Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28451 

RTCA/DO–178B (Software Considerations in 

Airborne Systems And Equipment 

Certification) Level A software design 

assurance level. 

b. Design Environmental Requirements 

Robinson must qualify the AP/SAS system 

equipment to the appropriate environmental 

level in the RTCA document DO–160F 

(Environmental Conditions and Test 

Procedures for Airborne Equipment), for all 

relevant aspects. This must show that the 

AP/SAS system performs its intended 

function under any foreseeable operating 

condition, which includes the expected 

environment in which the AP/SAS is 

intended to operate. Some of the main 

considerations for environmental concerns 

are installation locations and the resulting 

exposure to environmental conditions for the 

AP/SAS system equipment, including 

considerations for other equipment that may 

be affected environmentally by the AP/SAS 

equipment installation. The level of 

environmental qualification must be related 

to the severity of the considered failure 

condition and effects on the aircraft. 

c. Test & Analysis Requirements 

Compliance with these requirements may 

be shown by a variety of methods, which 

typically consist of analysis, flight tests, 

ground tests, and simulation, as a minimum. 

Compliance methodology is partly related to 

the associated failure condition category. If 

the AP/SAS is a complex system, compliance 

with the requirements for aspects of the AP/ 

SAS that can result in failure conditions 

classified as Major may be shown by 

analysis, in combination with appropriate 

testing to validate the analysis. Compliance 

with the requirements for aspects of the AP/ 

SAS that can result in failure conditions 

classified as Hazardous/Severe-Major may be 

shown by flight-testing in combination with 

analysis and simulation, and the appropriate 

testing to validate the analysis. Flight tests 

may be limited for this classification of 

failures due to safety considerations. 

Compliance with the requirements for 

aspects of the AP/SAS that can result in 

failure conditions classified as Catastrophic 

may be shown by analysis and validated by 

appropriate testing in combination with 

simulation. Very limited flight tests in 

combination with simulation may be used as 

a part of a showing of compliance for failures 

in this classification. Flight tests are 

performed only in circumstances that use 

operational variations or extrapolations from 

other flight performance aspects to address 

flight safety. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 11, 

2009. 

Mark R. Schilling, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–14103 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0531; FRL–8917–3] 

RIN 2060–AP23 

Restructuring of the Stationary Source 

Audit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The action proposes 

amendments to the General Provisions 

to allow accredited providers to supply 

stationary source audit samples and to 

require sources to obtain and use these 

samples from the accredited providers 

instead of from EPA, as is the current 

practice. In addition, this proposed rule 

incorporates by reference Volume 3, 

‘‘General Requirements for 

Environmental Proficiency Test 

Providers’’ adopted December 22, 2007, 

as an example of an acceptable 

accredited proficiency test sample 

provider (APTSP) technical criteria 

document. This document outlines the 

criteria an accredited provider program 

must meet for the samples to be 

acceptable. 

Requirements pertaining to the audit 

samples have all been moved to the 

General Provisions and have been 

removed from the test methods because 

the current language in the test methods 

regarding audit samples is inconsistent 

from method to method. Therefore, 

deleting all references to audit samples 

in the test methods eliminates any 

possible confusion and inconsistencies. 

Under this proposed amendment, the 

requirement to use an audit sample 

during a compliance test will apply to 

all test methods for which a 

commercially available audit exists. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 16, 2009. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before July 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0531, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-rdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0531. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: 202– 

566–9744, Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0531. 

• Mail: Send your comments to: Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0531. 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 or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 

3334, Washington, DC. 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–2008– 

0531. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 Restructuring of the Stationary 

Source Audit Program Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility 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 Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning today’s proposed 

rule, contact Ms. Candace Sorrell, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, Measurement Technology 

Group (E143–02), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–1064; fax number: (919) 541– 

0516; e-mail address: 

sorrell.candace@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action would apply to you if you 

operate a stationary source that is 

subject to applicable requirements to 

conduct compliance testing under 40 

CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. 

In addition, this action would apply 

to you if Federal, State, or local agencies 

take certain additional actions. For 

example, this action would apply if 

State or local agencies implement 

regulations using any of the stationary 

source compliance test methods in 

Appendix M of Part 51 by adopting 

these methods in rules or permits (either 

by incorporation by reference or by 

duplicating the method in its entirety). 

The source categories and entities 

potentially affected include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

Category NAICSa Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ................................................................................................. 336111 

336112 

Surface Coating. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

a North American Industry Classification System. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information 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, NC 27711, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0531. 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. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This 

Action and Other Related Information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of these 

proposed amendments is also available 

on the Worldwide Web (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of the proposed amendment will 

be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at http:// 

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

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

D. How Is This Document Organized? 

The information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

C. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

D. How Is This Document Organized? 

II. Background 

III. This Action 

IV. 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28453 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

II. Background 

Quality assurance is an important part 

of evaluating the validity of compliance 

test data. One way of checking the 

quality of the data obtained during 

compliance tests is to use audit samples. 

Audit samples are samples whose true 

value is known to the supplier but not 

to the user and are analyzed alongside 

the samples collected in the field during 

the compliance test to evaluate the 

quality of the data. In the past, there 

were no private entities who supplied 

stationary source audit samples, so EPA 

provided them free of charge to 

regulatory agencies. Over the past few 

years with the emergence of field 

sampling and laboratory accreditation 

programs, there has been an increasing 

need for such samples and a number of 

private providers have emerged. EPA 

believes it is no longer necessary for it 

to supply audit samples and, therefore, 

has decided to restructure the audit 

program to allow private accredited 

suppliers to provide audit samples to 

industries for use in compliance testing 

at stationary source facilities. 

III. This Action 

This action proposes to revise the 

General Provisions of Parts 51, 60, 61, 

and 63 to allow accredited audit sample 

providers to supply stationary source 

audit samples and to require sources to 

obtain and use these samples from the 

accredited providers instead of from 

EPA, as is the current practice. It also 

revises test methods 5I, 6, 6A–C, 7, 7A– 

D, 8, 15A, 16A, 18, 23, 25, 25C, 25D, 26, 

26A, 104, 106, 108, 108A–C, 204A–F, 

306, 306A, and 308 to delete any 

language pertaining to audit samples. By 

adding language to the General 

Provisions of Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63, the 

requirement to obtain and use audits for 

stationary source compliance test using 

EPA stationary source test methods is 

expanded and clarified. The current 

General Provisions and EPA test 

methods are not consistent in their 

language concerning the use or 

availability of audit samples. This 

action will potentially increase the 

number of test methods required to use 

audit samples and will clarify how the 

samples are to be obtained and used. By 

clarifying the requirement for audit 

samples and expanding their 

availability through multiple providers, 

EPA believes more audits will be used 

during compliance tests and the overall 

quality of the data used for determining 

compliance will improve. 

This action proposes minimum 

requirements for the audit samples, the 

accredited audit sample providers 

(AASP), and the audit sample provider 

acceditor (ASPA). The AASP is the 

company that prepares and distributes 

the audit samples and the ASPA is a 

third-party organization that will 

accredit and monitor the performance of 

the AASPs. Both the AASP and the 

ASPA must work with a voluntary 

consensus standard body using the 

consensus process to develop criteria 

documents that describe how they will 

function. The Federal Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–119 

defines a voluntary consensus standards 

body (VCSB) as one having the 

following attributes: (i) Openness; (ii) 

balance of interest; (iii) due process; (iv) 

an appeals process; and (v) consensus, 

which is general agreement, but not 

necessarily unanimity, and includes a 

process for attempting to resolve 

objections by interested parties. As long 

as all comments have been fairly 

considered, each objector is advised of 

the disposition of his or her objection(s) 

and the reason(s) why, and the 

consensus body members are given an 

opportunity to change their votes after 

reviewing the comments. 

AASPs must be accredited by an 

ASPA according to a technical criteria 

document developed by a VCSB. There 

may be many AASPs and more than one 

ASPA and VCSB. We predict that 

initially there will only be one VCSB. 

An example of an acceptable accredited 

proficiency test sample provider 

(APTSP) technical criteria document is 

Volume 3, ‘‘General Requirements for 

Environmental Proficiency Test 

Providers’’ adopted December 22, 2007, 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17). 

This document specifies the 

requirements for providers who supply 

proficiency test (PT) samples for 

accrediting laboratories to perform 

analysis of water and solid waste 

samples and is an example of the type 

of technical criteria document that 

would be needed for providers of 

stationary source audits. 

This action proposes language that 

outlines the responsibilities of the 

regulated source owner or operator to 

acquire and use an audit sample for all 

testing conducted to determine 

compliance with an air emission limit. 

The requirement would apply only if 

there is a commercially available audit 

for the test method used during the 

compliance testing. The source owner, 

operator or representative shall report 

the results for the audit sample along 

with a summary of the emission test 

results for the audited pollutant to the 

appropriate compliance authority. 

This action proposes if there are no 

audit samples available from the 

AASPs, PT samples supplied by an 

accredited proficiency test sample 

provider (APTSP) may be used as an 

alternative provided that they are 

distributed as blind audit samples. 

From a scientific standpoint, PT 

samples and audit samples are identical. 

Physically and chemically, the samples 

are the same. However, the purpose of 

the samples is slightly different. The PT 

samples are designed to establish the 

proficiency of a laboratory for 

performing a specific method or 

procedure as in a lab accreditation 

program. The PT samples are typically 

analyzed on a recurring schedule at 

some specified time interval that is not 

connected to any particular event. They 

are only designed to demonstrate that 

the laboratory has the capability to 

properly analyze a particular kind of 

sample by a particular method. Audit 

samples by contrast are event driven. 

They are designed to demonstrate that 

during a particular test event, the tester 

produced acceptable results for the 

method or procedure that was used 

during that test event. They are not 

analyzed on a regular schedule, but they 

are analyzed only during the particular 

event (a compliance test for example) 

that is being ‘‘audited’’. They must be 

analyzed by the same analyst, using the 

same equipment and materials that are 

used to analyze the samples for which 

the audit is being conducted. 

In addition to allowing private AASPs 

to provide audit samples for the 

stationary source audit program, this 

action shifts the burden of obtaining an 

audit sample from the compliance 

authority to the source. In the past, the 

EPA provided the samples to the 

compliance authorities at no cost, but 

this action proposes to require the 

source to purchase the samples from an 

accredited provider. The samples will 

vary in cost depending on the type of 

audit sample required; however, the 

cost will be a very small portion of the 

cost of a compliance test (approximately 

one percent). Based on historical data, 

EPA estimates that the total cost to 

industry to purchase audit samples will 

be between $100,00 to $150,000 per year 

at the current usage rate. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

IV. 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 (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is, 

therefore, not subject to review under 

the EO. 

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 2355.01. 

A regulated emission source 

conducting a compliance test would 

purchase an audit sample from an 

AASP. The AASP would report the true 

value of the audit sample to the 

compliance authority (State, local or 

EPA Regional Office). This is a new 

reporting requirement. The AASP 

would in most cases make the report by 

electronic mail. A report would be made 

for each audit sample that the AASP 

sold to a regulated emission source that 

was conducting an emissions test to 

determine compliance with an emission 

limit. 

Based on historic data, EPA estimates 

that there will be about 1000 audit 

samples sold each year generating the 

need for about 1000 reports which 

corresponds to 80 hours burden or 0.08 

hour per response for reporting and 

recordkeeping. The estimated cost 

burden is $5.05 per response or an 

annual burden of $5,050. Burden means 

the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 

provide information to or for a federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and 

providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

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, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA 

has established a public docket for this 

rule, which include this ICR, under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0531. Submit any comments 

related to the ICR for this proposed rule 

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 June 16, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by July 16, 2009. 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 rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We do not anticipate that the proposed 

restructuring of the audit program will 

result in a significant economic impact 

on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

The incremental costs associated with 

purchasing the audit samples (expected 

to be less than $1,000 per test) do not 

impose a significant burden on sources. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

rule actually removes the responsibility 

of acquiring the audit samples from the 

government agencies to the regulated 

facility. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This 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 proposed 

amendments would add language to the 

general provisions to allow accredited 

providers to supply stationary source 

audit samples and to require sources to 

obtain and use these samples from the 

accredited providers instead of from 

EPA, as is the current practice. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000) The proposed amendments would 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28455 

add language to the general provisions 

to allow accredited providers to supply 

stationary source audit samples and to 

require sources to obtain and use these 

samples from the accredited providers 

instead of from EPA, as is the current 

practice. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

incorporate by reference two consensus 

standards from The NELAC Institute 

(TNI). The first standard is TNI 

Standard Volume 3 entitled General 

Requirements for Environmental 

Proficiency Providers which was 

adopted by TNI on December 22, 2007. 

The second standard is TNI Standard 

Volume 4 entitled General Standard for 

an Accreditor of Environmental 

Proficiency Test Providers. The two 

documents can be obtained by 

downloading them from the TNI Web 

site (http://www.nelac-institute.org). 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable VCS and 

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 (EO) 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 does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The proposed 

amendments would add language to the 

general provisions to allow accredited 

providers to supply stationary source 

audit samples and to require sources to 

obtain and use these samples from the 

accredited providers instead of from 

EPA, as is the current practice. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon 

monoxide, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur compounds, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, continuous 

emission monitors, Incorporation by 

reference. 

40 CFR Part 61 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and Procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7671q. 

2. Amend Appendix M to part 51 as 

follows: 

a. Designate the three introductory 

paragraphs as 1.0 through 3.0. 

b. Add new introductory paragraph 

4.0. 

c. In Method 204A by removing 

Sections 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, and 7.2.3. 

d. In Method 204B by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

e. In Method 204C by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

f. In Method 204D by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

g. In Method 204E by removing 

Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3. 

h. In Method 204F by removing 

Sections 6.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3. 

Appendix M To Part 51— 

Recommended Test Methods for State 

Implementation Plans 

* * * * * 

4.0 Quality Assurance Procedures. The 

performance test shall include an external 

QA program which shall include, at a 

minimum, a test method performance audit 

(PA) during the performance test. The PAs 

consist of blind audit samples supplied by an 

accredited audit sample provider and 

analyzed during the performance test in 

order to provide a measure of test data bias. 

The audit sample must be analyzed by the 

same analyst using the same analytical 

reagents and analytical system as the 

compliance samples. Retests are required 

when there is a failure to produce acceptable 

results for an audit sample. However, if the 

audit results do not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected facility, 

the compliance authority may waive the 

reanalysis requirement, further audits, or 

retests and accept the results of the 

compliance test. The compliance authority 

may also use the audit sample failure and the 

compliance test results as evidence to 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

determine the compliance or noncompliance 

status of the affected facility. A blind audit 

sample is a sample whose value is known 

only to the sample provider and is not 

revealed to the tested facility until after they 

report the measured value of the audit 

sample. For pollutants that exist in the gas 

phase at ambient temperature, the audit 

sample shall consist of an appropriate 

concentration of the pollutant in air or 

nitrogen that can be introduced into the 

sampling system of the test method at the 

same entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant in the 

same matrix that would be produced when 

the sample is recovered from the sampling 

system as required by the test method. For 

samples that exist only in a liquid or solid 

form at ambient temperature, the audit 

sample shall consist of an appropriate 

concentration of the pollutant in the same 

matrix that would be produced when the 

sample is recovered from the sampling 

system as required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider (AASP) is 

an organization that has been accredited to 

prepare audit samples by an independent, 

third party accrediting body. If there are no 

audit samples available from an accredited 

audit sample provider, proficiency test (PT) 

samples supplied by an accredited PT sample 

provider (APTSP) may be used as an 

alternative provided that they are distributed 

as blind audit samples as defined in this 

paragraph. A proficiency test sample is a 

sample whose composition is unknown to 

the laboratory and is provided to test whether 

the laboratory can produce results within the 

specified acceptance range. The external QA 

program may also include systems audits that 

include the opportunity for on-site 

evaluation by the Administrator of 

instrument calibration, data validation, 

sample logging, and documentation of 

quality control data and field maintenance 

activities. 

a. The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if available, from an 

AASP or APTSP for each test method used 

for regulatory compliance purposes. If the 

source owner, operator, or representative 

cannot find an audit sample for a specific 

method, the owner, operator, or 

representative shall consult the EPA Web site 

at the following URL, www.epa.gov/ttn/emc, 

to confirm whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. If 

the EPA Web site does not list an available 

audit sample at least 60 days prior to the 

beginning of the compliance test, the source 

owner, operator, or representative shall not 

be required to include an audit sample as 

part of the quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an audit 

sample, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall give the sample provider 

an estimate for the concentration of each 

pollutant that is emitted by the source and 

the name, address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source owner, 

operator, or representative shall report the 

results for the audit sample along with a 

summary of the emission test results for the 

audited pollutant to the compliance authority 

and shall report the results of the audit 

sample to the AASP or the APTSP. The 

source owner, operator, or representative 

shall make both reports at the same time and 

in the same manner or shall report to the 

compliance authority first and report to the 

AASP or APTSP. If the method being audited 

is a method that allows the samples to be 

analyzed in the field and the tester plans to 

analyze the samples in the field, the tester 

may analyze the audit samples prior to 

collecting the emission samples provided a 

representative of the compliance authority is 

present at the testing site. The source owner, 

operator, or representative may report the 

results of the audit sample to the compliance 

authority and then report the results of the 

audit sample to the AASP or the APTSP prior 

to collecting any emission samples. The test 

protocol and final test report shall document 

whether an audit sample was ordered and 

utilized and the pass/fail results as 

applicable. 

b. An AASP or APTSP shall have and shall 

prepare, analyze, and report the true value of 

audit samples in accordance with a written 

technical criteria document that describes 

how audit samples or PT samples will be 

prepared and distributed in a manner that 

will insure the integrity of the audit sample 

program. One acceptable APTSP technical 

criteria document is Volume 3, ‘‘General 

Requirements for Environmental Proficiency 

Test Providers’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17). An acceptable technical criteria 

document shall contain standard operating 

procedures for all of the following 

operations: 

1. Preparing the sample; 

2. Confirming the true concentration of the 

sample; 

3. Distributing the sample to the user in a 

manner that guarantees that the true value of 

the sample is unknown to the user; 

4. Recording the measured concentration 

reported by the user and determining if the 

measured value is within acceptable limits; 

5. The AASP or APTSP shall report the 

results from each audit sample to the 

compliance authority and to the source 

owner, operator, or representative. The AASP 

or APTSP shall make both reports at the same 

time and in the same manner or shall report 

to the compliance authority first and then 

report to the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The results shall include the 

name of the facility tested, the date on which 

the compliance test was conducted, the name 

of the company performing the sample 

collection, the name of the company that 

analyzed the compliance samples including 

the audit sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

6. Evaluating the acceptance limits of 

samples at least once every two years to 

determine in consultation with the voluntary 

consensus standard body if they should be 

changed; 

7. Maintaining a database, accessible to the 

compliance authorities, of results from the 

audit that shall include the name of the 

facility tested, the date on which the 

compliance test was conducted, the name of 

the company performing the sample 

collection, the name of the company that 

analyzed the compliance samples including 

the audit sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

c. The accrediting body shall have a 

written technical criteria document that 

describes how it will insure that the AASP 

or APTSP is operating in accordance with the 

AASP or APTSP technical criteria document 

that describes how audit or PT samples are 

to be prepared and distributed. This 

document shall contain standard operating 

procedures for all of the following 

operations: 

1. Checking audit samples to confirm their 

true value as reported by the AASP; 

2. Performing technical systems audits of 

the AASP’s facilities and operating 

procedures at least once every two years. 

3. Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

d. The technical criteria documents for the 

accredited sample providers and the 

accrediting body shall be developed through 

a public process guided by a voluntary 

consensus standards body (VCSB). The VCSB 

shall operate in accordance with the 

procedures and requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–119. The 

VCSB shall approve all accrediting bodies. 

The Administrator will review all technical 

criteria documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in this Appendix M, 

paragraph b. through d. of this paragraph 4.0, 

the technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit sample 

program is not capable of producing audit 

samples of sufficient quality to be used in a 

compliance test. All acceptable technical 

criteria documents are incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 60.17. 

* * * * * 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

3. The authority citation for Part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

4. Section 60.8 is amended by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 60.8 Performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(g) The performance test shall include 

an external QA program which shall 

include, at a minimum, a test method 

performance audit (PA) during the 

performance test. The PAs consist of 

blind audit samples supplied by an 

accredited audit sample provider and 

analyzed during the performance test in 

order to provide a measure of test data 

bias. The audit sample must be analyzed 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28457 

by the same analyst using the same 

analytical reagents and analytical 

system as the compliance samples. 

Retests are required when there is a 

failure to produce acceptable results for 

an audit sample. However, if the audit 

results do not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility, the compliance authority may 

waive the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests and accept the 

results of the compliance test. The 

compliance authority may also use the 

audit sample failure and the compliance 

test results as evidence to determine the 

compliance or noncompliance status of 

the affected facility. A blind audit 

sample is a sample whose value is 

known only to the sample provider and 

is not revealed to the tested facility until 

after they report the measured value of 

the audit sample. For pollutants that 

exist in the gas phase at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that 

can be introduced into the sampling 

system of the test method at the same 

entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant 

in the same matrix that would be 

produced when the sample is recovered 

from the sampling system as required by 

the test method. For samples that exist 

only in a liquid or solid form at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in the same matrix that 

would be produced when the sample is 

recovered from the sampling system as 

required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) is an organization that has been 

accredited to prepare audit samples by 

an independent, third party accrediting 

body. If there are no audit samples 

available from an accredited audit 

sample provider, proficiency test (PT) 

samples supplied by an accredited PT 

sample provider (APTSP) may be used 

as an alternative provided that they are 

distributed as blind audit samples as 

defined in this paragraph. A PT sample 

is a sample whose composition is 

unknown to the laboratory and is 

provided to test whether the laboratory 

can produce results within the specified 

acceptance range. The external QA 

program may also include systems 

audits that include the opportunity for 

on-site evaluation by the Administrator 

of instrument calibration, data 

validation, sample logging, and 

documentation of quality control data 

and field maintenance activities. 

(1) The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if available, 

from an AASP or APTSP for each test 

method used for regulatory compliance 

purposes. If the source owner, operator, 

or representative cannot find an audit 

sample for a specific method, the owner, 

operator, or representative shall consult 

the EPA Web site at the following URL, 

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

whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. 

If the EPA Web site does not list an 

available audit sample at least 60 days 

prior to the beginning of the compliance 

test, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the 

quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an 

audit sample, the source, operator, or 

representative shall give the sample 

provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the compliance authority and shall 

report the results of the audit sample to 

the AASP or the APTSP. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

make both reports at the same time and 

in the same manner or shall report to 

the compliance authority first and then 

report to the AASP or APTSP. If the 

method being audited is a method that 

allows the samples to be analyzed in the 

field and the tester plans to analyze the 

samples in the field, the tester may 

analyze the audit samples prior to 

collecting the emission samples 

provided a representative of the 

compliance authority is present at the 

testing site. The source owner, operator, 

or representative may report the results 

of the audit sample to the compliance 

authority and report the results of the 

audit sample to the AASP or the APTSP 

prior to collecting any emission 

samples. The test protocol and final test 

report shall document whether an audit 

sample was ordered and utilized and 

the pass/fail results as applicable. 

(2) An AASP or APTSP shall have and 

shall prepare, analyze, and report the 

true value of audit samples in 

accordance with a written technical 

criteria document that describes how 

audit samples or PT samples will be 

prepared and distributed in a manner 

that will insure the integrity of the audit 

sample program. One acceptable APTSP 

technical criteria document is Volume 

3, ‘‘General Requirements for 

Environmental Proficiency Test 

Providers’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17.) An acceptable technical 

criteria document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(i) Preparing the sample; 

(ii) Confirming the true concentration 

of the sample; 

(iii) Distributing the sample to the 

user in a manner that guarantees that 

the true value of the sample is unknown 

to the user; 

(iv) Recording the measured 

concentration reported by the user and 

determining if the measured value is 

within acceptable limits; 

(v) The AASP or APTSP shall report 

the results from each audit sample to 

the compliance authority and then to 

the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The AASP or APTSP 

shall make both reports at the same time 

and in the same manner or shall report 

to the compliance authority first and 

then report to the source owner, 

operator, or representative. The results 

shall include the name of the facility 

tested, the date on which the 

compliance test was conducted, the 

name of the company performing the 

sample collection, the name of the 

company that analyzed the compliance 

samples including the audit sample, the 

measured result for the audit sample, 

the true value of the audit sample, the 

acceptance range for the measured 

value, and whether the testing company 

passed or failed the audit. 

(vi) Evaluating the acceptance limits 

of samples at least once every two years 

to determine in cooperation with the 

voluntary consensus standard body if 

they should be changed; 

(vii) Maintaining a database, 

accessible to the compliance authorities, 

of results from the audit that shall 

include the name of the facility tested, 

the date on which the compliance test 

was conducted, the name of the 

company performing the sample 

collection, the name of the company 

that analyzed the compliance samples 

including the audit sample, the 

measured result for the audit sample, 

the true value of the audit sample, the 

acceptance range for the measured 

value, and whether the testing company 

passed or failed the audit. 

(3) The accrediting body shall have a 

written technical criteria document that 

describes how it will insure that the 

AASP or APTSP is operating in 

accordance with the AASP or APTSP 

technical criteria document that 

describes how audit or PT samples are 

to be prepared and distributed. This 

document shall contain standard 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(i) Checking audit samples to confirm 

their true value as reported by the 

AASP; 

(ii) Performing technical systems 

audits of the AASP’s facilities and 

operating procedures at least once every 

two years; 

(iii) Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

(4) The technical criteria documents 

for the accredited sample providers and 

the accrediting body shall be developed 

through a public process guided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A– 

119. The VCSB shall approve all 

accrediting bodies. The Administrator 

will review all technical criteria 

documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in paragraphs 

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

technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit 

sample program is not capable of 

producing audit samples of sufficient 

quality to be used in a compliance test. 

All acceptable technical criteria 

documents are incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 60.17. 

5. In Appendix A–3 to part 60 amend 

Method 5I by revising Section 7.2 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A–3 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 4 through 5I 

* * * * * 

Method 5I—Determination of Low Level 

Particulate Matter Emissions from 

Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

7.2 Standards. There are no applicable 

standards commercially available for Method 

5I analyses. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend Appendix A–4 to part 60 as 

follows: 

a. In Method 6 as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.3.6. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1 

through 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1 through 

11.4.4, and 12.4. 

iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

b. In Method 6A as follows: 

i. Remove Section 11.2 

ii. Revise Section 16.5. 

c. In Method 6B by removing Section 

11.2. 

d. In Method 6C by revising Section 

16.1. 

e. In Method 7 as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.3.10. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.4, 11.4.1 

through 11.4.3, 11.5, 11.5.1 through 

11.5.4, and 12.6. 

iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

f. In Method 7A as follows: 

i. Revise Section 6.3. 

ii. Remove Section 7.3.5. 

iii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iv. Remove Section 11.3. 

g. In Method 7B as follows: 

i. Revise Section 9.0. 

ii. Remove Section 11.4. 

h. In Method 7C as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.2.15. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Section 11.6. 

i. In Method 7D as follows: 

i. Remove Sections 7.2.6 and 11.3. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

j. In Method 8 as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.3.1. 

ii. Revise Section 9.1. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, 

11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2, 

11.4.3, 11.4.4, and 12.9. 

iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

Appendix A–4 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 6 through 10B 

* * * * * 

Method 6—Determination of Sulfur Dioxide 

Emissions from Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

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

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature. 

CSO2 = Concentration of SO2, dry basis, 

corrected to standard conditions, mg/ 

dscm (lb/dscf). 

N = Normality of barium standard titrant, 

meq/ml. 

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

Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg 

(29.92 in. Hg). 

Tm = Average DGM absolute temperature, °K 

(°R). 

Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 °K 

(528 °R). 

Va = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml. 

Vm = Dry gas volume as measured by the 

DGM, dcm (dcf). 

Vm(std) = Dry gas volume measured by the 

DGM, corrected to standard conditions, 

dscm (dscf). 

Vsoln = Total volume of solution in which the 

SO2 sample is contained, 100 ml. 

Vt = Volume of barium standard titrant used 

for the sample (average of replicate 

titration), ml. 

Vtb = Volume of barium standard titrant used 

for the blank, ml. 

Y = DGM calibration factor. 

* * * * * 

Method 6A—Determination of Sulfur 

Dioxide, Moisture and Carbon Dioxide 

Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion 

Sources 

* * * * * 

16.5 Sample Analysis. Analysis of the 

peroxide solution is the same as that 

described in Section 11.1. 

* * * * * 

Method 6C—Determination of Sulfur 

Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources 

(Instrumental Analyzer Procedure) 

* * * * * 

16.1 Alternative Interference Check. You 

may perform an alternative interference 

check consisting of at least three comparison 

runs between Method 6C and Method 6. This 

check validates the Method 6C results at each 

particular source category (type of facility) 

where the check is performed. When testing 

under conditions of low concentrations (<15 

ppm), this alternative interference check is 

not allowed. 

Note: The procedure described below 

applies to non-dilution sampling systems 

only. If this alternative interference check is 

used for a dilution sampling system, use a 

standard Method 6 sampling train and extract 

the sample directly from the exhaust stream 

at points collocated with the Method 6C 

sample probe. 

(1) Build the modified Method 6 sampling 

train (flow control valve, two midget 

impingers containing 3 percent hydrogen 

peroxide, and dry gas meter) shown in Figure 

6C–1. Connect the sampling train to the 

sample bypass discharge vent. Record the dry 

gas meter reading before you begin sampling. 

Simultaneously collect modified Method 6 

and Method 6C samples. Open the flow 

control valve in the modified Method 6 train 

as you begin to sample with Method 6C. 

Adjust the Method 6 sampling rate to 1 liter 

per minute (.10 percent). The sampling time 

per run must be the same as for Method 6 

plus twice the average measurement system 

response time. If your modified Method 6 

train does not include a pump, you risk 

biasing the results high if you over-pressurize 

the midget impingers and cause a leak. You 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28459 

can reduce this risk by cautiously increasing 

the flow rate as sampling begins. 

(2) After completing a run, record the final 

dry gas meter reading, meter temperature, 

and barometric pressure. Recover and 

analyze the contents of the midget impingers 

using the procedures in Method 6. Determine 

the average gas concentration reported by 

Method 6C for the run. 

* * * * * 

Method 7—Determination of Nitrogen Oxide 

Emissions from Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature. 

A = Absorbance of sample. 

A1 = Absorbance of the 100-μg NO2 standard. 

A2 = Absorbance of the 200-μg NO2 standard. 

A3 = Absorbance of the 300-μg NO2 standard. 

A4 = Absorbance of the 400-μg NO2 standard. 

C = Concentration of NOX as NO2, dry basis, 

corrected to standard conditions, mg/ 

dsm3 (lb/dscf). 

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

required only if sample dilution was 

needed to reduce the absorbance into the 

range of the calibration). 

Kc = Spectrophotometer calibration factor. 

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

Pf = Final absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg 

(in. Hg). 

Pi = Initial absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg 

(in. Hg). 

Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg 

(29.92 in. Hg). 

Tf = Final absolute temperature of flask, °K 

(°R). 

Ti = Initial absolute temperature of flask, °K 

(°R). 

Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 °K 

(528 °R). 

Vsc = Sample volume at standard conditions 

(dry basis), ml. 

Vf = Volume of flask and valve, ml. 

Va = Volume of absorbing solution, 25 ml. 

* * * * * 

Method 7A—Determination of Nitrogen 

Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources 

(Ion Chromatographic Method) 

* * * * * 

6.3 Analysis. For the analysis, the 

following equipment and supplies are 

required. Alternative instrumentation and 

procedures will be allowed provided the 

calibration precision requirement in Section 

10.1.2 can be met. 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources 

(Ultraviolet Spectrophotometric Method) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources 

(Alkaline Permanganate/Colorimetric 

Method) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

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

Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources— 

Alkaline–Permanganate/Ion 

Chromatographic Method 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28460 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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

and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from 

Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

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

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature. Same as Method 5, 

Section 12.1, with the following additions 

and exceptions: 

CH2SO4 = Sulfuric acid (including SO3) 

concentration, g/dscm (lb/dscf). 

CSO2 = Sulfur dioxide concentration, g/dscm 

(lb/dscf). 

N = Normality of barium perchlorate titrant, 

meq/ml. 

Va = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, 100 

ml for H2SO4 and 10 ml for SO2. 

Vsoln = Total volume of solution in which the 

sample is contained, 250 ml for the SO2

sample and 1000 ml for the H2SO4

sample. 

Vt = Volume of barium standard solution 

titrant used for the sample, ml. 

Vtb = Volume of barium standard solution 

titrant used for the blank, ml. 

* * * * * 

7. In Appendix A–5 to part 60 amend 

Method 15A as follows: 

a. Revise Section 9.0. 

b. Remove Section 11.2. 

Appendix A–5 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 11 through 15A 

* * * * * 

Method 15A—Determination of Total 

Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Sulfur 

Recovery Plants in Petroleum Refineries 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

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

* * * * * 

8. Amend Appendix A–6 to part 60 as 

follows: 

a. Amend Method 16A as follows: 

i. Revise Section 9.0. 

ii. Remove Section 11.2. 

b. Amend Method 18 as follows: 

i. Remove Sections 7.2, 8.2.1.5.2.2, 

and 8.2.1.7. 

ii. Revise Section 8.2.2.2. 

iii. Remove Sections 8.2.2.4, and 

8.2.3.2.3. 

iv. Revise Section 8.2.4.2.2. 

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

vi. Designate the ‘‘Gaseous Organic 

Sampling and Analysis Checklist’’ as 

figure 18–15, and revise newly 

designated figure 18–15. 

Appendix A–6 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 16 through 18 

* * * * * 

Method 16A—Determination of Total 

Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Stationary 

Sources (Impinger Technique) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

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

* * * * * 

Method 18—Measurement of Gaseous 

Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 

Chromatography 

* * * * * 

8.2.2.2 Procedure. Calibrate the GC using 

the procedures in Section 8.2.1.5.2.1. To 

obtain a stack gas sample, assemble the 

sampling system as shown in Figure 18–12. 

Make sure all connections are tight. Turn on 

the probe and sample line heaters. As the 

temperature of the probe and heated line 

approaches the target temperature as 

indicated on the thermocouple readout 

device, control the heating to maintain a 

temperature greater than 110 °C. Conduct a 

3-point calibration of the GC by analyzing 

each gas mixture in triplicate. Generate a 

calibration curve. Place the inlet of the probe 

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

closer to the walls than 1 m, and draw source 

gas into the probe, heated line, and sample 

loop. After thorough flushing, analyze the 

stack gas sample using the same conditions 

as for the calibration gas mixture. For each 

run, sample, analyze, and record five 

consecutive samples. A test consists of three 

runs (five samples per run times three runs, 

for a total of fifteen samples). After all 

samples have been analyzed, repeat the 

analysis of the mid-level calibration gas for 

each compound. For each calibration 

standard, compare the pre- and post-test 

average response factors (RF) for each 

compound. If the two calibration RF values 

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

5 percent from their mean value, then 

analyze the other calibration gas levels for 

that compound and determine the stack gas 

sample concentrations by comparison to both 

calibration curves (this is done by preparing 

a calibration curve using all the pre- and 

post-test calibration gas mixture values). If 

the two calibration RF values differ by less 

than 5 percent from their mean value, the 

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

concentration values. Record this calibration 

data and the other required data on the data 

sheet shown in Figure 18–11, deleting the 

dilution gas information. 

Note: Take care to draw all samples and 

calibration mixtures through the sample loop 

at the same pressure. 

* * * * * 

8.2.4.2.2 Use a sample probe, if required, 

to obtain the sample at the centroid of the 

duct or at a point no closer to the walls than 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28461 

1 m. Minimize the length of flexible tubing 

between the probe and adsorption tubes. 

Several adsorption tubes can be connected in 

series, if the extra adsorptive capacity is 

needed. Adsorption tubes should be 

maintained vertically during the test in order 

to prevent channeling. Provide the gas 

sample to the sample system at a pressure 

sufficient for the limiting orifice to function 

as a sonic orifice. Record the total time and 

sample flow rate (or the number of pump 

strokes), the barometric pressure, and 

ambient temperature. Obtain a total sample 

volume commensurate with the expected 

concentration(s) of the volatile organic(s) 

present and recommended sample loading 

factors (weight sample per weight adsorption 

media). Laboratory tests prior to actual 

sampling may be necessary to predetermine 

this volume. If water vapor is present in the 

sample at concentrations above 2 to 3 

percent, the adsorptive capacity may be 

severely reduced. Operate the gas 

chromatograph according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. After 

establishing optimum conditions, verify and 

document these conditions during all 

operations. Calibrate the instrument and then 

analyze the emission samples. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP16JN09.000</GPH>
28462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

9. Amend Appendix A–7 to part 60 as 

follows: 

a. Amend Method 23 by removing 

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

b. Amend Method 25 as follows: 

i. Remove Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, and 

7.5.2. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, 

11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2, 

11.4.3, and 11.4.4. 

c. Amend Method 25C as follows: 

i. Remove Sections 7.3, 7.3.1, and 

7.3.2. 

ii. Revise Section 9.1. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.2, 11.2.1, 

11.2.2, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, and 

11.3.4. 

d. Amend Method 25D by removing 

Sections 7.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 11.3, 11.3.1, 

11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1, and 11.4.2. 

Appendix A–7 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 19 through 25E 

* * * * * 

Method 25—Determination of Total Gaseous 

Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

10.1.1 ............... Initial performance check of condensate recovery 

apparatus.

Ensure acceptable condensate recovery efficiency. 

10.1.2, 10.2 ...... NMO analyzer initial and daily performance 

checks.

Ensure precision of analytical results. 

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

Organic Compounds (NMOC) in Landfill 

Gases 

* * * * * 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

20 percent N2 or 5 percent O2.

Ensures that ambient air was not drawn into the landfill gas sample. 

10.1, 10.2 ......... NMOC analyzer initial and daily performance 

checks.

Ensures precision of analytical results. 

* * * * * 

10. Amend Appendix A–8 to part 60 

as follows: 

a. Amend Method 26 as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.3. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.2, 11.2.1, 

11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 

11.3.3, and 11.3.4. 

b. Amend Method 26A as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.3. 

ii. Revise the first Section 9.1. 

iii. Redesignate the second Section 9.1 

as 9.2. 

iv. Remove Sections 11.4, 11.4.1, 

11.4.2, 11.4.3, 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2, 

11.5.3, and 11.5.4. 

Appendix A–8 to Part 60—Test 

Methods 26 through 29 

* * * * * 

Method 26—Determination of Hydrogen 

Halide and Halogen Emissions from 

Stationary Sources Non–Isokinetic Method 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. [Reserved.] 

* * * * * 

Method 26A—Determination of Hydrogen 

Halide and Halogen Emissions from 

Stationary Sources Isokinetic Method 

* * * * * 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

* * * * * 

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS 

11. The authority citation for Part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602. 

12. Section 61.13 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e)(1) and adding and 

reserving paragraph (e)(2)to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.13 Emission tests and waiver of 

emission tests. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The emissions test shall include an 

external QA program which shall 

include, at a minimum, a test method 

performance audit (PA) during the 

emissions test. The PAs consist of blind 

audit samples supplied by an accredited 

audit sample provider and analyzed 

during the emissions test in order to 

provide a measure of test data bias. The 

audit sample must be analyzed by the 

same analyst using the same analytical 

reagents and analytical system as the 

compliance samples. Retests are 

required when there is a failure to 

produce acceptable results for an audit 

sample. However, if the audit results do 

not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility, the compliance authority may 

waive the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests and accept the 

results of the compliance test. The 

compliance authority may also use the 

audit sample failure and the compliance 

test results as evidence to determine the 

compliance or noncompliance status of 

the affected facility. A blind audit 

sample is a sample whose value is 

known only to the sample provider and 

is not revealed to the tested facility until 

after they report the measured value of 

the audit sample. For pollutants that 

exist in the gas phase at ambient 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28463 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that 

can be introduced into the sampling 

system of the test method at the same 

entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant 

in the same matrix that would be 

produced when the sample is recovered 

from the sampling system as required by 

the test method. For samples that exist 

only in a liquid or solid form at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in the same matrix that 

would be produced when the sample is 

recovered from the sampling system as 

required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) is an organization that has been 

accredited to prepare audit samples by 

an independent, third party accrediting 

body. If there are no audit samples 

available from an accredited audit 

sample provider, proficiency test (PT) 

samples supplied by an accredited PT 

sample provider (APTSP) may be used 

as an alternative provided that they are 

distributed as blind audit samples as 

defined in this paragraph. A PT sample 

is a sample whose composition is 

unknown to the laboratory and is 

provided to test whether the laboratory 

can produce results within the specified 

acceptance range. The external QA 

program may also include systems 

audits that include the opportunity for 

on-site evaluation by the Administrator 

of instrument calibration, data 

validation, sample logging, and 

documentation of quality control data 

and field maintenance activities. 

(i) The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if available, 

from an AASP or APTSP for each test 

method used for regulatory compliance 

purposes. If the source owner, operator, 

or representative cannot find an audit 

sample for a specific method, the owner, 

operator, or representative shall consult 

the EPA Web site at the following URL, 

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

whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. 

If the EPA Web site does not list an 

available audit sample at least 60 days 

prior to the beginning of the compliance 

test, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the 

quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an 

audit sample the source owner, 

operator, or representative shall give the 

sample provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the compliance authority and shall 

report the results of the audit sample to 

the AASP or the APTSP. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

make both reports at the same time and 

in the same manner or shall report to 

the compliance authority first and then 

report to the AASP or APTSP. If the 

method being audited is a method that 

allows the samples to be analyzed in the 

field and the tester plans to analyze the 

samples in the field, the tester may 

analyze the audit samples prior to 

collecting the emission samples 

provided a representative of the 

compliance authority is present at the 

testing site. The source owner, operator, 

or representative may report the results 

of the audit sample to the compliance 

authority and then report the results of 

the audit sample to the AASP or the 

APTSP prior to collecting any emission 

samples. The test protocol and final test 

report shall document whether an audit 

sample was ordered and utilized and 

the pass/fail results as applicable. 

(ii) An AASP or APTSP shall have 

and shall prepare, analyze, and report 

the true value of audit samples in 

accordance with a written technical 

criteria document that describes how 

audit samples or PT samples will be 

prepared and distributed in a manner 

that will insure the integrity of the audit 

sample program. One acceptable APTSP 

technical criteria document is Volume 

3, ‘‘General Requirements for 

Environmental Proficiency Test 

Providers’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17. An acceptable technical 

criteria document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(A) Preparing the sample; 

(B) Confirming the true concentration 

of the sample; 

(C) Distributing the sample to the user 

in a manner that guarantees that the true 

value of the sample is unknown to the 

user; 

(D) Recording the measured 

concentration reported by the user and 

determining if the measured value is 

within acceptable limits; 

(E) The AASP or APTSP shall report 

the results from each audit sample to 

the compliance authority and then to 

the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The AASP or APTSP 

shall make both reports at the same time 

and in the same manner or shall report 

to the compliance authority first and 

then report to the source owner, 

operator, or representative. The results 

shall include the name of the facility 

tested, the date on which the 

compliance test was conducted, the 

name of the company performing the 

sample collection, the name of the 

company that analyzed the compliance 

samples including the audit sample, the 

measured result for the audit sample, 

the true value of the audit sample, the 

acceptance range for the measured 

value, and whether the testing company 

passed or failed the audit; 

(F) Evaluating the acceptance limits of 

samples at least once every two years to 

determine in consultation with the 

voluntary consensus standard body if 

they should be changed; 

(G) Maintaining a database, accessible 

to the compliance authorities, of results 

from the audit that shall include the 

name of the facility tested, the date on 

which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

(iii) The accrediting body shall have 

a written technical criteria document 

that describes how it will insure that the 

AASP or APTSP is operating in 

accordance with the AASP or APTSP 

technical criteria document that 

describes how audit or PT samples are 

to be prepared and distributed. This 

document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(A) Checking audit samples to 

confirm their true value as reported by 

the AASP. 

(B) Performing technical systems 

audits of the AASP’s facilities and 

operating procedures at least once every 

two years. 

(C) Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

(iv) The technical criteria documents 

for the accredited sample providers and 

the accrediting body shall be developed 

through a public process guided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A– 

119. The VCSB shall approve all 

accrediting bodies. The Administrator 

will review all technical criteria 

documents. If the technical criteria 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in paragraphs 

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

technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit 

sample program is not capable of 

producing audit samples of sufficient 

quality to be used in a compliance test. 

All acceptable technical criteria 

documents are incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 60.17. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

Appendix B—[Amended] 

13. Amend Appendix B to part 61 as 

follows: 

a. In Method 104 revise Section 9.0. 

b. In Method 106 as follows: 

i. Remove Sections 7.2.4, 7.2.4.1, and 

7.2.4.2. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 

11.1. 

c. In Method 108 as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.3.16. 

ii. Revise Section 9.1. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.6, 11.6.1, 

11.6.2, 11.6.3, 11.7, 11.7.1, 11.7.2, 

11.7.3, and 11.7.4. 

iv. Revise Section 12.1. 

d. In Method 108A as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.2.1. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Sections 11.6, 11.6.1, 

11.6.2, 11.6.3, 11.7, 11.7.1, 11.7.2, 

11.7.3, and 11.7.4. 

e. In Method 108B as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.2.5. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Section 11.5. 

f. In Method 108C as follows: 

i. Remove Section 7.2.10. 

ii. Revise Section 9.0. 

iii. Remove Section 11.3. 

g. In Method 111 as follows: 

i. Revise Section 9.2. 

ii. Revise Section 11.0. 

iii. Remove Section 11.3. 

Appendix B to Part 61—Test Methods 

* * * * * 

Method 104—Determination of Beryllium 

Emissions from Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

* * * * * Method 106—Determination of Vinyl 

Chloride Emissions from Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

* * * * * Method 108—Determination of Particulate 

and Gaseous Arsenic Emissions 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

* * * * * 

12.1 Nomenclature. 

Bws = Water in the gas stream, proportion by 

volume. 

Ca = Concentration of arsenic as read from 

the standard curve, μg/ml. 

Cs = Arsenic concentration in stack gas, dry 

basis, converted to standard conditions, 

g/dsm3 (gr/dscf). 

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

Fd = Dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample 

has not been diluted). 

I = Percent of isokinetic sampling. 

mbi = Total mass of all four impingers and 

contents before sampling, g. 

mfi = Total mass of all four impingers and 

contents after sampling, g. 

mn = Total mass of arsenic collected in a 

specific part of the sampling train, μg. 

mt = Total mass of arsenic collected in the 

sampling train, μg. 

Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter 

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

Vm = Volume of gas sample as measured by 

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

Vm(std) = Volume of gas sample as measured 

by the dry gas meter, corrected to 

standard conditions, m3 (ft3). 

Vn = Volume of solution in which the arsenic 

is contained, ml. 

Vw(std) = Volume of water vapor collected in 

the sampling train, corrected to standard 

conditions, m3 (ft3). 

DH = Average pressure differential across the 

orifice meter (see Figure 108–2), mm 

H2O (in. H2O). 

* * * * * 

Method 108A—Determination of Arsenic 

Content in Ore Samples from Nonferrous 

Smelters 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 28465 

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

Content in Ore Samples from Nonferrous 

Smelters 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

Content in Ore Samples from Nonferrous 

Smelters (Molybdenum Blue Photometric 

Procedure) 

* * * * * 

9.0 Quality Control. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

210 Emissions from Stationary Sources 

* * * * * 

9.2 Miscellaneous Quality Control 

Measures. 

Section Quality control measure Effect 

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

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

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

* * * * * 

11.0 Analytical Procedure. 

Note: Perform duplicate analyses of all 

samples, including background counts and 

Method 5 samples. Duplicate measurements 

are considered acceptable when the 

difference between them is less than two 

standard deviations as described in EPA 600/ 

4–77–001 or subsequent revisions. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

14. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

15. Section 63.7 is amended by 

revising (c)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7 Performance testing requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The external QA program shall 

include, at a minimum, a test method 

performance audit (PA) during the 

performance test. The PAs consist of 

blind audit samples supplied by an 

accredited audit sample provider and 

analyzed during the performance test in 

order to provide a measure of test data 

bias. The audit sample must be analyzed 

by the same analyst using the same 

analytical reagents and analytical 

system as the compliance samples. 

Retests are required when there is a 

failure to produce acceptable results for 

an audit sample. However, if the audit 

results do not affect the compliance or 

noncompliance status of the affected 

facility, the compliance authority may 

waive the reanalysis requirement, 

further audits, or retests and accept the 

results of the compliance test. The 

compliance authority may also use the 

audit sample failure and the compliance 

test results as evidence to determine the 

compliance or noncompliance status of 

the affected facility. A blind audit 

sample is a sample whose value is 

known only to the sample provider and 

is not revealed to the tested facility until 

after they report the measured value of 

the audit sample. For pollutants that 

exist in the gas phase at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that 

can be introduced into the sampling 

system of the test method at the same 

entry point as a sample from the 

emission source. If no gas phase audit 

samples are available, an acceptable 

alternative is a sample of the pollutant 

in the same matrix that would be 

produced when the sample is recovered 

from the sampling system as required by 

the test method. For samples that exist 

only in a liquid or solid form at ambient 

temperature, the audit sample shall 

consist of an appropriate concentration 

of the pollutant in the same matrix that 

would be produced when the sample is 

recovered from the sampling system as 

required by the test method. An 

accredited audit sample provider 

(AASP) is an organization that has been 

accredited to prepare audit samples by 

an independent, third party accrediting 

body. If there are no audit samples 

available from an accredited audit 

sample provider, proficiency test (PT) 

samples supplied by an accredited PT 

sample provider (APTSP) may be used 

as an alternative provided that they are 

distributed as blind audit samples as 

defined in this paragraph. A proficiency 

test sample is a sample whose 

composition is unknown to the 

laboratory and is provided to test 

whether the laboratory can produce 

results within the specified acceptance 

range. The external QA program may 

also include systems audits that include 

the opportunity for on-site evaluation by 

the Administrator of instrument 

calibration, data validation, sample 

logging, and documentation of quality 

control data and field maintenance 

activities. 

(A) The source owner, operator, or 

representative of the tested facility shall 

obtain an audit sample, if available, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

from an AASP or APTSP for each test 

method used for regulatory compliance 

purposes. If the source owner, operator, 

or representative cannot find an audit 

sample for a specific method, the owner, 

operator, or representative shall consult 

the EPA Web site at the following URL, 

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

whether there is a source that can 

supply an audit sample for that method. 

If the EPA Web site does not list an 

available audit sample at least 60 days 

prior to the beginning of the compliance 

test, the source owner, operator, or 

representative shall not be required to 

include an audit sample as part of the 

quality assurance program for the 

compliance test. When ordering an 

audit sample the source owner, 

operator, or representative shall give the 

sample provider an estimate for the 

concentration of each pollutant that is 

emitted by the source and the name, 

address, and phone number of the 

compliance authority. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

report the results for the audit sample 

along with a summary of the emission 

test results for the audited pollutant to 

the compliance authority and shall 

report the results of the audit sample to 

the AASP or the APTSP. The source 

owner, operator, or representative shall 

make both reports at the same time and 

in the same manner or shall report to 

the compliance authority first and then 

report to the AASP or APTSP. If the 

method being audited is a method that 

allows the samples to be analyzed in the 

field and the tester plans to analyze the 

samples in the field, the tester may 

analyze the audit samples prior to 

collecting the emission samples 

provided a representative of the 

compliance authority is present at the 

testing site. The source owner, operator, 

or representative may report the results 

of the audit sample to the compliance 

authority and then report the results of 

the audit sample to the AASP or the 

APTSP prior to collecting any emission 

samples. The test protocol and final test 

report shall document whether an audit 

sample was ordered and utilized and 

the pass/fail results as applicable. 

(B) An AASP or APTSP shall have 

and shall prepare, analyze, and report 

the true value of audit samples in 

accordance with a written technical 

criteria document that describes how 

audit samples or PT samples will be 

prepared and distributed in a manner 

that will insure the integrity of the audit 

sample program. One acceptable APTSP 

technical criteria document is Volume 

3, ‘‘General Requirements for 

Environmental Proficiency Test 

Providers’’ (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17. An acceptable technical 

criteria document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(1) Preparing the sample; 

(2) Confirming the true concentration 

of the sample; 

(3) Distributing the sample to the user 

in a manner that guarantees that the true 

value of the sample is unknown to the 

user; 

(4) Recording the measured 

concentration reported by the user and 

determining if the measured value is 

within acceptable limits; 

(5)(i) The AASP or APTSP shall report 

the results from each audit sample to 

the compliance authority and then to 

the source owner, operator, or 

representative. The AASP or APTSP 

shall make both reports at the same time 

and in the same manner or shall report 

to the compliance authority first and 

then report to the source owner, 

operator, or representative. The results 

shall include the name of the facility 

tested, the date on which the 

compliance test was conducted, the 

name of the company performing the 

sample collection, the name of the 

company that analyzed the compliance 

samples including the audit sample, the 

measured result for the audit sample, 

the true value of the audit sample, the 

acceptance range for the measured 

value, and whether the testing company 

passed or failed the audit. 

(ii) If the compliance authority does 

not report the results of the audit to the 

tested facility within five business days, 

the AASP or APTSP as appropriate must 

report the pass-fail results to the tested 

facility. 

(6) Evaluating the acceptance limits of 

samples at least once every two years to 

determine in consultation with the 

voluntary consensus standard body if 

they should be changed. 

(7) Maintaining a database, accessible 

to the compliance authorities, of results 

from the audit that shall include the 

name of the facility tested, the date on 

which the compliance test was 

conducted, the name of the company 

performing the sample collection, the 

name of the company that analyzed the 

compliance samples including the audit 

sample, the measured result for the 

audit sample, the true value of the audit 

sample, the acceptance range for the 

measured value, and whether the testing 

company passed or failed the audit. 

(C) The accrediting body shall have a 

written technical criteria document that 

describes how it will insure that the 

AASP or APTSP is operating in 

accordance with the AASP or APTSP 

technical criteria document that 

describes how audit or PT samples are 

to be prepared and distributed. This 

document shall contain standard 

operating procedures for all of the 

following operations: 

(1) Checking audit samples to confirm 

their true value as reported by the 

AASP. 

(2) Performing technical systems 

audits of the AASP’s facilities and 

operating procedures at least once every 

two years. 

(3) Providing standards for use by the 

voluntary consensus standard body to 

approve the accrediting body that will 

accredit the audit sample providers. 

(D) The technical criteria documents 

for the accredited sample providers and 

the accrediting body shall be developed 

through a public process guided by a 

voluntary consensus standards body 

(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in 

accordance with the procedures and 

requirements in the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A– 

119. The VCSB shall approve all 

accrediting bodies. The Administrator 

will review all technical criteria 

documents. If the technical criteria 

documents do not meet the minimum 

technical requirements in paragraphs 

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

the technical criteria documents are not 

acceptable and the proposed audit 

sample program is not capable of 

producing audit samples of sufficient 

quality to be used in a compliance test. 

All acceptable technical criteria 

documents are incorporated by 

reference in 40 CFR 60.17. 

* * * * * 

Appendix A—[Amended] 

16. Amend Appendix A to Part 63 as 

follows: 

a. In Method 306 by removing 

Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 9.1.8, 9.1.8.1, 

9.1.8.2, 9.1.8.3, 9.1.9, 9.1.9.1, 9.1.9.2, 

9.1.9.3, 9.1.9.4, 9.2.8, 9.2.8.1, 9.2.8.2, 

9.2.8.3, 9.2.9, 9.2.9.1, 9.2.9.2, 9.2.9.3, 

9.2.9.4, 9.3.6, 9.3.6.1, 9.3.6.2, 9.3.6.3, 

9.3.7, 9.3.7.1, 9.3.7.2, 9.3.7.3, and 

9.3.7.4. 

b. In Method 306A by removing 

Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, and 7.5.2. 

c. In Method 308 by removing 

Sections 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5. 

[FR Doc. E9–13726 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS