercury-inglass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass Utube manometer, or calibrated pressure 

measurement device to operate in parallel 

with your pressure CPMS so that the 

manometer or sensor of the calibrated 

pressure measurement device is subjected to 

the same pressure as the sensor of your 

pressure CPMS. If a calibrated pressure 

measurement device is used, the device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 

6.5 of this specification. The calibrated 

pressure measurement device also must have 

a range equal to or greater than the range of 

your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on 

all manometer or calibrated pressure 

measurement device connections using the 

procedure specified in section 8.10 of this 

specification. Allow sufficient time for the 

response of the manometer or calibrated 

pressure measurement device to reach 

equilibrium. With the process or control 

device that is monitored by your pressure 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

concurrently record the pressures that are 

measured by your pressure CPMS and by the 

calibrated pressure measurement device. 

Using the pressure measured by the 

calibrated pressure measurement device as 

the value for Vc, follow the procedure 

specified in section 12.2 of this specification 

to determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification, the validation 

check is complete. If your CPMS does not 

meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of 

this specification, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation 

check procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification 

is satisfied. If you are required to measure 

and record pressure at multiple locations, 

repeat this procedure for each location. 

(2) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a 

Calibrated Pressure Source. Disconnect or 

close off the process line or lines to your 

pressure CPMS. Connect an adjustable 

calibrated pressure source to your CPMS so 

that the pressure source applies a pressure to 

the sensor of your pressure CPMS. The 

calibrated pressure source must satisfy the 

accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this 

specification. The calibrated pressure source 

also must be adjustable, either continuously 

or incrementally over the pressure range of 

your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on 

all calibrated pressure source connections 

using the procedure specified in section 8.10 

of this specification. Using the calibrated 

pressure source, apply a pressure that is 

within ±10 percent of the normal operating 

pressure of your pressure CPMS. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated pressure source to reach 

equilibrium. Record the pressure applied by 

the calibrated pressure source and the 

pressure measured by your pressure CPMS. 

Using the pressure applied by the calibrated 

pressure source as the value for Vc, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

specification to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification. If you determine that 

your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If your 

CPMS does not meet the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

validation check procedure until the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification is satisfied. If you are required 

to measure and record pressure at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(3) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a 

Pressure Source and Calibrated Pressure 

Measurement Device. Disconnect or close off 

the process line or lines to your pressure 

CPMS. Attach a mercury-in-glass U-tube 

manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube 

manometer, or a calibrated pressure 

measurement device (the reference pressure 

measurement device) in parallel to your 

pressure CPMS. If a calibrated pressure 

measurement device is used, the device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 

6.5 of this specification. Connect a pressure 

source to your pressure CPMS and the 

parallel reference pressure measurement 

device. Perform a leak test on all pressure 

source and parallel reference pressure 

measurement device connections using the 

procedure specified in section 8.10 of this 

specification. Apply pressure to your CPMS 

and the parallel reference pressure 

measurement device. Allow sufficient time 

for the response of your CPMS and the 

parallel reference pressure measurement 

device to reach equilibrium. Record the 

pressure measured by your pressure CPMS 

and the reference pressure measurement 

device. Using the pressure measured by the 

parallel reference pressure measurement 

device as the value for Vc, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

specification to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification. If you determine that 

your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If your 

CPMS does not meet the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

validation check procedure until the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification is satisfied. If you are required 

to measure and record pressure at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

8.6 How do I perform an initial validation 

check of my flow CPMS? To perform the 

initial validation check of your flow CPMS, 

you can choose any one of the methods 

described in paragraphs (1) through (7) of 

this section that is applicable to the type of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59988 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

material measured by your flow CPMS and 

the type of sensor used in your flow CPMS. 

(1) Volumetric Method. This method 

applies to any CPMS that is designed to 

measure liquid flow rate. With the process or 

control device that is monitored by your flow 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

record the flow rate measured by your flow 

CPMS for the subject process line. At the 

same time, collect the liquid that is flowing 

through the same process line for a measured 

length of time using the Volumetric Method 

specified in one of the standards listed in 

Table 4 of this specification. Using the flow 

rate measured by the Volumetric Method as 

the value for Vc, follow the procedure 

specified in section 12.2 of this specification 

to determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification, the validation 

check is complete. If your CPMS does not 

satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation 

check until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If 

you are required to measure and record flow 

rate at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. 

(2) Gravimetric Method. This method 

applies to any CPMS that is designed to 

measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow 

rate, or solid mass flow rate. With the process 

or control device that is monitored by your 

flow CPMS operating under normal 

conditions, record the flow rate measured by 

your flow CPMS for the subject process line. 

At the same time, collect the material (liquid 

or solid) that is flowing or being transferred 

through the same process line for a measured 

length of time using the Weighing, Weigh 

Tank, or Gravimetric Methods specified in 

the standards listed in Table 5. Using the 

flow rate measured by the Weighing, Weigh 

Tank, or Gravimetric Methods as the value 

for Vc, follow the procedure specified in 

section 12.2 of this specification to determine 

if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification. 

If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification, the validation check is 

complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification, check all system components 

and take any corrective action that is 

necessary to achieve the required minimum 

accuracy. Repeat this validation check until 

the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification is satisfied. If you are required 

to measure and record flow rate at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(3) Differential Pressure Measurement 

Method. This method applies only to flow 

CPMS that use a differential pressure 

measurement flow device, such as an orifice 

plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This 

method may not be used to validate a flow 

CPMS that measures gas flow by means of 

one or more differential pressure tubes. With 

the process or control device that is 

monitored by your CPMS operating under 

normal conditions, record the flow rate 

measured by your flow CPMS. Under the 

same operating conditions, disconnect the 

pressure taps from your flow CPMS and 

connect the pressure taps to a mercury-inglass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass Utube manometer, or calibrated differential 

pressure measurement device. If a calibrated 

pressure measurement device is used, the 

device must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements of section 6.5 of this 

specification. Perform a leak test on all 

manometer or calibrated differential pressure 

measurement device connections using the 

procedure specified in section 8.10 of this 

specification. Allow sufficient time for the 

response of the calibrated differential 

pressure measurement device to reach 

equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of measuring 

and recording the flow rate using your CPMS, 

record the pressure drop measured by the 

calibrated differential pressure measurement 

device. Using the manufacturer’s literature or 

the procedures specified in ASME MFC–3M– 

2004 (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17), calculate the flow rate that 

corresponds to the differential pressure 

measured by the calibrated differential 

pressure measurement device. For CPMS that 

use an orifice flow meter, the procedures 

specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) also 

can be used to calculate the flow rate. Using 

the calculated flow rate as the value for Vc, 

follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this specification to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If your 

CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

procedure until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If 

you are required to measure and record flow 

rate at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. 

(4) Pressure Source Flow Simulation 

Method. This method applies only to flow 

CPMS that use a differential pressure 

measurement flow device, such as an orifice 

plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This 

method may not be used to validate a flow 

CPMS that measures gas flow by means of 

one or more differential pressure tubes. 

Disconnect your flow CPMS from the 

pressure taps. Connect separate pressure 

sources to the upstream and downstream 

sides of your pressure CPMS, where the 

pressure taps are normally connected. The 

pressure sources must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements of section 6.5 of this 

specification. The pressure sources also must 

be adjustable, either continuously or 

incrementally over the pressure range that 

corresponds to the range of your flow CPMS. 

Perform a leak test on all connections 

between the calibrated pressure sources and 

your flow CPMS using the procedure 

specified in section 8.10 of this specification. 

Using the manufacturer’s literature or the 

procedures specified in ASME MFC–3M– 

2004 (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17), calculate the required pressure drop 

that corresponds to the normal operating 

flow rate expected for your flow CPMS. For 

CPMS that use an orifice flow meter, the 

procedures specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) also 

can be used to calculate the pressure drop. 

Use the calibrated pressure sources to apply 

the calculated pressure drop to your flow 

CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the 

responses of the calibrated pressure sources 

to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate 

measured by your flow CPMS. Using the flow 

rate measured by your CPMS when the 

calculated pressure drop was applied as the 

value for Vc, follow the procedure specified 

in section 12.2 of this specification to 

determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification, the validation 

check is complete. If your CPMS does not 

satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure 

until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of 

this specification is satisfied. If you are 

required to measure and record flow rate at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(5) Electronic Signal Simulation Method. 

This method applies to any flow CPMS that 

uses a flow sensor that generates an 

electronic signal. Disconnect the sensor from 

your flow CPMS and connect to your CPMS 

a calibrated simulation device that is 

designed to simulate the same type of 

electrical response as the sensor of your 

CPMS. The calibrated simulation device 

must satisfy the accuracy requirements of 

section 6.5 of this specification. Perform a 

leak test on all connections between the 

calibrated simulation device and your flow 

CPMS using the procedure specified in 

section 8.10 of this specification. Simulate a 

typical flow rate that is monitored by your 

flow CPMS under normal operating 

conditions. Allow sufficient time for the 

response of the calibrated simulation device 

to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate 

measured by your flow CPMS. Using the flow 

rate simulated by the calibrated simulation 

device as the value for Vc, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

specification to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification. If you determine that 

your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If the 

calculated accuracy does not meet the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification, check all system components 

and take any corrective action that is 

necessary to achieve the required minimum 

accuracy. Repeat this validation check until 

the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification is satisfied. If you are required 

to measure and record flow rate at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59989 

(6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This 

method applies to any flow CPMS that 

measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS 

uses a differential flow tube as the flow 

sensor, you must use this method to validate 

your flow CPMS. The reference methods 

(RM’s) applicable to this test are Methods 2, 

2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 and Method 2G of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–2. Conduct three sets of RM 

tests. Mark the beginning and end of each RM 

test period on the flow CPMS chart 

recordings or other permanent record of 

output. Determine the integrated flow rate for 

each RM test period. Perform the same 

calculations specified by section 7.5 in PS– 

2 of this appendix. If the RA is no greater 

than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM 

test data, the RA test is complete. If the RA 

is greater than 20 percent of the mean value 

of the RM test data, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required RA. 

Repeat this RA test until the RA requirement 

of this section is satisfied. If you are required 

to measure and record flow rate at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(7) Material Weight Comparison Method. 

This method applies to any solid mass flow 

CPMS that uses a combination of a belt 

conveyor and scale and is equipped with a 

totalizer. To conduct this test, pass a quantity 

of pre-weighed material over the belt 

conveyor in a manner consistent with actual 

loading conditions. To weigh the test 

quantity of material that is to be used during 

the initial validation, you must use a scale 

that satisfies the accuracy requirements of 

section 6.5 of this specification. The test 

quantity must be sufficient to challenge the 

conveyor belt-scale system for at least three 

revolutions of the belt. Record the length of 

the test. Calculate the mass flow rate using 

the measured weight and the recorded time. 

Using this mass flow rate as the value for Vc, 

follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this specification to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If your 

CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

validation check until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification 

is satisfied. If you are required to measure 

and record flow rate at multiple locations, 

repeat this procedure for each location. In 

addition, you must perform an initial 

validation check on the integrator used by 

your material feed CPMS according to the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

8.7 How do I perform an initial validation 

check of my pH CPMS? You must perform an 

initial validation check of your pH CPMS 

using either of the methods described in 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Comparison to Calibrated pH 

Measurement Device. Place a calibrated pH 

measurement device adjacent to your pH 

CPMS so that the calibrated test device is 

subjected to the same environment as your 

pH CPMS. The calibrated pH measurement 

device must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements specified in section 6.5 of this 

specification. Allow sufficient time for the 

response of the calibrated pH measurement 

device to reach equilibrium. With the process 

or control device that is monitored by your 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

concurrently record the pH measured by your 

pH CPMS and the calibrated pH 

measurement device. If concurrent readings 

are not possible, extract a sufficiently large 

sample from the process stream and perform 

measurements using a portion of the sample 

for each meter. Using the pH measured by the 

calibrated pH measurement device as the 

value for Vc, follow the procedure specified 

in section 12.2 of this specification to 

determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification, the validation 

check is complete. If your CPMS does not 

satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation 

check procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification 

is satisfied. If you are required to measure 

and record pH at multiple locations, repeat 

this procedure for each location. 

(2) Single Point Calibration. This method 

requires the use of a certified buffer solution. 

All buffer solutions used must be certified by 

NIST and accurate to ±0.02 pH units at 25 °C 

(77 °F). Set the temperature on your pH meter 

to the temperature of the buffer solution, 

typically room temperature or 25 °C (77 °F). 

If your pH meter is equipped with automatic 

temperature compensation, activate this 

feature before calibrating. Set your pH meter 

to measurement mode. Place the clean 

electrodes into the container of fresh buffer 

solution. If the expected pH of the process 

fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH), 

use a buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00. 

If the expected pH of the process fluid lies 

in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a 

buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00. 

Allow sufficient time for the response of your 

pH CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the 

pH measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer 

solution pH as the value for Vc, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

specification to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 

of this specification. If you determine that 

your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If your 

CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this procedure, 

calibrate your pH CPMS using the procedures 

specified in the manufacturer’s owner’s 

manual. If the manufacturer’s owner’s 

manual does not specify a two-point 

calibration procedure, you must perform a 

two-point calibration procedure based on 

ASTM D1293–99 (2005) (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). If you are required to 

measure and record pH at multiple locations, 

repeat this procedure for each location. 

8.8 How do I perform an initial validation 

check of my conductivity CPMS? You must 

perform an initial validation check of your 

conductivity CPMS using either of the 

methods described in paragraphs (1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(1) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity 

Measurement Device. Place a calibrated 

conductivity measurement device adjacent to 

your conductivity CPMS so that the 

calibrated measurement device is subjected 

to the same environment as your 

conductivity CPMS. The calibrated 

conductivity measurement device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in 

section 6.5 of this specification. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated conductivity measurement device 

to reach equilibrium. With the process or 

control device that is monitored by your 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

concurrently record the conductivity 

measured by your conductivity CPMS and 

the calibrated conductivity measurement 

device. If concurrent readings are not 

possible, extract a sufficiently large sample 

from the process stream and perform 

measurements using a portion of the sample 

for each meter. Using the conductivity 

measured by the calibrated conductivity 

measurement device as the value for Vc, 

follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this specification to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this specification. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

the validation check is complete. If your 

CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

validation check procedure until the 

accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this 

specification is satisfied. If you are required 

to measure and record conductivity at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(2) Single Point Calibration. This method 

requires the use of a certified conductivity 

standard solution. All solutions used must be 

certified by NIST and accurate to ±2 percent 

micromhos per centimeter (μmhos/cm) (±2 

percent microsiemens per centimeter (μS/ 

cm)) at 25 °C (77 °F). Choose a conductivity 

standard solution that is close to the 

measuring range for best results. Since 

conductivity is dependent on temperature, 

the conductivity tester should have an 

integral temperature sensor that adjusts the 

reading to a standard temperature, usually 

25 °C (77 °F). If the conductivity meter allows 

for manual temperature compensation, set 

this value to 25 °C (77 °F). Place the clean 

electrodes into the container of fresh 

conductivity standard solution. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of your CPMS 

to reach equilibrium. Record the conductivity 

measured by your CPMS. Using the 

conductivity standard solution as the value 

for Vc, follow the procedure specified in 

section 12.2 of this specification to determine 

if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 8 of this specification. 

If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59990 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

accuracy requirement of Table 8, the 

validation check is complete. If your CPMS 

does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of 

Table 8 of this procedure, calibrate your 

conductivity CPMS using the procedures 

specified in the manufacturer’s owner’s 

manual. If the manufacturer’s owner’s 

manual does not specify a calibration 

procedure, you must perform a calibration 

procedure based on ASTM D 1125–95 (2005) 

or ASTM D 5391–99 (2005) (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). If you are required to 

measure and record conductivity at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

8.9 Are there any acceptable alternative 

procedures for installing and verifying my 

CPMS? You may use alternative procedures 

for installing and verifying the operation of 

your CPMS if the alternative procedures are 

approved by the Administrator. In addition, 

for temperature and pressure CPMS, you can 

use the methods specified in paragraphs (1) 

and (2) of this section, respectively, to satisfy 

the initial validation check. 

(1) Alternative Temperature CPMS 

Validation Check. As an alternative to the 

procedures for the temperature CPMS initial 

validation check in this specification, you 

may use the methods listed in Table 6 of this 

specification to determine the accuracy of 

thermocouples or resistance temperature 

detectors. However, you also must check the 

accuracy of the overall CPMS system using 

the methods specified in section 8.4 of this 

specification or an alternative method that 

has been approved by the Administrator. 

(2) Alternative Pressure CPMS Validation 

Check. As an alternative to the procedure for 

the pressure CPMS initial validation check in 

this specification, you may use the methods 

listed in Table 7 of this specification to check 

the accuracy of the pressure sensor 

associated with your pressure CPMS. 

However, you also must check the accuracy 

of the overall CPMS using the methods in 

section 8.5 of this specification or an 

alternative method that has been approved by 

the Administrator. 

8.10 How do I perform a leak test on 

pressure connections, as required by this 

specification? You can satisfy the leak test 

requirements of sections 8.5 and 8.6 of this 

specification by following the procedures 

described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of 

this section. 

(1) For each pressure connection, apply a 

pressure that is equal to the highest pressure 

the connection is likely to be subjected to or 

0.24 kilopascals (1.0 inch of water column), 

whichever is greater. 

(2) Close off the connection between the 

applied pressure source and the connection 

that is being leak-tested. 

(3) If the applied pressure remains stable 

for at least 15 seconds, the connection is 

considered to be leak tight. If the applied 

pressure does not remain stable for at least 

15 seconds, take any corrective action 

necessary to make the connection leak tight 

and repeat this leak test procedure. 

9.0 What ongoing quality control measures 

are required? 

Ongoing quality control procedures for 

CPMS are specified in Procedure 4 of 

appendix F of this part. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

[Reserved] 

11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved] 

12.0 What calculations are needed? 

The calculations needed to comply with 

this performance specification are described 

in sections 12.1 and 12.2 of this specification. 

12.1 How do I determine if a calibrated 

measurement device satisfies the accuracy 

hierarchy specified in section 6.5 of this 

specification. To determine if a calibrated 

measurement device satisfies the accuracy 

hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure 

described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Calculate the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) 

using Equation 17–1. 

A = A

A h

r

c

( ) Eq. 17-1

Where: 

Ah = Accuracy hierarchy, dimensionless. 

Ar = Required accuracy (Ap or Av) specified 

in Table 8 of this specification, percent 

or units of parameter value (e.g., degrees 

Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute). 

Ac= Accuracy of calibrated measurement 

device, same units as Ar. 

(2) If the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) is equal 

to or greater than 3.0, the calibrated 

measurement device satisfies the accuracy 

hierarchy of Section 6.5 of this specification. 

12.2 How do I determine if my CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of PS–17? 

To determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of PS–17, follow the 

procedure described in paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) If your CPMS measures temperature, 

pressure, or flow rate, calculate the accuracy 

percent value (Apv) using Equation 17–2. If 

your CPMS measures pH, proceed to 

paragraph (2) of this section. 

A =V

A

pv c

p

100 ( ) Eq. 17-2

Where: 

Apv = Accuracy percent value, units of 

parameter measured (e.g., degrees 

Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute). 

Vc = Parameter value measured by the 

calibrated measurement device or 

measured by your CPMS when a 

calibrated signal simulator is applied to 

your CPMS during the initial validation 

check, units of parameter measured (e.g., 

degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per 

minute). 

Ap = Accuracy percentage specified in Table 

8 of this specification that corresponds to 

your CPMS, percent. 

(2) If your CPMS measures temperature, 

pressure, or flow rate other than mass flow 

rate or steam flow rate, compare the accuracy 

percent value (Apv) to the accuracy value (Av) 

in Table 8 of this specification and select the 

greater of the two values. Use this greater 

value as the allowable deviation (da) in 

paragraph (4) of this section. If your CPMS 

measures pH, use the accuracy value (Av) 

specified in Table 8 of this specification as 

the allowable deviation (da). If your CPMS 

measures steam flow rate, mass flow rate, or 

conductivity, use the accuracy percent value 

(Apv) calculated using Equation 17–2 as the 

allowable deviation (da). 

(3) Using Equation 17–3, calculate the 

measured deviation (dm), which is the 

absolute value of the difference between the 

parameter value measured by the calibrated 

device (Vc) and the value measured by your 

CPMS (Vm). 

d =V V m cm − ( ) Eq. 17-3

Where: 

dm = Measured deviation, units of the 

parameter measured (e.g., degrees 

Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute). 

Vc = Parameter value measured by the 

calibrated measurement device or 

measured by your CPMS when a 

calibrated signal simulator is applied to 

your CPMS during the initial validation 

check, units of parameter measured (e.g., 

degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per 

minute). 

Vm = Parameter value measured by your 

CPMS during the initial validation 

check, units of parameter measured (e.g., 

degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per 

minute). 

(4) Compare the measured deviation (dm) to 

the allowable deviation (da). If the measured 

deviation is less than or equal to the 

allowable deviation, your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of this specification. 

13.0 What initial performance criteria must 

I demonstrate for my CPMS to comply with 

PS–17? 

You must demonstrate that your CPMS 

meets the accuracy requirements specified in 

Table 8 of this specification. 

14.0 What are the recordkeeping 

requirements for PS–17? 

You must satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in Sections 14.1 and 

14.2 of this specification. 

14.1 What data does PS–17 require me to 

record for my CPMS? For each affected CPMS 

that you operate, you must record the 

information listed in paragraphs (1) through 

(6) of this section. 

(1) Identification and location of the CPMS; 

(2) Manufacturer’s name and model 

number of the CPMS; 

(3) Range of parameter values you expect 

your CPMS to measure and record; 

(4) Date of the initial calibration and 

system validation check; 

(5) Results of the initial calibration and 

system validation check; and 

(6) Name of the person(s) who performed 

the initial calibration and system validation 

check. 

14.2 For how long must I maintain the 

data that PS–17 requires me to record for my 

CPMS? You are required to keep the records 

required by this specification for your CPMS 

for a period of 5 years. At a minimum, you 

must maintain the most recent 2 years of data 

onsite and available for inspection by the 

enforcement agency. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP09OC08.010</MATH> EP09OC08.011</MATH> EP09OC08.012</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59991 

15.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

16.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 

17.0 Which references are relevant to PS– 

17? 

1. Technical Guidance Document: 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission 

Measurement Center. August 1998. (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html). 

2. NEMA Standard Publication 250. 

‘‘Enclosures for Electrical Equipment (1000 

Volts Maximum)’’. National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association. 1997. 

3. ASTM E–220–86 (1996): Standard Test 

Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by 

Comparison Techniques. American Society 

for Testing and Materials. May 1986. 

4. MC96–1–1982: Temperature 

Measurement Thermocouples. American 

National Standards Institute. August 1982. 

5. The pH and Conductivity Handbook. 

Omega Engineering, Inc. 1995. 

6. ASTM E–452–89: ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Calibration of Refractory Metal 

Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer’’. 

American Society of Testing and Materials. 

April 1989. 

7. ASTM E 644–06: ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance 

Thermometers’’. American Society of Testing 

and Materials. 2006. 

8. ASME B 40.100–2005: ‘‘Pressure Gauges 

and Gauge Attachments’’. American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers. 2005. 

9. ASTM E 251–92 (2003): ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Performance Characteristics of 

Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages’’. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. 

2003. 

10. ASHRAE 41.8–1989: ‘‘Standard 

Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids 

in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989. 

11. ISA RP 16.6–1961: ‘‘Methods and 

Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area 

Meters (Rotameters)’’. Instrumentation, 

Systems, and Automation Society. 1961. 

12. ANSI/ISA–RP31.1–1977: 

‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration 

of Turbine Flow Meters’’. Instrumentation, 

Systems, and Automation Society. 1977. 

13. ASTM E 1–95: ‘‘Standard 

Specifications for ASTM Thermometers’’. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. 

1995. 

14. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1–1986: ‘‘Standard 

Method for Temperature Measurement’’ 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

February 1987. 

15. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.3–1989: ‘‘Standard 

Method for Pressure Measurement’’. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989. 

16. ISA RP 16.5–1961: ‘‘Installation, 

Operation, and Maintenance Instructions for 

Glass Tube Variable Area Meters 

(Rotameters)’’. Instrumentation, Systems, and 

Automation Society. 1961. 

17. ASME MFC–3M–2004: ‘‘Measurement 

of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, 

and Venturi’’. American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers. 1989. 

18. ASTM E–1137–97: ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Industrial Platinum 

Resistance Thermometers’’. American 

Society for Testing and Materials. 1997. 

19. The Temperature Handbook. Omega 

Engineering, Inc. 2000. 

20. The Pressure, Strain and Force 

Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc. 1999. 

21. The Flow and Level Handbook. Omega 

Engineering, Inc. 2000. 

22. ASTM D–5464–93 (1997): ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for pH Measurement of Water 

of Low Conductivity’’. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. 1993. 

23. ASTM D–1293–99: ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for pH of Water’’. American Society 

for Testing and Materials. 1999. 

24. ANSI/ASME MFC–4M–1986 (R2003): 

‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine 

Meters’’. American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers. 2003. 

25. ASME/ANSI MFC–6M–1987: 

‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 

Vortex Flow Meters’’. American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers. 1987. 

26. ASME/ANSI MFC–7M–1987: 

‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of 

Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles’’. American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1987. 

27. ASME/ANSI MFC–9M–1988: 

‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed 

Conduits by Weighing Method’’. American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1989. 

28. ASME/ANSI MFC–10M–1994: 

‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed 

Conduits by Volumetric Method’’. American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1994. 

29. ISO 8316:1987: ‘‘Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits-Method by 

Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank’’. 

International Organization for 

Standardization. 1987. 

30. NIST Handbook 44—2002 Edition: 

‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, And Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices, as adopted by the 86th 

National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 2001’’, Section 2.21: ‘‘BeltConveyor Scale Systems’’. 

31. ISO 10790:1999: ‘‘Measurement of 

Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits-Guidance to 

the Selection, Installation, and Use of 

Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and 

Volume Flow Measurements’’. International 

Organization for Standardization. 1999. 

32. ASTM D 1125–95 (2005): ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and 

Resistivity of Water’’. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. 2005. 

33. ASTM D 5391–99 (2005): ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Electrical Conductivity and 

Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water 

Sample’’. American Society for Testing and 

Materials. 2005. 

18.0 What tables are relevant to PS–17? 

TABLE 1—SENSOR COMPONENTS OF COMMONLY USED CPMS 

For a CPMS that measures . . . Using a . . . The sensor component consists of the . . . 

1. Temperature ................................................... a. Thermocouple .............................................. Thermocouple. 

b. Resistance temperature detector (RTD) ..... RTD. 

c. Optical pyrometer ......................................... Optical assembly and detector. 

d. Thermistor .................................................... Thermistor. 

e. Temperature transducer .............................. Integrated circuit sensor? 

2. Pressure ......................................................... a. Pressure gauge ........................................... Gauge assembly, including bourdon element, 

bellows element, or diaphragm. 

b. Pressure transducer .................................... Strain gauge assembly, capacitance assembly, linear variable differential transformer, 

force balance assembly, potentiometer, 

variable reluctance assembly, piezoelectric 

assembly, or piezoresistive assembly. 

c. Manometer ................................................... U-tube or differential manometer. 

3. Flow rate ........................................................ a. Differential pressure device ......................... Flow constricting element (nozzle, Venturi, or 

orifice plate) and differential pressure sensor. 

b. Differential pressure tube ............................ Pitot tube, or other array of tubes that measure velocity pressure and static pressure, 

and differential pressure sensor. 

c. Magnetic flow meter ..................................... Magnetic coil assembly. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59992 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SENSOR COMPONENTS OF COMMONLY USED CPMS—Continued 

For a CPMS that measures . . . Using a . . . The sensor component consists of the . . . 

d. Positive displacement flow meter ................ Piston, blade, vane, propeller, disk, or gear 

assembly. 

e. Turbine flow meter ....................................... Rotor or turbine assembly. 

f. Vortex formation flow meter ......................... Vortex generating and sensing elements. 

g. Fluidic oscillating flow meter ........................ Feedback passage, side wall, control port, 

and thermal sensor. 

h. Ultrasonic flow meter ................................... Sonic transducers, receivers, timer, and temperature sensor. 

i. Thermal flow meter ....................................... Thermal element and temperature sensors. 

j. Coriolis mass flow meter .............................. U-tube and magnetic sensing elements. 

k. Rotameter .................................................... Float assembly. 

l. Solids flow meter .......................................... Sensing plate. 

m. Belt conveyor .............................................. Scale. 

4. pH ................................................................... pH meter .......................................................... Electrode. 

5. Conductivity .................................................... Conductivity meter ........................................... Electrode. 

TABLE 2—DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TEMPERATURE SENSORS

If the sensor is a . . . You can use the following design standards as guidance in selecting a sensor for your CPMS 

. . . 

1. Thermocouple ................................................. a. ASTM E235–88 (1996), ‘‘Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed, Type K, for Nuclear or 

Other High-Reliability Applications.’’ 

b. ASTM E585/E 585M–04, ‘‘Specification for Compacted Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed, 

Base Metal Thermocouple Cables.’’ 

c. ASTM E608/E 608M–06, ‘‘Specification for Mineral-Insulated, Metal-Sheathed Base Metal 

Thermocouples.’’ 

d. ASTM E696–07, ‘‘Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy Thermocouple Wire.’’ 

e. ASTM E1129/E 1129M–98 (2002), ‘‘Standard Specification for Thermocouple Connectors.’’ 

f. ASTM E1159–98 (2003), ‘‘Specification for Thermocouple Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum.’’ 

g. ISA–MC96.1–1982, ‘‘Temperature Measurement Thermocouples.’’ 

2. Resistance temperature detector ................... ASTM E1137/E1137M–04, ‘‘Standard Specification for Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers.’’ 

TABLE 3—STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FLOW SENSORS

If the sensor of your flow CPMS is 

a . . . You should install the flow sensor according to . . . 

1. Differential pressure device ........ ASME MFC–3M–2004, ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi’’. 

2. Critical flow venturi flow meter 

used to measure gas flow rate.

ASME/ANSI MFC–7M–1987 (R2001), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles’’. 

3. Turbine flow meter ...................... ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977, ‘‘Recommended Practice: Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine 

Flowmeters’’, or, if used for gas flow measurement, ANSI/ASME MFC–4M–1986 (R2003), ‘‘Measurement of Gas Flow by Turbine Meters’’. 

4. Rotameter ................................... ISA RP 16.5–1961, ‘‘Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area 

Meters (Rotameters)’’. 

5. Coriolis mass flow meter ............ ISO 10790:1999, ‘‘Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits—Guidance to the selection, installation 

and use of Coriolis meters (mass flow, density and volume flow measurements). 

6. Vortex formation flow meter ....... ASME/ANSI MFC–6M–1998 (R2005), ‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters’’. 

TABLE 4—VOLUMETRIC METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF FLOW METERS

Designation Title 

1. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ...................... ‘‘Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)’’. 

2. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............ ‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’. 

3. ISO 8316:1987 ............................ ‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank’’. 

TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF FLOW METERS

Designation Title 

1. ASHRAE 41.8–1989 ................... ‘‘Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’. 

2. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ...................... ‘‘Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters)’’. 

3. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............ ‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59993 

TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF FLOW METERS—Continued 

Designation Title 

4. ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988 ...... ‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method’’. 

TABLE 6—ALTERNATE METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF TEMPERATURE SENSORS

If the temperature sensor in your CPMS is a 

. . . And is used in . . . You can perform the initial validation check of the sensor using . . . 

1. Thermocouple ................................................ Any application ................................................. ASTM E220–07e1. 

2. Thermocouple ................................................ A reducing environment ................................... ASTM E452–02 (2007). 

3. Resistance temperature detector .................. Any application ................................................. ASTM E644–06. 

TABLE 7—ALTERNATE METHODS FOR INITIAL VALIDATION CHECK OF PRESSURE SENSORS

If the pressure sensor in your CPMS is a . . . 

You can perform the initial validation check of the sensor using 

. . . 

1. Pressure gauge ................................................................................................................................................. ASME B40.100–2005. 

2. Metallic bonded resistance strain gauge ........................................................................................................... ASTM E251–92 (2003). 

TABLE 8—CPMS ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS

If your CPMS measures . . . You must demonstrate that your CPMS operates within . . . 

1. Temperature, in a non-cryogenic 

application.

An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±1.0 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an 

accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater. 

2. Temperature, in a cryogenic application.An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±2.5 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an 

accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater. 

3. Pressure ...................................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of 

water column), whichever is greater. 

4. Liquid flow rate ........................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons 

per minute), whichever is greater. 

5. Gas flow rate .............................. a. A relative accuracy of ±20 percent, if you demonstrate compliance using the relative accuracy test, or 

b. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±10 percent, if your CPMS measures steam flow rate, or 

c. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 280 liters per minute (10 cubic 

feet per minute), whichever is greater, for all other gases and accuracy audit methods. 

6. Mass flow rate ............................ An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent. 

7. pH ............................................... An accuracy value (Av) of ±0.2 pH units. 

8. Conductivity ................................ An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent. 

5. Appendix F to part 60 is amended 

as follows: 

a. In Procedure 1, by: 

i. Revising the second (last) sentence 

in the first paragraph of section 1.1; and 

ii. Adding sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.3.3, 

4.4.1, 5.5.5, and 5.1.7. 

b. Adding Procedure 4 in numerical 

order to read 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 

1. Applicability and Principle 

1.1 * * * The CEMS may include 

systems that monitor one pollutant (e.g., SO2

or NOX), a combination of pollutants (e.g., 

benzene and hexane), or diluents (e.g., O2 or 

CO2). 

* * * * * 

4. CD Assessment 

* * * * * 

4.1.1 Multiple Organic Pollutant CEMS. 

Source owners and operators of gas 

chromatographic CEMS that are subject to PS 

9 and are used to monitor multiple organic 

pollutants must perform the daily CD 

requirement specified in section 4.1 of this 

procedure using any one of the target 

pollutants specified in the applicable 

regulation. 

4.1.2 CEMS Subject to PS 15. To satisfy 

the daily CD requirement of this procedure, 

source owners and operators of extractive 

Fourier Transfer Infrared (FTIR) CEMS that 

are subject to PS 15 must perform at least 

once daily the calibration transfer standards 

check, analyte spike check, and background 

deviation check specified in PS–15 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B), sections 10.1, 10.4, and 

10.6, respectively. The analyte spike check 

can be performed using any of the target 

analytes. 

* * * * * 

4.3.3 Out-of-Control Definition for CEMS 

Subject to PS 15. If the calibration transfer 

standards check, analyte spike check, or 

background deviation check exceeds twice 

the accuracy criterion of ±5 percent for five, 

consecutive daily periods, the CEMS is out 

of control. If the calibration transfer 

standards check, analyte spike check, or 

background deviation check exceeds four 

times the accuracy criterion of ±5 percent 

during any daily calibration check, the CEMS 

is out of control. If the CEMS is out of 

control, take necessary corrective action. 

Following corrective action, repeat the 

calibration checks specified in this section. 

* * * * * 

4.4.1 Data Storage Requirements for 

CEMS Subject to PS 15. In addition to the 

requirements of section 4.4 of this procedure, 

source owners and operators of CEMS subject 

to PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) must 

satisfy the data storage requirements of 

section 6.3 of PS–15. 

* * * * * 

5. Data Accuracy Assessment 

* * * * * 

5.1.5 Audits for CEMS Subject to PS 9. 

For CEMS that are subject to PS 9, the 

requirements of section 5.1 of this procedure 

apply, with the following exceptions: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59994 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(1) The RATA specified in sections 5.1.1 

and 5.1.4 of this procedure does not apply. 

(2) The CGA must be conducted every 

calendar quarter. 

(3) The CGA must be conducted according 

to the procedures specified in section 5.3 of 

PS–9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B), except 

that the audit must be performed at two 

points as specified in section 5.1.2 of this 

procedure. 

(4) The CGA must be conducted for each 

target pollutant specified in the applicable 

regulation. 

(5) The RAA specified in section 5.1.3 of 

this procedure does not apply. 

(6) Audits conducted under this procedure 

fulfill the requirement of section 5.3 of PS– 

9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) for quarterly 

performance audits. 

5.1.6 Audits for CEMS Subject to PS–15. 

For CEMS that are subject to PS–15 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B), the requirements of 

section 5.1 of this procedure apply, with the 

following exceptions: 

(1) The RATA specified in sections 5.1.1 

and 5.1.4, the CGA specified in section 5.1.2, 

and the RAA specified in section 5.1.3 of this 

procedure do not apply. 

(2) To satisfy the quarterly accuracy audit 

requirement of this procedure, one of the 

accuracy checks specified in PS–15 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B), sections 9.1 (Audit 

Sample), 9.2 (Audit Spectra), and 9.3 (Submit 

Spectra for Independent Analysis) must be 

performed at least once each calendar 

quarter, consistent with the following 

additional criteria: 

(i) The audit sample check, specified in 

section 9.1 of PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B), must be conducted at least once 

every four calendar quarters. 

(ii) The audit spectra check, specified in 

section 9.2 of PS–15 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B), can be used to satisfy the 

quarterly accuracy audit requirement only 

once every four calendar quarters. 

(3) Audits conducted under this procedure 

fulfill the requirement of section 9 of PS–15 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) for quarterly or 

semiannual QA/QC checks on the operation 

of extractive FTIR CEMS. 

* * * * * 

Procedure 4. Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Continuous Parameter 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources 

1.0 What is the purpose of this procedure? 

The purpose of this procedure is to 

establish the minimum requirements for 

evaluating on an ongoing basis the quality of 

data produced by your continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS), and the 

effectiveness of quality assurance (QA) and 

quality control (QC) procedures that you 

have developed for your CPMS. This 

procedure applies instead of the QA and QC 

requirements for applicable CPMS specified 

in any applicable subpart to parts 60, 61, or 

63, unless otherwise specified in the 

applicable subpart. This procedure presents 

requirements in general terms to allow you 

to develop a QC program that is most 

effective for your circumstances. This 

procedure does not restrict your current QA/ 

QC procedures to ensure compliance with 

applicable regulations. Instead, you are 

encouraged to develop and implement a 

more extensive QA/QC program or to 

continue such programs where they already 

exist. 

1.1 To what types of devices does 

Procedure 4 apply? This procedure applies to 

any CPMS that is subject to Performance 

Specification 17 (PS–17). 

1.2 When must I comply with Procedure 

4? You must comply with this procedure 

when conditions (1) or (2) of this section 

occur. 

(1) At the time you install and place into 

operation a CPMS that is subject to PS–17. 

(2) At the time any of your existing CPMS 

become subject to PS–17. 

1.3 How does Procedure 4 affect me if I 

am also subject to QA procedures under 

another applicable subpart? This procedure 

does not apply if any more stringent QA 

requirements apply to you under an 

applicable requirement. You are required to 

comply with the more stringent of the 

applicable QA requirements. 

2.0 What are the basic requirements of 

Procedure 4? 

This procedure requires all owners and 

operators of a CPMS to perform periodic QA 

evaluations of CPMS performance and to 

develop and implement QC programs to 

ensure that CPMS data quality is maintained. 

2.1 What types of procedures are required 

for me to demonstrate compliance? This 

procedure requires you to meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Perform periodic accuracy audits of 

your CPMS; and 

(2) Take corrective action when your CPMS 

fails to meet the accuracy requirements of 

this procedure. 

2.2 What types of recordkeeping and 

reporting activities are required by Procedure 

4? This procedure does not have any 

reporting requirements but does require you 

to record and maintain data that identify 

your CPMS and show the results of any 

performance demonstrations of your CPMS. 

Recordkeeping requirements are specified in 

section 14 of this procedure. 

3.0 What special definitions apply to 

Procedure 4? 

3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness 

of a measurement to the true or actual value. 

3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the 

accuracy of a measurement instrument to the 

accuracy of a calibrated instrument or 

standard that is used to measure the accuracy 

of the measurement instrument. For example, 

if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature 

measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the 

accuracy of a thermocouple is 1.0 percent, 

the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 ÷ 0.2 = 5.0). 

3.3 Calibration drift. The difference 

between a reference value and the output 

value of a CPMS after a period of operation 

during which no unscheduled maintenance, 

repair, or adjustment took place. 

3.4 Conductivity CPMS. The total 

equipment that is used to measure and record 

liquid conductivity on a continuous basis. 

3.5 Continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS). The total equipment that is 

used to measure and record parameters, such 

as temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas 

flow rate, mass flow rate, pH or conductivity, 

in one or more locations on a continuous 

basis. 

3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device, 

such as a pitot tube, that consists of one or 

more pairs of tubes that are oriented to 

measure the velocity pressure and static 

pressure at one of more fixed points within 

a duct for the purpose of determining gas 

velocity. 

3.7 Electronic components. The 

electronic signal modifier or conditioner, 

transmitter, and power supply associated 

with a CPMS. 

3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that 

is used to measure liquid flow rate, gas flow 

rate, or mass flow rate on a continuous basis. 

3.9 Mass flow rate. The measurement of 

solid, liquid, or gas flow in units of mass per 

time, such as kilograms per minute or tons 

per hour. 

3.10 Mechanical component. Any 

component of a CPMS that consists of or 

includes moving parts or that is used to 

apply or transfer force to another component 

or part of a CPMS. 

3.11 pH CPMS. The total equipment that 

is used to measure and record liquid pH on 

a continuous basis. 

3.12 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment 

that is used to measure and record the 

pressure of a liquid or gas at any location or 

the differential pressure of a gas or liquid at 

any two locations on a continuous basis. 

3.13 Resolution. The smallest detectable 

or legible increment of measurement. 

3.14 Sensor. The component of a CPMS 

that senses the parameter being measured 

(currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow 

rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or 

conductivity) and generates an output signal. 

Table 1 identifies the sensor components of 

some commonly used CPMS. 

3.15 Solid mass flow rate. The 

measurement in units of mass per time of the 

rate at which a solid material is processed or 

transferred. Examples of solid mass flow rate 

are the rate at which ore is fed to a material 

dryer or the rate at which powdered lime is 

injected into an exhaust duct. 

3.16 Temperature CPMS. The total 

equipment that is used to measure and record 

the temperature of a liquid or gas at any 

location or the differential temperature of a 

gas or liquid at any two locations on a 

continuous basis. 

3.17 Total equipment. The sensor, 

mechanical components, electronic 

components, data recording, electrical 

wiring, and other components of a CPMS. 

4.0 Interferences [Reserved] 

5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the 

safety of persons who perform the accuracy 

audits specified in Procedure 4? 

The accuracy audits required under 

Procedure 4 may involve hazardous 

materials, operations, site conditions, and 

equipment. This QA procedure does not 

purport to address all of the safety issues 

associated with these audits. It is the 

responsibility of the user to establish 

appropriate safety and health practices and 

determine the applicable regulatory 

limitations prior to performing these audits. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59995 

6.0 What are the equipment requirements 

for Procedure 4? 

6.1 What types of equipment do I need 

for performing the accuracy audit of my 

CPMS? The specific types of equipment that 

you need for your CPMS accuracy audit 

depend on the type of CPMS, site-specific 

conditions, and the method that you choose 

for conducting the accuracy audit, as 

specified in sections 8.1 through 8.5 of this 

procedure. In most cases, you will need the 

equipment described in paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) A separate device that either measures 

the same parameter that your CPMS 

measures, or that simulates the same 

electronic signal or response that your CPMS 

generates, and 

(2) Any test ports, pressure taps, valves, 

fittings, or other equipment required to 

perform the specific procedures of the 

accuracy audit method that you choose, as 

specified in section 8.1 of this procedure. 

6.2 What are the accuracy requirements 

for the equipment that I use to audit the 

accuracy of my CPMS? Unless you meet one 

of the exceptions listed in section 6.3 of this 

procedure, any measurement instrument or 

device that you use to conduct an accuracy 

audit of your CPMS must have an accuracy 

that is traceable to National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) standards 

and must have an accuracy hierarchy of at 

least three. To determine if a measurement 

instrument or device satisfies this accuracy 

hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure 

described in section 12.1 of this procedure. 

6.3 Are there any exceptions to the 

accuracy requirement of section 6.2 of this 

procedure? There are three exceptions to the 

NIST-traceable accuracy requirement 

specified in section 6.2, as described in 

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

(1) If you perform an accuracy audit of 

your CPMS by comparison to a redundant 

CPMS, you need not meet the NISTtraceability requirement of section 6.2; 

however, the redundant CPMS must have an 

accuracy equal to or better than the 

corresponding minimum required accuracy 

specified in Table 6 of this procedure for that 

specific type of CPMS. 

(2) As an alternative for the calibrated 

pressure measurement device with NISTtraceable accuracy that is required in 

paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 8.2 and in 

paragraph (4) of section 8.3 of this 

specification, you can use a mercury-in-glass 

or water-in-glass U-tube manometer to check 

the accuracy of your pressure CPMS. 

(3) When validating a flow rate CPMS 

using the methods specified in paragraphs 

(2), (3), or (7) of section 8.3 of this 

specification, the container used to collect or 

weigh the liquid or solid is not required to 

have NIST-traceable accuracy. 

7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to 

comply with Procedure 4? 

The specific reagents and standards needed 

to demonstrate compliance with this 

procedure depend upon the parameter that 

your CPMS measures and the method that 

you choose to check the accuracy of your 

CPMS. Sections 8.1 through 8.5 of this 

procedure identify the specific reagents and 

standards that you will need to conduct 

accuracy audits of your CPMS. 

8.0 What quality assurance and quality 

control measures are required by Procedure 

4 for my CPMS? 

You must perform accuracy audits, meet 

the accuracy requirements of this procedure, 

and perform any additional checks of the 

CPMS as specified in sections 8.1 through 8.9 

of this procedure. 

8.1 How do I perform an accuracy audit 

for my temperature CPMS? To perform the 

accuracy audit, you can choose one of the 

methods described in paragraphs (1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Comparison to Redundant Temperature 

Sensor. This method requires your CPMS to 

have a primary temperature sensor and a 

redundant temperature sensor. The 

redundant temperature sensor must be 

installed adjacent to the primary temperature 

sensor and must be subject to the same 

environment as the primary temperature 

sensor. To perform the accuracy audit, record 

three pairs of concurrent temperature 

measurements within a 24-hour period. Each 

pair of concurrent measurements must 

consist of a temperature measurement by 

each of the two temperature sensors. The 

minimum time interval between any two 

such pairs of consecutive temperature 

measurements is one hour. You must take 

these readings during periods when the 

process or control device that is being 

monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. Calculate the mean of the three 

values for each temperature sensor. The 

mean values must agree within the minimum 

required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this 

procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6, the 

accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS 

does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this accuracy 

audit procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is 

satisfied. If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your temperature 

CPMS, you must perform the procedures 

outlined in PS–17. If you are required to 

measure and record temperatures at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(2) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature 

Measurement Device. Place the sensor of a 

calibrated temperature measurement device 

adjacent to the sensor of your temperature 

CPMS in a location that is subject to the same 

environment as the sensor of your 

temperature CPMS. The calibrated 

temperature measurement device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in 

section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated temperature measurement device 

to reach equilibrium. With the process or 

control device that is monitored by your 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

record concurrently the temperatures 

measured by your temperature CPMS and the 

calibrated temperature measurement device. 

Using the temperature measured by the 

calibrated measurement device as the value 

for Vc, follow the procedure specified in 

section 12.2 of this procedure to determine 

if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If 

you determine that your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If 

your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

procedure until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you 

replace any electrical or mechanical 

components of the primary CPMS, you must 

perform the procedures outlined in PS–17 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are 

required to measure and record temperatures 

at multiple locations, repeat this procedure 

for each location. 

(3) Separate Sensor Check and System 

Check by Temperature Simulation. This 

method applies to temperature CPMS that 

use either a thermocouple or a resistance 

temperature detector as the temperature 

sensor. First, perform the temperature sensor 

check using the appropriate ASTM standard 

listed in Table 2 of this procedure. To 

perform the system check, record the 

temperature using your temperature CPMS 

with the process or control device that is 

monitored by your temperature CPMS 

operating under normal conditions. Under 

the same operating conditions, disconnect 

the sensor from the CPMS system and 

connect a calibrated simulation device that is 

designed to simulate the same type of 

response as the CPMS sensor. The simulation 

device must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements specified in section 6.2 of this 

procedure. Within 15 minutes of measuring 

and recording the temperature using your 

temperature CPMS, simulate the same 

temperature recorded for the temperature 

CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the response 

of the simulation device to reach 

equilibrium. Using the temperature 

simulated by the calibrated simulation device 

as the value for Vc, follow the procedure 

specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to 

determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure. If you determine that your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 

of this procedure, the accuracy audit is 

complete. If the calculated accuracy does not 

meet the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of 

this procedure, check all system components 

and take any corrective action that is 

necessary to achieve the required minimum 

accuracy. Repeat this procedure until the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of your 

temperature CPMS, you must perform the 

procedures outlined in PS–17. If you are 

required to measure and record temperatures 

at multiple locations, repeat this procedure 

for each location. 

8.2 How do I perform an accuracy audit 

for my pressure CPMS? To perform the 

accuracy audit, you can choose one of the 

methods described in paragraphs (1) through 

(4) of this section. 

(1) Comparison to redundant pressure 

sensor. This method requires your CPMS to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59996 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

have a primary pressure sensor and a 

redundant pressure sensor. The redundant 

pressure sensor must be installed adjacent to 

the primary pressure sensor and must be 

subject to the same environment as the 

primary pressure sensor. To perform the 

accuracy audit, record three pairs of 

concurrent pressure measurements within a 

24-hour period. Each pair of concurrent 

measurements must consist of a pressure 

measurement by each of the two pressure 

sensors. The minimum time interval between 

any two such pairs of consecutive pressure 

measurements is one hour. You must take 

these readings during periods when the 

process or control device that is being 

monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. Calculate the mean of the three 

values for each pressure sensor. The mean 

values must agree within the minimum 

required accuracy specified in Table 6 of this 

procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If 

your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is 

satisfied. If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your pressure 

CPMS, you must perform the procedures 

outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

B). If you are required to measure and record 

pressure at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. 

(2) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure 

Measurement Device. With the process or 

control device that is monitored by your 

pressure CPMS operating under normal 

conditions, record the pressure at each 

location that is monitored by your pressure 

CPMS. For each pressure monitoring 

location, connect the process lines from the 

process or emission control device that is 

monitored by your pressure CPMS to a 

mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a waterin-glass U-tube manometer, or calibrated 

pressure measurement device. If a calibrated 

pressure measurement device is used, the 

device must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure. 

The calibrated pressure measurement device 

must also have a range equal to or greater 

than the range of your pressure CPMS. 

Perform a leak test on all manometer or 

calibrated pressure measurement device 

connections using the method specified in 

section 8.9 of this procedure. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated pressure measurement device to 

reach equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of 

measuring and recording the corresponding 

pressure using your CPMS, record the 

pressure measured by the calibrated pressure 

measurement device at each location. Using 

the pressure measured by the calibrated 

pressure measurement device as the value for 

Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this procedure to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the 

accuracy audit is complete. If the calculated 

accuracy does not meet the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the accuracy requirements. Repeat this 

procedure until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you 

replace any electrical or mechanical 

components of your pressure CPMS, you 

must perform the procedures outlined in PS– 

17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are 

required to measure and record pressures at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(3) Separate Sensor Check and System 

Check by Pressure Simulation Using a 

Calibrated Pressure Source. Perform the 

pressure sensor check using the appropriate 

ASTM standard listed in Table 3 of this 

procedure. These sensor check methods 

apply only to pressure CPMS that use either 

a pressure gauge or a metallic-bonded 

resistance strain gauge as the pressure sensor. 

To perform the system check, begin by 

disconnecting or closing off the process line 

or lines to your pressure CPMS. For each 

location that is monitored by your pressure 

CPMS, connect a pressure source to your 

CPMS. The pressure source must be 

calibrated and must satisfy the accuracy 

requirements of section 6.2 of this procedure. 

The pressure source also must be adjustable, 

either continuously or incrementally over the 

pressure range of your pressure CPMS. 

Perform a leak test on the calibrated pressure 

source using the method specified in section 

8.9 of this procedure. Using the calibrated 

pressure source, apply to each location that 

is monitored by your CPMS a pressure that 

is within ±10 percent of the normal operating 

pressure of your pressure CPMS. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated pressure source to reach 

equilibrium. Using the pressure applied by 

the calibrated pressure source as the value for 

Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this procedure to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the 

accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS 

does not meet the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, check all system 

components and take any other corrective 

action that is necessary to achieve the 

required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

procedure until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you 

replace any electrical or mechanical 

components of your pressure CPMS, you 

must perform the procedures outlined in PS– 

17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are 

required to measure and record pressure at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(4) Separate Sensor and System Check by 

Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a 

Pressure Source and a Calibrated Pressure 

Measurement Device. Perform the pressure 

sensor check using the appropriate ASTM 

standard listed in Table 3 of this procedure. 

These sensor check methods apply only to 

pressure CPMS that use either a pressure 

gauge or a metallic-bonded resistance strain 

gauge as the pressure sensor. To perform the 

system check, begin by disconnecting or 

closing off the process line or lines to your 

pressure CPMS. Attach a mercury-in-glass Utube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube 

manometer, or a calibrated pressure 

measurement device (the reference pressure 

measurement device) in parallel to your 

pressure CPMS. If a calibrated pressure 

measurement device is used, the device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 

6.2 of this procedure. Connect a pressure 

source to your pressure CPMS and the 

parallel reference pressure measurement 

device. Perform a leak test on all connections 

for the pressure source and calibrated 

pressure measurement device using the 

method as specified in section 8.9 of this 

procedure. Apply pressure to your CPMS and 

the parallel reference pressure measurement 

device. Allow sufficient time for the 

responses of your CPMS and the parallel 

reference pressure measurement device to 

reach equilibrium. Record the pressure 

measured by your pressure CPMS and the 

reference pressure measurement device. 

Using the pressure measured by the parallel 

reference pressure measurement device as 

the value for Vc, follow the procedure 

specified in section 12.2 of this procedure to 

determine if your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure. If you determine that your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 

of this procedure, the accuracy audit is 

complete. If your CPMS does not meet the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, check all system components and 

take any corrective action that is necessary to 

achieve the required minimum accuracy. 

Repeat this accuracy audit until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is 

satisfied. If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your pressure 

CPMS, you must perform the procedures 

outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

B). If you are required to measure and record 

pressure at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. 

8.3 How do I perform an accuracy audit 

for my flow CPMS? To perform the accuracy 

audit on your flow CPMS, you can choose 

one of the methods described in paragraphs 

(1) through (7) of this section that is 

applicable to the type of material measured 

by your flow CPMS and the type of sensor 

used in your flow CPMS. 

(1) Comparison to redundant flow sensor. 

This method requires your CPMS to have a 

primary flow sensor and a redundant flow 

sensor. The redundant flow sensor must be 

installed adjacent to the primary flow sensor 

and must be subject to the same environment 

as the primary flow sensor. If using two 

Coriolis mass flow meters, care should be 

taken to avoid cross-talk, which is 

interference between the two meters due to 

mechanical coupling. Consult the 

manufacturer for specifics. To perform the 

accuracy audit, record three pairs of 

concurrent flow measurements within a 24- 

hour period. Each pair of concurrent 

measurements must consist of a flow 

measurement by each of the two flow 

sensors. The minimum time interval between 

any two such pairs of consecutive flow 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59997 

measurements is one hour. You must take 

these readings during periods when the 

process or control device that is being 

monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. Calculate the mean of the three 

values for each flow sensor. The mean values 

must agree within the minimum required 

accuracy specified in Table 6 of this 

procedure. If your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If 

your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

accuracy audit procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is 

satisfied. If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your flow CPMS, 

you must perform the procedures outlined in 

PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you 

are required to measure and record flow at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(2) Volumetric Method. This method 

applies to any CPMS that is designed to 

measure liquid flow rate. With the process or 

control device that is monitored by your flow 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

record the flow rate measured by your flow 

CPMS for the subject process line. Collect 

concurrently the liquid that is flowing 

through the same process line for a measured 

length of time using the Volumetric Method 

specified in one of the standards listed in 

Table 4 of this procedure. Using the flow rate 

measured by the Volumetric Method as the 

value for Vc, follow the procedure specified 

in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine 

if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If 

you determine that your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If 

your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

procedure until the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure is satisfied. If you 

replace any electrical or mechanical 

components of your flow CPMS, you must 

perform the procedures outlined in PS–17 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you are 

required to measure and record flows at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(3) Gravimetric Method. This method 

applies to any CPMS that is designed to 

measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow 

rate, or solid mass flow rate. With the process 

or control device that is monitored by your 

flow CPMS operating under normal 

conditions, record the flow rate measured by 

your flow CPMS for the subject process line. 

At the same time, collect the material (liquid 

or solid) that is flowing or being transferred 

through the same process line for a measured 

length of time using the Weighing, Weigh 

Tank, or Gravimetric Methods specified in 

the standards listed in Table 5 of this 

procedure. Using the flow rate measured by 

the Weighing, Weigh Tank, or Gravimetric 

Methods as the value for Vc, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

procedure to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 

of this procedure. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit 

is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, check all system components and 

take any corrective action that is necessary to 

achieve the required minimum accuracy. 

Repeat this procedure until the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is 

satisfied. If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your flow CPMS, 

you must perform the procedures outlined in 

PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you 

are required to measure and record flows at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(4) Separate Sensor Check and System 

Check by Differential Pressure Measurement 

Method. This method applies only to flow 

CPMS that use a differential pressure 

measurement flow device, such as an orifice 

plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This 

method may not be used to validate a flow 

CPMS that measures gas flow by means of 

one or more differential pressure tubes. To 

perform the sensor check, remove the flow 

constricting device and perform a visual 

inspection for wear or other deformities 

based on manufacturer’s recommendations. 

Take any corrective action that is necessary 

to ensure its proper operation. To perform 

the system check, record the flow rate 

measured by your flow CPMS while the 

process or control device that is monitored 

by your CPMS operating under normal 

conditions. Under the same operating 

conditions, disconnect the pressure taps from 

your flow CPMS and connect the pressure 

taps to a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, 

a water-in-glass U-tube manometer, or 

calibrated differential pressure measurement 

device. If a calibrated pressure measurement 

device is used, the device must satisfy the 

accuracy requirements of section 6.2 of this 

procedure. Perform a leak test on all 

manometer or calibrated differential pressure 

measurement device connections using the 

method specified in section 8.9 of this 

procedure. Allow sufficient time for the 

response of the calibrated differential 

pressure measurement device to reach 

equilibrium. Within 30 minutes of measuring 

and recording the flow rate using your CPMS, 

record the pressure drop measured by the 

calibrated differential pressure measurement 

device. Using the manufacturer’s literature or 

the procedures specified in ASME MFC–3M– 

2004 (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17), calculate the flow rate that 

corresponds to the differential pressure 

measured by the calibrated differential 

pressure measurement device. For CPMS that 

use an orifice flow meter, the procedures 

specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) also 

can be used to calculate the flow rate. Using 

the calculated flow rate as the value for Vc, 

follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this procedure to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the 

accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS 

does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure 

until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of 

this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of your 

flow CPMS, you must perform the 

procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B). If you are required to 

measure and record flows at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(5) Separate Sensor Check and System 

Check by Pressure Source Flow Simulation 

Method. This method applies only to flow 

CPMS that use a differential pressure 

measurement flow device, such as an orifice 

plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This 

method may not be used to validate a flow 

CPMS that measures gas flow by means of 

one or more differential pressure tubes. To 

perform the sensor check, remove the flow 

constricting device and perform a visual 

inspection for wear or other deformities 

based on manufacturer’s recommendations. 

Take any corrective action that is necessary 

to ensure its proper operation. To perform 

the system check, connect separate pressure 

sources to the upstream and downstream 

sides of your pressure CPMS, where the 

pressure taps are normally connected. The 

pressure sources must be calibrated and must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 

6.2 of this procedure. The pressure sources 

also must be adjustable, either continuously 

or incrementally over the pressure range that 

corresponds to the range of your flow CPMS. 

Perform a leak test on all connections 

between the calibrated pressure sources and 

your flow CPMS using the method specified 

in section 8.9 of this procedure. Using the 

manufacturer’s literature or the procedures 

specified in ASME MFC–3M–2004 

(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17), 

calculate the required pressure drop that 

corresponds to the normal operating flow rate 

expected for your flow CPMS. For CPMS that 

use an orifice flow meter, the procedures 

specified in ASHRAE 41.8–1989 

(incorporated by reference-see § 60.17) also 

can be used to calculate the pressure drop. 

Use the calibrated pressure sources to apply 

the calculated pressure drop to your flow 

CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the 

responses of the calibrated pressure sources 

to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate 

measured by your flow CPMS. Using the flow 

rate measured by your CPMS when the 

calculated pressure drop was applied as the 

value for Vc, follow the procedure specified 

in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine 

if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If 

you determine that your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, the accuracy audit is complete. If 

your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, 

check all system components and take any 

corrective action that is necessary to achieve 

the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this 

accuracy audit until the accuracy 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
59998 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure is 

satisfied. If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your flow CPMS, 

you must perform the procedures outlined in 

PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B). If you 

are required to measure and record flows at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

(6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This 

method applies to any flow CPMS that 

measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS 

uses a differential pressure tube as the flow 

sensor and does not include redundant 

sensors, you must use this method to validate 

your flow CPMS. The reference methods 

(RM’s) applicable to this test are Methods 2, 

2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2F in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1, and Method 2G in 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2. Conduct three sets of 

RM tests. Mark the beginning and end of each 

RM test period on the flow CPMS chart 

recordings or other permanent record of 

output. Determine the integrated flow rate for 

each RM test period. Perform the same 

calculations specified by PS–2 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B), section 7.5. If the RA is no 

greater than 20 percent of the mean value of 

the RM test data, the RA test is complete. If 

the RA is greater than 20 percent of the mean 

value of the RM test data, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required RA. 

Repeat this RA test until the RA requirement 

of this section is satisfied. 

(7) Material Weight Comparison Method. 

This method applies to any solid mass flow 

CPMS that uses a combination of a belt 

conveyor and scale and includes a totalizer. 

To conduct this test, pass a quantity of preweighed material over the belt conveyor in a 

manner consistent with actual loading 

conditions. To weigh the test quantity of 

material that is to be used during the 

accuracy audit, you must use a scale that 

satisfies the accuracy requirements of section 

6.2 of this procedure. The test quantity must 

be sufficient to challenge the conveyor beltscale system for at least three revolutions of 

the belt. Record the length of the test. 

Calculate the mass flow rate using the 

measured weight and the recorded time. 

Using this mass flow rate as the value for Vc, 

follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this procedure to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure. If your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 

of this procedure, the accuracy audit is 

complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, check all system components and 

take any corrective action that is necessary to 

achieve the required minimum accuracy. 

Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of your 

flow CPMS, you must perform the 

procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B). If you are required to 

measure and record flow at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

8.4 How do I perform an accuracy audit 

for my pH CPMS? To perform the accuracy 

audit, you can choose one of the methods 

described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of 

this section. 

(1) Comparison to redundant pH sensor. 

This method requires your CPMS to have a 

primary pH sensor and a redundant pH 

sensor. The redundant pH sensor must be 

installed adjacent to the primary pH sensor 

and must be subject to the same environment 

as the primary pH sensor. To perform the 

accuracy audit, concurrently record the pH 

measured by the two pH sensors. You must 

take these readings during periods when the 

process or control device that is being 

monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. The two pH values must agree 

within the minimum required accuracy 

specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit 

is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, check all system components and 

take any corrective action that is necessary to 

achieve the required minimum accuracy. 

Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of your 

pH CPMS, you must perform the procedures 

outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

B). If you are required to measure and record 

pH at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. 

(2) Comparison to Calibrated pH Meter. 

Place a calibrated pH measurement device 

adjacent to your pH CPMS so that the 

calibrated test device is subjected to the same 

environment as your pH CPMS. The 

calibrated pH measurement device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in 

section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated pH measurement device to reach 

equilibrium. With the process or control 

device that is monitored by your CPMS 

operating under normal conditions, record 

concurrently the pH measured by your pH 

CPMS and the calibrated pH measurement 

device. If concurrent pH readings are not 

possible, extract a sufficiently large sample 

from the process stream and perform 

measurements using a portion of the sample 

for each meter. Using the pH measured by the 

calibrated pH measurement device as the 

value for Vc, follow the procedure specified 

in section 12.2 of this procedure to determine 

if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure. If 

you determine that your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of Table 6, the 

accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS 

does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure 

until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of 

this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of the 

primary CPMS, you must perform the 

procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B). If you are required to 

measure and record pH at multiple locations, 

repeat this procedure for each location. 

(3) Single Point Calibration. This method 

requires the use of a certified buffer solution. 

All buffer solutions used must be certified by 

NIST and accurate to ±0.02 pH units at 25 °C 

(77 °F). Set the temperature on your pH meter 

to the temperature of the buffer solution, 

typically room temperature or 25 °C (77 °F). 

If your pH meter is equipped with automatic 

temperature compensation, activate this 

feature before calibrating. Set your pH meter 

to measurement mode. Place the clean 

electrodes into the container of fresh buffer 

solution. If the expected pH of the process 

fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH), 

use a buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00. 

If the expected pH of the process fluid lies 

in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a 

buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00. 

Allow sufficient time for the response of your 

CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the pH 

measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer 

solution pH as the value for Vc, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

procedure to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 

of this procedure. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit 

is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, calibrate your pH CPMS using the 

procedures specified in the manufacturer’s 

owner’s manual. If the manufacturer’s 

owner’s manual does not specify a two-point 

calibration procedure, you must perform a 

two-point calibration procedure based on 

ASTM D 1293–99 (2005) (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17). If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of your 

pH CPMS, you must perform the procedures 

outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

B). If you are required to measure and record 

pH at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. If you are 

required to measure and record pH at 

multiple locations, repeat this procedure for 

each location. 

8.5 How do I perform an accuracy audit 

for my conductivity CPMS? To perform the 

accuracy audit, you can choose one of the 

methods described in paragraphs (1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Comparison to Redundant Conductivity 

Sensor. This method requires your CPMS to 

have a primary conductivity sensor and a 

redundant conductivity sensor. The 

redundant conductivity sensor must be 

installed adjacent to the primary 

conductivity sensor and must be subject to 

the same environment as the primary 

conductivity sensor. To perform the accuracy 

audit, concurrently record the conductivity 

measured by the two conductivity sensors. 

You must take these readings during periods 

when the process or control device that is 

being monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. The two conductivity values must 

agree within the minimum required accuracy 

specified in Table 6 of this procedure. If your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit 

is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, check all system components and 

take any corrective action that is necessary to 

achieve the required minimum accuracy. 

Repeat this accuracy audit procedure until 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 59999 

procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of your 

conductivity CPMS, you must perform the 

procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B). If you are required to 

measure and record conductivity at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(2) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity 

Meter. Place a calibrated conductivity 

measurement device adjacent to your 

conductivity CPMS so that the calibrated test 

device is subjected to the same environment 

as your conductivity CPMS. The calibrated 

conductivity measurement device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in 

section 6.2 of this procedure. Allow 

sufficient time for the response of the 

calibrated conductivity measurement device 

to reach equilibrium. With the process or 

control device that is monitored by your 

CPMS operating under normal conditions, 

record concurrently the conductivity 

measured by your conductivity CPMS and 

the calibrated conductivity measurement 

device. If concurrent conductivity readings 

are not possible, extract a sufficiently large 

sample from the process stream and perform 

measurements using a portion of the sample 

for each meter. Using the conductivity 

measured by the calibrated conductivity 

measurement device as the value for Vc, 

follow the procedure specified in section 

12.2 of this procedure to determine if your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure. If you determine 

that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy 

requirement of Table 6 of this procedure, the 

accuracy audit is complete. If your CPMS 

does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, check all system 

components and take any corrective action 

that is necessary to achieve the required 

minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure 

until the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of 

this procedure is satisfied. If you replace any 

electrical or mechanical components of the 

primary CPMS, you must perform the 

procedures outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix B). If you are required to 

measure and record conductivity at multiple 

locations, repeat this procedure for each 

location. 

(3) Single Point Calibration. This method 

requires the use of a certified conductivity 

standard solution. All conductivity standard 

solutions used must be certified by NIST and 

accurate within ±2 percent micromhos per 

centimeter (μmhos/cm) (±2 percent 

microsiemens per centimeter μS/cm)) at 25 

°C (77 °F). Choose a conductivity standard 

solution that is close to the measuring range 

for best results. Since conductivity is 

dependent on temperature, the conductivity 

tester should have an integral temperature 

sensor that adjusts the reading to a standard 

temperature, usually 25 °C (77 °F). If the 

conductivity meter allows for manual 

temperature compensation, set this value to 

25 °C (77 °F). Place the clean electrodes into 

the container of fresh conductivity standard 

solution. Allow sufficient time for the 

response of your CPMS to reach equilibrium. 

Record the conductivity measured by your 

CPMS. Using the conductivity standard 

solution as the value for VC, follow the 

procedure specified in section 12.2 of this 

procedure to determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 6 

of this procedure. If you determine that your 

CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Table 6 of this procedure, the accuracy audit 

is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy 

the accuracy requirement of Table 6 of this 

procedure, calibrate your conductivity CPMS 

using the procedures specified in the 

manufacturer’s owner’s manual. If the 

manufacturer’s owner’s manual does not 

specify a calibration procedure, you must 

perform a calibration procedure based on 

ASTM D 1125–95 (2005) or ASTM D 5391– 

99 (2005) (incorporated by reference—see 

§ 60.17). If you replace any electrical or 

mechanical components of your conductivity 

CPMS, you must perform the procedures 

outlined in PS–17 (40 CFR part 60, appendix 

B). If you are required to measure and record 

conductivity at multiple locations, repeat this 

procedure for each location. 

8.6 Are there any acceptable alternative 

procedures for evaluating my CPMS? You 

may use alternative procedures for evaluating 

the operation of your CPMS if the alternative 

procedures are approved by the 

Administrator. 

8.7 How often must I perform an accuracy 

audit of my CPMS? Depending on the 

parameter measured (temperature, pressure, 

flow, pH, or conductivity), you must perform 

the accuracy audits according to the 

frequencies specified in paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) Temperature, Pressure, Flow, and 

Conductivity. If your CPMS measures 

temperature, pressure, flow rate, or 

conductivity, you must perform an accuracy 

audit of your CPMS at least quarterly using 

the procedures specified in sections 8.1 

through 8.3 and 8.5, respectively, of this 

procedure. You also must perform within 48 

hours an accuracy audit of your CPMS 

following any periods of at least 24 hours in 

duration throughout which: 

(i) The value of the measured parameter 

exceeded the maximum rated operating limit 

of the sensor, as specified in the 

manufacturer’s owner’s manual, or 

(ii) The value of the measured parameter 

remained off the scale of the CPMS data 

recording system. 

(2) pH. If your CPMS measures pH, you 

must perform an accuracy audit of your pH 

CPMS at least weekly using the procedures 

specified in section 8.4 of this procedure. 

8.8 What other checks must I do on my 

CPMS? According to the parameter being 

measured (temperature, pressure, flow, pH, 

or conductivity), you must perform the 

additional checks specified in paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) Temperature. If your temperature CPMS 

is not equipped with a redundant 

temperature sensor, at least quarterly, 

perform a visual inspection of all 

components of your temperature CPMS for 

physical and operational integrity and all 

electrical connections for oxidation and 

galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary 

corrective action to replace or repair any 

damaged components as soon as possible. 

(2) Pressure. At least monthly, check all 

mechanical connections for leakage. If your 

pressure CPMS is not equipped with a 

redundant pressure sensor, at least quarterly, 

perform a visual inspection of all 

components of the pressure CPMS for 

physical and operational integrity and all 

electrical connections for oxidation and 

galvanic corrosion. You must take necessary 

corrective action to replace or repair any 

damaged components as soon as possible. 

(3) Flow Rate. At least monthly, check all 

mechanical connections for leakage. If your 

flow CPMS is not equipped with a redundant 

flow sensor, at least quarterly, perform a 

visual inspection of all components of the 

flow CPMS for physical and operational 

integrity and all electrical connections for 

oxidation and galvanic corrosion. You must 

take necessary corrective action to replace or 

repair any damaged components as soon as 

possible. 

(4) pH. If your pH CPMS is not equipped 

with a redundant sensor, at least monthly, 

perform a visual inspection of all 

components of the pH CPMS for physical and 

operational integrity and all electrical 

connections for oxidation and galvanic 

corrosion. You must take necessary 

corrective action to replace or repair any 

damaged components as soon as possible. 

(5) Conductivity. If your conductivity 

CPMS is not equipped with a redundant 

sensor, at least quarterly, perform a visual 

inspection of all components of the 

conductivity CPMS for physical and 

operational integrity and all electrical 

connections for oxidation and galvanic 

corrosion. You must take necessary 

corrective action to replace or repair any 

damaged components as soon as possible. 

8.9 How do I perform a leak test on 

pressure connections, as required by this 

procedure? You can satisfy the leak test 

requirements of sections 8.2 and 8.3 of this 

procedure by following the procedures 

specified in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) For each pressure connection, apply a 

pressure that is equal to the highest pressure 

the connection is likely to be subjected to or 

0.24 kilopascals (1.0 inch of water column), 

whichever is greater. 

(2) Close off the connection between the 

applied pressure source and the connection 

that is being leak-tested. 

(3) If the applied pressure remains stable 

for at least 15 seconds, the connection is 

considered to be leak tight. If the applied 

pressure does not remain stable for at least 

15 seconds, take any corrective action 

necessary to make the connection leak tight 

and repeat this leak test procedure. 

9.0 What quality control measures are 

required by this procedure for my CPMS? 

You must develop and implement a QA/ 

QC program for your CPMS according to 

section 9.1 of this procedure. You must also 

maintain written QA/QC procedures for your 

CPMS. 

9.1 What elements must be covered by 

my QA/QC program? Your QA/QC program 

must address, at a minimum, the elements 

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

section. 

(1) Accuracy audit procedures for the 

CPMS sensor; 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
60000 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Calibration procedures, including 

procedures for assessing and adjusting the 

calibration drift (CD) of the CPMS; 

(3) Preventive maintenance of the CPMS 

(including a spare parts inventory); 

(4) Data recording, calculations, and 

reporting; and 

(5) Corrective action for a malfunctioning 

CPMS. 

9.1 How long must I maintain written 

QA/QC procedures for my CPMS? You are 

required to keep written QA/QC procedures 

on record and available for inspection by the 

enforcement agency for the life of your CPMS 

or until you are no longer subject to the 

requirements of this procedure. 

10.0 Calibration and Standardization 

[Reserved] 

11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved] 

12.0 What calculations are needed? 

The calculations needed to comply with 

this procedure are described in sections 12.1 

and 12.2 of this procedure. 

12.1 How do I determine if a calibrated 

measurement device satisfies the accuracy 

hierarchy specified in section 6.2 of this 

procedure? To determine if a calibrated 

measurement device satisfies the accuracy 

hierarchy requirement, follow the procedure 

described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(1) Calculate the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) 

using Equation 4–1. 

A = A

A h

r

c

( ) Eq. 4-1

Where: 

Ah = Accuracy hierarchy, dimensionless. 

Ar = Required accuracy (Ap or Av) specified 

in Table 6 of this procedure, percent or 

units of parameter value (e.g., degrees 

Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute, 

pH units). 

Ac = Accuracy of calibrated measurement 

device, same units as Ar. 

(2) If the accuracy hierarchy (Ah) is equal 

to or greater than 3.0, the calibrated 

measurement device satisfies the accuracy 

hierarchy of section 6.2 of this procedure. 

12.2 How do I determine if my CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of 

Procedure 4? To determine if your CPMS 

satisfies the accuracy requirement of this 

procedure, follow the procedure described in 

paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) If your CPMS measures temperature, 

pressure, or flow rate, calculate the accuracy 

percent value (Apv) using Equation 4–2. If 

your CPMS measures pH, proceed to 

paragraph (2) of this section. 

A =V

A

pv c

p

100 ( ) Eq. 4-2

Where: 

Apv = Accuracy percent value, units of 

parameter measured (e.g., degrees 

Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute). 

Vc = Parameter value measured by the 

calibrated measurement device or 

measured by your CPMS when a 

calibrated signal simulator is applied to 

your CPMS during the initial validation 

check, units of parameter measured (e.g., 

degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per 

minute). 

Ap = Accuracy percentage specified in Table 

6 that corresponds to your CPMS, 

percent. 

(2) If your CPMS measures temperature, 

pressure, conductivity, or flow rate other 

than mass flow rate or steam flow rate, 

compare the accuracy percent value (Apv) to 

the accuracy value (Av) specified in Table 6 

of this procedure and select the greater of the 

two values. Use this greater value as the 

allowable deviation (da) in paragraph (4) of 

this section. 

(3) If your CPMS measures pH, use the 

accuracy value (Av) specified in Table 6 of 

this procedure as the allowable deviation 

(da). 

(4) If your CPMS measures steam flow rate, 

mass flow rate, or conductivity, use the 

accuracy percent value (Apv) calculated using 

Equation 2 as the allowable deviation (da). 

(5) Using Equation 4–3, calculate the 

measured deviation (dm), which is the 

absolute value of the difference between the 

parameter value measured by the calibrated 

device (Vc) and the value measured by your 

CPMS (Vm). 

d =V V m cm − ( ) Eq. 4-3

Where: 

dm = Measured deviation, units of the 

parameter measured (e.g., degrees 

Celsius, kilopascals, liters per minute). 

Vc = Parameter value measured by the 

calibrated measurement device or 

measured by your CPMS when a 

calibrated signal simulator is applied to 

your CPMS during the initial validation 

check, units of parameter measured (e.g., 

degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per 

minute). 

Vm = Parameter value measured by your 

CPMS during the initial validation 

check, units of parameter measured (e.g., 

degrees Celsius, kilopascals, liters per 

minute). 

(6) Compare the measured deviation (dm) to 

the allowable deviation (da). If the measured 

deviation is less than or equal to the 

allowable deviation, your CPMS satisfies the 

accuracy requirement of this procedure. 

13.0 What performance criteria must I 

demonstrate for my CPMS to comply with 

this quality assurance procedure? 

You must demonstrate that your CPMS 

meets the applicable accuracy requirements 

specified in Table 6 of this procedure. 

14.0 What are the recordkeeping 

requirements for Procedure 4? 

You must satisfy the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in sections 14.1 and 

14.2 of this procedure. 

14.1 What data does this procedure 

require me to record for my CPMS? You must 

record the results of all CPMS accuracy 

audits and a summary of all corrective 

actions taken to return your CPMS to normal 

operation. 

14.2 For how long must I maintain the 

QA data that this procedure requires me to 

record for my CPMS? You are required to 

keep the records required by this procedure 

for your CPMS for a period of 5 years. At a 

minimum, you must maintain the most 

recent 2 years of data onsite and available for 

inspection by the enforcement agency. 

15.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved] 

16.0 Waste Management [Reserved] 

17.0 Which references are relevant to 

Procedure 4? 

1. Technical Guidance Document: 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Measurement Center. August 1998. 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam.html). 

2. NEMA Standard Publication 250. 

‘‘Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 1000 

Volts Maximum’’. 

3. ASTM E–220–07e1: ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by 

Comparison Techniques’’. American Society 

for Testing and Materials. 2007. 

4. ISA–MC96–1–1982: ‘‘Temperature 

Measurement Thermocouples’’. American 

National Standards Institute. August 1982. 

5. The pH and Conductivity Handbook. 

Omega Engineering, Inc. 1995. 

6. ASTM E–452–02 (2007): ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Calibration of Refractory Metal 

Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer’’. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. 

2002. 

7. ASTM E 644–06: ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Testing Industrial Resistance 

Thermometers’’. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. 2006. 

8. ASME B 40.100–2005: ‘‘Pressure Gauges 

and Gauge Attachments’’. American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers. February 2005. 

9. ASTM E 251–92 (2003): ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Performance Characteristics of 

Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages’’. 

American Society for Testing and Materials. 

2003. 

10. ANSI/ASME MFC–3M–2004: 

‘‘Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 

Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi’’. American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1989 

(Reaffirmed 1995). 

11. ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988: 

‘‘Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed 

Conduits by Weighing Method’’. American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. 1989. 

12. ASHRAE 41.8–1989: ‘‘Standard 

Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids 

in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters’’. 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating 

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 1989. 

13. ISA RP 16.6–1961: ‘‘Methods and 

Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area 

Meters (Rotameters)’’. Instrumentation, 

Systems, and Automation Society. 1961. 

14. ANSI/ISA–RP31.1–1977: 

‘‘Specification, Installation, and Calibration 

of Turbine Flow Meters’’. Instrumentation, 

Systems, and Automation Society. 1977. 

15. ISO 8316:1987: ‘‘Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits—Method by 

Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank’’. 

International Organization for 

Standardization. 1987. 

16. NIST Handbook 44—2002 Edition: 

‘‘Specifications, Tolerances, And Other 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3EP09OC08.013</MATH> EP09OC08.014</MATH> EP09OC08.015</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60001 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices, as adopted by the 86th 

National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 2001’’, Section 2.21: ‘‘BeltConveyor Scale Systems’’. 

17. ISO 10790:1999: ‘‘Measurement of 

Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits—Guidance to 

the Selection, Installation, and Use of 

Coriolis Meters (Mass Flow, Density and 

Volume Flow Measurements’’. International 

Organization for Standardization. 1999. 

18. ASTM D 1125–95 (2005): ‘‘Standard 

Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and 

Resistivity of Water’’. American Society for 

Testing and Materials. 2005. 

19. ASTM D 5391–99 (2005): ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Electrical Conductivity and 

Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water 

Sample’’. American Society for Testing and 

Materials. 2005. 

18.0 What tables are relevant to Procedure 

4? 

TABLE 1—SENSOR COMPONENTS OF COMMONLY USED CPMS 

For a CPMS that 

measures . . . Using a . . . The sensor component consists of the . . . 

1. Temperature ....... a. Thermocouple .................................... Thermocouple. 

b. Resistance temperature detector ...... (RTD). 

c. Optical pyrometer .............................. Optical assembly and detector. 

d. Thermistor ......................................... Thermistor. 

e. Temperature transducer .................... Integrated circuit sensor? 

2. Pressure ............. a. Pressure gauge ................................. Gauge assembly, including bourdon element, bellows element, or diaphragm. 

b. Pressure transducer .......................... Strain gauge assembly, capacitance assembly, linear variable differential transformer, force balance assembly, potentiometer, variable reluctance assembly, 

piezoelectric assembly, or piezoresistive assembly. 

c. Manometer ......................................... U-tube or differential manometer. 

3. Flow rate ............. a. Differential pressure device ............... Flow constricting element (nozzle, Venturi, or orifice plate) and differential pressure sensor. 

b. Differential pressure tube .................. Pitot tube, or other array of tubes that measure velocity pressure and static 

pressure, and differential pressure sensor. 

c. Magnetic flow meter .......................... Magnetic coil assembly. 

d. Positive displacement flow meter ...... Piston, blade, vane, propeller, disk, or gear assembly. 

e. Turbine flow meter ............................ Rotor or turbine assembly. 

f. Vortex formation flow meter ............... Vortex generating and sensing elements. 

g. Fluidic oscillating flow meter ............. Feedback passage, side wall, control port, and thermal sensor. 

h. Ultrasonic flow meter ......................... Sonic transducers, receivers, timer, and temperature sensor. 

i. Thermal flow meter ............................. Thermal element and temperature sensors. 

j. Coriolis mass flow meter .................... U-tube and magnetic sensing elements. 

k. Rotameter .......................................... Float assembly. 

l. Solids flow meter ................................ Sensing plate. 

m. Belt conveyor .................................... Scale. 

4. pH ....................... pH meter ................................................ Electrode. 

5. Conductivity ........ Conductivity meter ................................. Electrode. 

TABLE 2—METHODS FOR TEMPERATURE SENSOR CHECK

If the temperature sensor in your CPMS is a . . . And is used in . . . You can perform the accuracy 

audit of the sensor using . . . 

1. Thermocouple .......................................................... Any application ............................................................ ASTM E220–07e1. 

2. Thermocouple .......................................................... A reducing environment .............................................. ASTM E452–02 (2007). 

3. Resistance temperature detector ............................. Any application ............................................................ ASTM E644–06. 

TABLE 3—METHODS FOR PRESSURE SENSOR CHECK

If the pressure sensor in your CPMS is a . . . You can perform the accuracy audit of the sensor using . . . 

1. Pressure gauge .................................................................................... ASME B40.100–2005. 

2. Metallic bonded resistance strain gauge ............................................. ASTM E251–92 (2003). 

TABLE 4—VOLUMETRIC METHODS FOR FLOW METER ACCURACY AUDITS

Designation Title 

1. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ...................... Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters). 

2. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............ Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters. 

3. ISO 10790:1999 .......................... Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits-Guidance to the Selection, Installation and Use of Coriolis 

Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements). 

4. ISO 8316:1987 ............................ Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits-Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank. 

TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR FLOW METER ACCURACY AUDITS

Designation Title 

1. ASHRAE 41.8–1989 ................... Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
60002 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—WEIGHING METHODS FOR FLOW METER ACCURACY AUDITS—Continued 

Designation Title 

2. ISA RP 16.6–1961 ...................... Methods and Equipment for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters). 

3. ANSI/ISA RP 31.1–1977 ............ Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters. 

4. NIST Handbook 44–2002 Edition, Section 2.21.Specifications, Tolerances, And Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, as 

adopted by the 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2001: Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems. 

5. ANSI/ASME MFC–9M–1988 ...... Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method. 

TABLE 6—CPMS ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS

If your CPMS measures . . . You must demonstrate that your CPMS operates within . . . 

1. Temperature, in a non-cryogenic 

application.

An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±1.0 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an 

accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater. 

2. Temperature, in a cryogenic application.An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±2.5 percent of the temperature measured in degrees Celsius or within an 

accuracy value (Av) of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater. 

3. Pressure ...................................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of 

water column), whichever is greater. 

4. Liquid flow rate ........................... An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons 

per minute), whichever is greater. 

5. Gas flow rate .............................. a. A relative accuracy of ±20 percent, if you demonstrate compliance using the relative accuracy test, or 

b. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±10 percent, if your CPMS measures steam flow rate, or 

c. An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent or an accuracy value (Av) of 280 liters per minute (10 cubic 

feet per minute), whichever is greater, for all other gases and accuracy audit methods. 

6. Mass flow rate ............................ An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent. 

7. pH ............................................... An accuracy value (Av) of ±0.2 pH units. 

8. Conductivity ................................ An accuracy percentage (Ap) of ±5 percent. 

PART 61—[AMENDED] 

6. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

7. Section 61.14 is amended by 

redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph 

(a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 61.14 Monitoring requirements. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) Performance specifications for 

continuous parameter monitoring systems 

(CPMS) promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix B and quality assurance procedures 

for CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F apply instead of the requirements 

for CPMS specified in an applicable subpart 

upon promulgation of the performance 

specifications and quality assurance 

procedures for CPMS. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

8. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

9. Section 63.8 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

b. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i); 

c. Revising paragraph (c)(4) introductory 

text and adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii); 

d. Revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7)(i); 

e. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii); and 

f. Revising paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)(i), and 

(e)(4). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.8 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2)(i) For the purposes of this part, all 

CMS required under relevant standards 

shall be subject to the provisions of this 

section upon promulgation of 

performance specifications and quality 

assurance procedures for CMS as 

specified in the relevant standard or 

otherwise by the Administrator. 

(ii) Performance specifications for 

CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B and quality assurance 

procedures for CPMS promulgated 

under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F apply 

instead of the requirements for CPMS 

specified in the relevant standard upon 

promulgation of the performance 

specifications and quality assurance 

procedures for CPMS. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2)(i) All CMS must be installed such 

that representative measurements of 

emissions or process parameters from 

the affected source are obtained. In 

addition, CMS shall be located 

according to procedures contained in 

the applicable performance 

specification(s). 

* * * * * 

(4) Except for system breakdowns, 

out-of-control periods, repairs, 

maintenance periods, calibration 

checks, and zero (low-level) and highlevel calibration drift adjustments, all 

CMS, including COMS, CEMS, and 

CPMS, shall be in continuous operation 

and shall meet minimum frequency of 

operation requirements as follows: 

* * * * * 

(iii) All CPMS shall complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation 

(sampling, analyzing, and data 

recording) for each successive time 

period specified in the relevant 

standard. 

* * * * * 

(6) The owner or operator of a CMS 

that is not a CPMS, which is installed 

in accordance with the provisions of 

this part and the applicable CMS 

performance specification(s) shall check 

the zero (low-level) and high-level 

calibration drifts at least once daily in 

accordance with the written procedure 

specified in the performance evaluation 

plan developed under paragraphs 

(e)(3)(i) and (e)(3)(ii) of this section. The 

zero (low-level) and high-level 

calibration drifts shall be adjusted, at a 

minimum, whenever the 24-hour zero 

(low-level) drift exceeds two times the 

limits of the applicable performance 

specification(s) specified in the relevant 

standard. The system must allow the 

amount of excess zero (low-level) and 

high-level drift measured at the 24-hour 

interval checks to be recorded and 

quantified, whenever specified. For 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60003 

COMS, all optical and instrumental 

surfaces exposed to the effluent gases 

shall be cleaned prior to performing the 

zero (low-level) and high-level drift 

adjustments; the optical surfaces and 

instrumental surfaces shall be cleaned 

when the cumulative automatic zero 

compensation, if applicable, exceeds 4 

percent opacity. 

* * * * * 

(7)(i) A CMS is out of control if— 

(A) The COMS or CEMS zero (lowlevel), mid-level (if applicable), or highlevel calibration drift (CD) exceeds two 

times the applicable CD specification in 

the applicable performance 

specification or in the relevant standard; 

or 

(B) The COMS or CEMS fails a 

performance test audit (e.g., cylinder gas 

audit), relative accuracy audit, relative 

accuracy test audit, or linearity test 

audit; or 

(C) The COMS CD exceeds two times 

the limit in the applicable performance 

specification in the relevant standard; or 

(D) The CPMS fails an accuracy audit. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Determination and adjustment of 

the calibration drift of the CMS, where 

applicable; 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Notification of performance 

evaluation. The owner or operator shall 

notify the Administrator in writing of 

the date of the performance evaluation 

of a COMS or CEMS simultaneously 

with the notification of the performance 

test date required under § 63.7(b) or at 

least 60 days prior to the date the 

performance evaluation is scheduled to 

begin if no performance test is required. 

(3)(i) Submission of site-specific 

performance evaluation test plan. Before 

conducting a required COMS or CEMS 

performance evaluation, the owner or 

operator of an affected source shall 

develop and submit a site-specific 

performance evaluation test plan to the 

Administrator for approval upon 

request. The performance evaluation 

test plan shall include the evaluation 

program objectives, an evaluation 

program summary, the performance 

evaluation schedule, data quality 

objectives, and both an internal and 

external QA program. Data quality 

objectives are the pre-evaluation 

expectations of precision, accuracy, and 

completeness of data. 

* * * * * 

(4) Conduct of performance 

evaluation and performance evaluation 

dates. The owner or operator of an 

affected source shall conduct a 

performance evaluation of a required 

CMS during any performance test 

required under § 63.7 in accordance 

with the applicable performance 

specification or QA procedure as 

specified in the relevant standard. 

Notwithstanding the requirement in the 

previous sentence, if the owner or 

operator of an affected source elects to 

submit COMS data for compliance with 

a relevant opacity emission standard as 

provided under § 63.6(h)(7), he/she 

shall conduct a performance evaluation 

of the COMS as specified in the relevant 

standard, before the performance test 

required under § 63.7 is conducted in 

time to submit the results of the 

performance evaluation as specified in 

paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section. If a 

performance test is not required, or the 

requirement for a performance test has 

been waived under § 63.7(h), the owner 

or operator of an affected source shall 

conduct the performance evaluation not 

later than 180 days after the appropriate 

compliance date for the affected source, 

as specified in § 63.7(a), or as otherwise 

specified in the relevant standard. 

* * * * * 

Subpart SS—[Amended] 

10. Section 63.996 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(10) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.996 General monitoring requirements 

for control and recovery devices. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) For each CPMS, the owner or 

operator must meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (vi) of this 

section. 

(i) Satisfy all requirements of 

applicable performance specifications 

for CPMS established under 40 CFR part 

60, appendix B. 

(ii) Satisfy all requirements of quality 

assurance (QA) procedures for CPMS 

established under 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F. 

(iii) The CPMS must complete a 

minimum of one cycle of operation for 

each successive 15-minute period. 

(iv) To calculate a valid hourly 

average, there must be at least four 

equally spaced values for that hour, 

excluding data collected during the 

periods described in paragraph (c)(5) of 

this section. 

(v) Calculate a daily average using all 

of the valid hourly averages for each 

day. 

(vi) Except for redundant sensors, any 

device that is used to conduct an initial 

validation or accuracy audit of a CPMS 

must meet the accuracy requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(vi)(A) and 

(B) of this section. 

(A) The device must have an accuracy 

that is traceable to National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) 

standards. 

(B) The device must be at least three 

times as accurate as the required 

accuracy for the CPMS. 

(8) For each temperature CPMS, the 

owner or operator must meet the 

requirements in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) 

through (ix) of this section. 

(i) Install each sensor of the 

temperature CPMS in a location that 

provides representative temperature 

measurements over all operating 

conditions, taking into account the 

manufacturer’s guidelines. 

(ii) For a noncryogenic temperature 

range, use a temperature CPMS with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.8 deg. C or 1.0 

percent of the temperature value, 

whichever is larger. 

(iii) For a cryogenic temperature 

range, use a temperature CPMS with a 

minimum tolerance of 2.8 deg. C or 2.5 

percent of the temperature value, 

whichever is larger. 

(iv) The data recording system 

associated with the CPMS must have a 

resolution of one-half of the applicable 

required overall accuracy of the CPMS, 

as specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii) 

of this section, or better. 

(v) Perform an initial calibration of 

the CPMS according to the procedures 

in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. 

(vi) Perform an initial validation of 

the CPMS according to the requirements 

in paragraph (c)(8)(vi)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(A) Place the sensor of a calibrated 

temperature measurement device 

adjacent to the sensor of the temperature 

CPMS in a location that is subject to the 

same environment as the sensor of the 

temperature CPMS. The calibrated 

temperature measurement device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements of 

(c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient 

time for the response of the calibrated 

temperature measurement device to 

reach equilibrium. With the process and 

control device that is monitored by the 

CPMS operating normally, record 

concurrently and compare the 

temperatures measured by the 

temperature CPMS and the calibrated 

temperature measurement device. Using 

the calibrated temperature measurement 

device as the reference, the temperature 

measured by the temperature CPMS 

must be within the accuracy specified in 

paragraph (c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this 

section, whichever applies. 

(B) Perform any of the initial 

validation methods for temperature 

CPMS specified in applicable 

performance specifications established 

under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
60004 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

(vii) Perform an accuracy audit of the 

temperature CPMS at least quarterly, 

according to the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(8)(vii)(A), (B), or (C) of 

this section. 

(A) If the temperature CPMS includes 

a redundant temperature sensor, record 

three pairs of concurrent temperature 

measurements within a 24-hour period. 

Each pair of concurrent measurements 

must consist of a temperature 

measurement by each of the two 

temperature sensors. The minimum 

time interval between any two such 

pairs of consecutive temperature 

measurements is one hour. The readings 

must be taken during periods when the 

process and control device that is 

monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. Calculate the mean of the 

three values for each temperature 

sensor. The mean values must agree 

within the required overall accuracy of 

the CPMS, as specified in paragraph 

(c)(8)(ii) or (iii) of this section, 

whichever applies. 

(B) If the temperature CPMS does not 

include a redundant temperature sensor, 

place the sensor of a calibrated 

temperature measurement device 

adjacent to the sensor of the temperature 

CPMS in a location that is subject to the 

same environment as the sensor of the 

temperature CPMS. The calibrated 

temperature measurement device must 

satisfy the accuracy requirements of 

paragraph (c)(7)(vi) of this section. 

Allow sufficient time for the response of 

the calibrated temperature measurement 

device to reach equilibrium. With the 

process and control device that is 

monitored by the CPMS operating 

normally, record concurrently and 

compare the temperatures measured by 

the temperature CPMS and the 

calibrated temperature measurement 

device. Using the calibrated temperature 

measurement device as the reference, 

the temperature measured by the 

temperature CPMS must be within the 

accuracy specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii) 

or (iii) of this section, whichever 

applies. 

(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit 

methods for temperature CPMS 

specified in applicable QA procedures 

established under 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F. 

(viii) Conduct an accuracy audit 

following any 24-hour period 

throughout which the temperature 

measured by the CPMS exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating temperature range, or install a 

new temperature sensor. 

(ix) If the CPMS is not equipped with 

a redundant temperature sensor, at least 

quarterly, perform a visual inspection of 

all components for integrity, oxidation, 

and galvanic corrosion. 

(9) For each pressure CPMS, the 

owner or operator must meet the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(9)(i) 

through (ix) of this section. 

(i) Install each sensor of the pressure 

CPMS in a location that provides 

representative pressure measurements 

over all operating conditions, taking 

into account the manufacturer’s 

guidelines. 

(ii) Use a pressure CPMS with a 

minimum tolerance of ±5 percent or 

0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches of water 

column), whichever is greater. 

(iii) The data recording system 

associated with the pressure CPMS must 

have a resolution of one-half of the 

required overall accuracy of the CPMS, 

as specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this 

section. 

(iv) Perform an initial calibration of 

the CPMS according to the procedures 

in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. 

(v) Perform an initial validation of the 

CPMS according to the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(9)(v)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(A) Place the sensor of a calibrated 

pressure measurement device adjacent 

to the sensor of the pressure CPMS in 

a location that is subject to the same 

environment as the sensor of the 

pressure CPMS. The calibrated pressure 

measurement device must satisfy the 

accuracy requirements of paragraph 

(c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient 

time for the response of the calibrated 

pressure measurement device to reach 

equilibrium. With the process and 

control device that is monitored by the 

CPMS operating normally, record 

concurrently and compare the pressure 

measured by the pressure CPMS and the 

calibrated pressure measurement 

device. Using the calibrated pressure 

measurement device as the reference, 

the pressure measured by the pressure 

CPMS must be within the accuracy 

specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this 

section. 

(B) Perform any of the initial 

validation methods for pressure CPMS 

specified in applicable performance 

specifications established under 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B. 

(vi) Perform an accuracy audit of the 

pressure CPMS at least quarterly, 

according to the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(9)(vi)(A), (B), or (C) of this 

section. 

(A) If the pressure CPMS includes a 

redundant pressure sensor, record three 

pairs of concurrent pressure 

measurements within a 24-hour period. 

Each pair of concurrent measurements 

must consist of a pressure measurement 

by each of the two pressure sensors. The 

minimum time interval between any 

two such pairs of consecutive pressure 

measurements is 1 hour. The readings 

must be taken during periods when the 

process and control device that is 

monitored by the CPMS is operating 

normally. Calculate the mean of the 

three pressure measurement values for 

each pressure sensor. The mean values 

must agree within the required overall 

accuracy of the CPMS, as specified in 

paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this section. 

(B) If the pressure CPMS does not 

include a redundant pressure sensor, 

place the sensor of a calibrated pressure 

measurement device adjacent to the 

sensor of the pressure CPMS in a 

location that is subject to the same 

environment as the sensor of the 

pressure CPMS. The calibrated pressure 

measurement device must satisfy the 

accuracy requirements of paragraph 

(c)(7)(vi) of this section. Allow sufficient 

time for the response of the calibrated 

pressure measurement device to reach 

equilibrium. With the process and 

control device that is monitored by the 

CPMS operating normally, record 

concurrently and compare the pressure 

measured by the pressure CPMS and the 

calibrated pressure measurement 

device. Using the calibrated pressure 

measurement device as the reference, 

the pressure measured by the pressure 

CPMS must be within the accuracy 

specified in paragraph (c)(9)(ii) of this 

section. 

(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit 

methods for pressure CPMS specified in 

applicable QA procedures established 

under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. 

(vii) Conduct an accuracy audit 

following any 24-hour period 

throughout which the pressure 

measured by the CPMS exceeds the 

manufacturer’s specified maximum 

operating pressure range, or install a 

new pressure sensor. 

(viii) At least monthly, check all 

mechanical connections for leakage. 

(ix) If the CPMS is not equipped with 

a redundant pressure sensor, at least 

quarterly, perform a visual inspection of 

all components for integrity, oxidation, 

and galvanic corrosion. 

(10) For each pH CPMS, the owner or 

operator must meet the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(10)(i) through (vii) of this 

section. 

(i) Install the pH sensor in a location 

that provides representative 

measurement of pH over all operating 

conditions, taking into account the 

manufacturer’s guidelines. 

(ii) Use a pH CPMS with a minimum 

tolerance of 0.2 pH units. 

(iii) The data recording system 

associated with the CPMS must have a 

resolution of 0.1 pH units or better and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 197 / Thursday, October 9, 2008 / Proposed Rules 60005 

must be capable of measuring pH over 

the entire range of pH values from 0 to 

14. 

(iv) Perform an initial calibration of 

the CPMS according to the procedures 

in the manufacturer’s owner’s manual. 

(v) Perform an initial validation of the 

CPMS according to the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(10)(v)(A) or (B) of this 

section. 

(A) Perform a single point calibration 

using an NIST-certified buffer solution 

that is accurate to within ±0.02 pH units 

at 25 °C (77 °F). If the expected pH of 

the fluid that is monitored lies in the 

acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a 

buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00. 

If the expected pH of the fluid that is 

monitored lies in the basic range 

(greater than 7 pH), use a buffer solution 

with a pH value of 10.00. Place the 

electrode of the pH CPMS in the 

container of buffer solution. Record the 

pH measured by the CPMS. Using the 

certified buffer solution as the reference, 

the pH measured by the pH CPMS must 

be within the accuracy specified in 

paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this section. 

(B) Perform any of the initial 

validation methods for pH CPMS 

specified in applicable performance 

specifications established under 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix B. 

(vi) Perform an accuracy audit of the 

pH CPMS at least weekly, according to 

the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(10)(vi)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. 

(A) If the pH CPMS includes a 

redundant pH sensor, record the pH 

measured by each of the two pH 

sensors. The readings must be taken 

during periods when the process and 

control device that is monitored by the 

CPMS are operating normally. The two 

pH values must agree within the 

required overall accuracy of the CPMS, 

as specified in paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of 

this section. 

(B) If the pH CPMS does not include 

a redundant pH sensor, perform a single 

point calibration using an NIST-certified 

buffer solution that is accurate to within 

±0.02 pH units at 25 °C (77 °F). If the 

expected pH of the fluid that is 

monitored lies in the acidic range (less 

than 7 pH), use a buffer solution with 

a pH value of 4.00. If the expected pH 

of the fluid that is monitored lies in the 

basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a 

buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00. 

Place the electrode of the pH CPMS in 

the container of buffer solution. Record 

the pH measured by the CPMS. Using 

the certified buffer solution as the 

reference, the pH measured by the pH 

CPMS must be within the accuracy 

specified in paragraph (c)(10)(ii) of this 

section. 

(C) Perform any of the accuracy audit 

methods for pH CPMS specified in 

applicable QA procedures established 

under 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. 

(vii) If the CPMS is not equipped with 

a redundant pH sensor, at least monthly, 

perform a visual inspection of all 

components for integrity, oxidation, and 

galvanic corrosion. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–22674 Filed 10–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS3