BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM

VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES:

AMENDMENTS TO

35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS 211 AND 217

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

NOTICE

TO:

John Therriault

Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R.

Thompson Center

100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

SEE

ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

PLEASE

TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board the

FIRST-NOTICE COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

DATED: July

6,2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.

o.

Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

2171782-5544

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTES1J~N

AGENCY

_

BY:~~

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF:

NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS FROM

VARIOUS SOURCE CATEGORIES:

AMENDMENTS TO 35 ILL. ADM. CODE

PARTS

211 AND 217

)

)

)

)

)

)

R08-19

(Rulemaking - Air)

FIRST-NOTICE

PROTECTION AGENCY

NOW COMES the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), by its

attorneys, and respectfully submits its comments on the first notice published on May

22,2009,

in the above rulemaking proceeding.

See,

33

Ill.

Reg. 6896 and 6921. The Illinois EPA

recognizes and appreciates the expedited efforts of the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("Board")

in this rulemaking proposal to amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 211 and 217 to control the

emissions

of nitrogen oxides ("NO;') from certain major stationary sources in areas designated

as nonattainment with respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

These comments

of the Illinois EPA address proposed clarifications and corrections to

the first-notice pUblication

of the proposed amendments and respond to the first-notice comments

filed by ArcelorMittal

USA, Inc., with the Board on July 1, 2009.

Clarifications and Corrections

The lllinois EPA recommends the following clarifications and corrections:

1.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.3100, amend the definition of "industrial boiler" by striking

the reference to

"cogeneration units" to read as follows:

Section

211.3100

Industrial Boiler

"Industrial boiler" means, for purposes of Part 217, an enclosed vessel in which water is

heated and circulated either as hot water or as steam for heating or for power, or both.

This term does not include a heat recovery steam generator that captures waste heat from

a combustion turbine and boilers serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity

greater than

25 MWe and produces electricity for sale, if such boilers meet the

applicability criteria under Subpart M

of Part 217.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

(See, Board's May 7,2009 opinion and order,

Amendments to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 217,

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and

35

Ill. Adm. Code

211, ROS-19, slip op. at 26.)

2.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.1 04, to update an incorporation by reference, amend

subsection

(1) to read as follows:

n

40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Methods

I,

2, 3, and 4 (200S);

3.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.104, to update incorporations by reference, amend

subsections

(0) and (P) and add subsections (q) and (r) to read as follows:

Q}

Alternative Control Techniques Document--NO, Emissions from Glass

Manufacturing,

EPA-4531R-94-037,

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Ouality Planning and Standards,

Research Triangle

Park, N. C. 27711, June 1994;

Alternative Control Techniques Document--NO, Emissions from Iron and

Steel

Mills,

EPA-4531R-94-065.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air

and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle

Park, N. C. 27711, September 1994;

ill

40 CFR 60 and 75 (200S); and

rl

40 CFR 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 16, 74 FR 12575 (March 25,

2009).

(A copy

of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 16, 74 FR 12575 (March

25,2009) is attached.)

4.

Amend the heading of Subpart D of Part 217 by deleting the reference to "Industrial

Boilers"

and adding ''NO, General Requirements" to read as follows:

SUBPART D: NO, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

5.

Under 35

III.

Adm. Code 217.154, for clarification purposes, amend subsections (a) and

(b) to add references to

"emissions limitations under" an applicable Subpart and to add

the exclusion for a

"predictive emission monitoring system, or combustion tuning" to

read as follows:

il

Performance testing of NO x emissions for emission units constructed on or before

July

1, 2011, and subject to emissions limitations under Subpart E, F, G, H. or I of

this Part must be conducted in accordance with Section 217.157 ofthis SUbpart.

Except as provided for under Section 217.157(a)(4) and (e)(l), this subsection

does not apply to owners and operators

of emission units demonstrating

2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring system, predictive

emission monitoring system, or combustion tuning.

hl

Performance testing of NO, emissions for emission units for which construction

or modification occurs after July 1, 2011, and that are subject to emissions

limitations under Subpart

E, F, G,

H,

or I of this Part must be conducted within 60

days of achieving maximum operating rate but no later than 180 days after initial

startup

of the new or modified emission unit, in accordance with Section 217.157

of this Subpart. Except as provided for under Section 217.157(a)(4) and (e)(l),

this subsection does not apply to owners and operators

of emission units

demonstrating compliance through a continuous emissions monitoring system,

predictive emission monitoring system,

or combustion tuning.

6.

Under 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 217.158, subsection (a), the reference to "Section

217.150(a)(l)(A) or

(BY'

should read as "Section 217 . 150(a)(l )(A)(i) or

(ii)."

7.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.158, amend subsection (a)(2)(C) to read as follows:

g

Units that are required to meet emission limits or control requirements for

NO~

provided for in an enforceable order, unless such order allows for emissions

averaging.

In the case of petroleum refineries, this subsection does not prohibit

including industrial boilers

or process heaters, or both, in an emissions averaging

plan where an enforceable order does not prohibit the reductions made under such

order from also being used for compliance with any rules

or regulations designed

to address regional haze or the non-attainment status

of any area.

8.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.158, subsection (g), the reference to "Section

217. 150(a)(l)(A) or (B)" should read as "Section 217 .150(a)(l)(A)(i) or

(ii)."

9.

Under 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 217.158, add subsection

(j)

to read as follows:

il

The owner or operator of an emission unit located at a petroleum refinery who is

demonstrating compliance with an applicable Subpart through an emissions

averaging plan under this Section may exclude from the calculation demonstrating

compliance those time periods when

NO~

pollution control equipment that

controls one or more emission units included

in the emissions averaging plan is

shut down for a maintenance turnaround, provided that such owner

or operator

notify the Agency in writing at least

30 days in advance of the shutdown ofthe

NQx pollution control equipment for the maintenance turnaround and the

shutdown

of the NO, pollution control equipment does not exceed 45 days per

ozone season or calendar year, and except for those emission units vented to the

NQ"

pollution control equipment undergoing the maintenance turnaround, NO

x

pollution control equipment, if any, continues to operate on all other emission

units operating during the maintenance turnaround.

3

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

10.

Under 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 217.160, amend subsection (b) by striking the references to

"cogeneration units" and adding reference to boilers that "meet the applicability criteria

under Subpart M

of Part 217" to read as follows:

hl

The provisions of this Subpart do not apply to boilers serving a generator that has

a nameplate capacity greater than

25 MWe and produces electricity for sale, if

such boilers meet the applicability criteria under Subpart M of Part 217.

(See, Board's

May 7,2009 opinion and order,

Amendments to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 217,

Nitrogen

Oxides Emissions, and

35

Ill. Adm. Code

211, ROS-19, slip op. at 45-46.)

II.

Under 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 217.164, amend the first paragraph to read as follows:

Except as provided for under Section 217.152, on and after January

I,

2012, no person

shall cause or allow emissions

of NO x into the atmosphere from any industrial boiler to

exceed the following limitations.

Compliance must be demonstrated with the applicable

emissions limitation on an ozone season and annual basis.

12.

Under 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 217.164, subsection (e), amend the denominator in the equation

to read as follows:

(Btu NC

+

Btu coc

+

Btu RFC)

(See, Board's May 7, 2009 opinion and order,

Amendments to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 217,

Nitrogen

Oxides Emissions, and

35

Ill. Adm. Code

211, ROS-19, slip op. at 9S.)

13.

Under 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 217.1S4, amend the first paragraph to read as follows:

Except as provided for under Section 217.152, on and after January

I,

2012, no person

shall cause or allow emissions

of NO x into the atmosphere from any process heater to

exceed the following limitations. Compliance must be demonstrated with the applicable

emissions limitation on an ozone season and annual basis.

14.

Under 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 217.204, due to the special characteristics of glass melting

furnaces and further discussions with Saint-Gobain

Containers, Inc., amend subsection

(b) to read as follows:

hl

The emissions during glass melting furnace startup (not to exceed 70 days) or

furnace idling (operation at Jess than 35%

of furnace capacity) shall be excluded

from calculations for the purpose

of demonstrating compliance with the seasonal

and annual emissions limitations under this Section, provided that such owner or

operator, at all times, including periods

of startup and idling, to the extent

practicable, maintain and operate any affected emission unit including associated

air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution

4

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

control practice for minimizing emissions. The owner or operator of a glass

melting furnace must maintain records that include the date, time, and duration

of

any startup or idling in the operation of such glass melting furnace.

15.

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.244, amend subsection (b) by correcting the emissions

limitations to read

as follows:

hl

On and after January 1, 2012, no person shall cause or allow emissions of NO x

into the atmosphere from any reverberatory furnace or crucible furnace used in

aluminum melting to exceed the following limitations. Compliance must

be

demonstrated with the applicable emissions limitation on an ozone season and

annual basis.

Emission

Unit Type

NO

x

Emissions

Limitation

(lb/mmBtu)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12

Reverberatory furnace

Crucible furnace

(See, Board's

May 7,2009 opinion and order,

Amendments to

35

Ill. Adm. Code 217,

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and

35

Ill. Adm. Code

211, R08-19, slip op. at 105.)

16.

Amend 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 217.340 by adding reference to any "fossil" fuel-fired

stationary boiler serying

"at any time" a generator to read as follows:

Notwithstanding Subpart V

or W of this Part, the provisions of Subpart D of this Part and

this Subpart apply to any fossil fuel-fired stationary boiler serving at any time a generator

that has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 MWe and produces electricity for sale,

excluding any units listed

in Appendix D of this Part, located at sources subject to this

Subpart pursuant to Section 217.150.

(See, Board's

May 7,2009 opinion and order,

Amendments to 35111. Adm. Code 217,

Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and

35

Ill. Adm. Code

211, R08-19, slip op. at 55-56.)

17.

In light ofR09-10,

Amendments to

35

Ill. Adm. Code

225:

Control of Emissions From

Large Combustion

Sources (Mercury Monitoring),

under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 217.342,

amend subsection (b) to read

as follows:

hl

Notwithstanding Section 217.340, the provisions of this Subpart do not apply to a

coal-fired stationary boiler that commenced operation before January

1, 2008, that

is complying with Part 225.Subpart B through the multi-pollutant standard or the

combined pollutant standard.

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

18.

Amend Appendix H of Part 217 to read as follows:

Section

217.APPENDIX H: Compliance Dates for Certain Emission Units at Petroleum

Refineries

ExxonMobil

Oil Corporation (Facility ID 197800AAA)

Point

Emission Unit Description

Compliance Date

0019

Crude Vacuum Heater

(13-B-2)

December 31,2014

0038 Alky Iso-Stritmer Reboiler (7-B-1}

December 31,2014

0033

CHD Charge Heater (3-B-l)

December 31,2014

0034

CHD Stripper Reboiler (3-B-2)

December

31,2014

0021

Coker East Charge Heater (16-B-IA)

December 31, 2014

0021

Coker East Charge Heater (16-B-IB)

December 31,2014

0018

Crude Atmospheric Heater

(J -B-IA)

December 31, 2014

0018

Crude Atmospheric Heater

(l-B-IB)

December 31, 2014

ConocoPhillips Company Wood RiYer Refinery (Facility ID 119090AAA)

Point

Emission Unit Description

Compliance Date

0017

BEUHM-l

December 31,2012

0018

BEUHM-2

December 31,2012

0004

CR-l Feed Preheat, H-l

December 31,2012

0005

CR-ll st Interreactor Heater, H-2

December 31,2012

0009

CR-1

3'0 interreactor Heater, H-7

December 31,2012

0091

CR-3 Charge Heater

December 31,2012

0092

CR-3 1

st Reheat Heater, H-5

December 31,2012

0082

Boiler

17

December 31,2012

0080

Boiler 15

December 31,2012

0073

Alky HM-2 Heater

December 31, 2012

0662

VF-4 Charge Heater, H-28

December 31, 2012

0664

DU-4 Charge Heater, H-24

December 31, 2014

0617

DCU Charge Heater, H-20

December 31, 2014

0014

HCU Fractionator Reboil, H-3

December 31, 2016

0024

DU-1 Primary Heater South, F-301

December 31,2016

0025

DU-1

Second~

Heater North, F-302

December 31, 2016

0081 Boiler 16

December 31, 2016

0083

Boiler

18

December 31,2016

0095

DHT Charge Heater

December 31,2016

0028

DU-2 Lube Crude Heater, F-200

December 31,2016

0029

DU-2 Mixed Crude Heater West, F-202

December 31, 2016

0030

DU-2

Mixed Crude Heater East, F -203

December 31,2016

0084

CR-2 North Heater

December 31,2016

0661

CR-2 South Heater

December 31,2016

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

ArcelorMittal USA, Inc.

In its first notice comments filed on July I, 2009, with the Board, ArcelorMittal USA,

Inc., ("ArcelorMittal") contends that the Illinois EPA failed to provide technical or economical

justification for the proposed revised emissions limitation and to demonstrate that such revised

emissions limitation was based upon Reasonably Available Control Technology

("RACT").

See,

First Notice Public Comments

for the Illinois Pollution Control Board Submitted By

ArcelorMittal

USA, Inc., filed July

1,

2009.

The Illinois EPA's Technical Support Document

("TSD") provides detailed performance and cost information that demonstrates that the proposed

emissions limitations contained

in the rulemaking proposal are feasible technologically and

economically. And, as further set forth in the Illinois

EPA's TSD, the NO, control technologies

identified for reheat, annealing and galvanizing furnaces at iron and steel plants are reasonably

available, technically feasible, and cost effective, even recognizing the tunnel design

of

ArcelorMittal's reheat furnace.

After reviewing the Illinois

EPA's summary of NO

x

emissions limitations from reheat

furnaces at other sources that was used as the basis for amending the emissions limitation for

recuperative reheat furnaces combusting natural gas, ArcelorMittal attempts to distinguish itself

from the sources surveyed. Arce10rMittal indicates that the

NO, emissions limitation for Beta

Steel Corporation's natural gas-fired reheat furnace slab 2 of 0.0147

Ib/mmBtu

was the original

permit limit based on manufacturer's estimates, whereas the current permit limit is 0.77

Ib/mmBtu.

See, First Notice Public Comments for the Illinois Pollution Control Board

Submitted

By ArcelorMittal USA, Inc., filed July

1,

2009, Paragraph

2. The permit limit that

ArcelorMittal cites

to is actually 0.077

Ib/mmBtu,

which is more stringent than the emissions

limitation proposed

by the Illinois EPA. Arce10rMittal states that the Nucor Steel facility,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and the V &M

Star facility in Mahoning County, Ohio, are not similar to

7

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

ArcelorMittal's Riverdale facility, and that two of the facilities, New Steel International,

Haverhill,

Ohio, and Minnesota Steel Industries LLC, Itasca County, Minnesota, have not been

constructed to date. Emissions limitations set forth in construction permits are enforceable

limits, and the actions

ofthese states to require such emission limits support the Illinois EPA's

proposal as technologically feasible for this type of reheat furnace.

ArcelorMittal again cites to its economic analysis that provides the estimated cost

effectiveness for burner changes based upon the next-generation ultra low

NO

x

burners currently

available.

See, Post-Hearing Comments for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Submitted

By ArcelorMittal USA, Inc., filed March

23,

2009, Exhibit A.

In the Illinois EPA's

opinion, the economic analysis provided by ArcelorMittal is flawed and should not be relied

upon as evidence that the proposed emission limits are beyond RACT from an economic

perspective.

It is important to point out that the burners, Series 1430, now in use at

ArcelorMittal's Riverdale facility were designed in the 1980s and are not considered an

"advanced NO

x

control technology" as ArcelorMittal claims. ArcelorMittal's estimated cost

effectiveness for burner modifications is $22,895 per ton

of NO x removed under Scenario 1 for

the

1500 Series burners and $39,472 per ton of NO x removed under Scenario 2 for the 1550

Series

burners. The calculation for the annualized cost per ton of NO

x

removed based on

changing burners under either scenario assumes only a 5-year equipment life. Clearly the

expected equipment life is much greater than five years,

as the existing burners in

ArcelorMittal's furnace are about 20 years old. A more reasonable economic equipment life is

15 or 20 years. By using umeasonably low equipment life in the economic analysis,

ArcelorMittal has overstated the annualized costs

of installing and maintaining the controls

needed to comply with the Illinois EPA's proposal. In addition, the interest rate

of 10% is high,

as is the contingency at 20%. Again, by overstating these costs, ArcelorMittal has overstated the

8

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

costs, on an annual basis, of meeting the Illinois EPA's proposal. ArcelorMittal's economic

analysis should not be relied upon

as evidence that the proposed emission limits are beyond

RACT.

ArcelorMittal requests that the Board revisit the proposed rule and for second notice

,

allow a source to be exempt from the proposed NO, emissions limitations upon an adequate

demonstration that additional

NO, controls would be economically unreasonable. Essentially,

ArcelorMittal is requesting a case-by-case RACT analysis, and the proposal does not include for

case-by-case RACT determinations. The

illinois EPA opposes the inclusion of such options in

this proposal. The Board's regulations include regulatory relief mechanisms from environmental

regulations under certain circumstances, and the Illinois

EPA acknowledges that sources may

initiate proceedings for such relief.

DATED: July 6,2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P. O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

217/782-5544

9

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTEytT

O.N AGENCY

• --1£. "'. ,,--

By:.

~

Gina Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

THIS FILING

ON RECYCLED PAPER

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

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

12575

EPA-ApPROVED SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name

Pennitlorder or registration nurn-

State effec-

EPA approval date

40

CFR

part 52

ber

tive date

citation

Reynolds

Consumer

Company.

Products Registration No. 50534

10/1/08 03/25/09 ........................................ .

52.2420(d)(12)

*

•

•

•

*

IFR Doc. Eg...<;663 Filed 3-24-<)9; 8:45 am]

BILL.ING CODE

656o-~

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-H~AR-2003-0074;

FRL-ll785-41

RIN

206D-AG21

Performance Specification 16 for

Predictive Emissions Monitoring

Systems and Amendments

to Testing

and Monitoring Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:

EPA is taking final action to

promulgate Performance Specification

(PS) 16 for predictive emissions

monitoring systems (PEMS).

Performance Specification 16 provides

testing

requirements for assessing the

acceptability of PEMS when they are

initially installed. Currently,

there are

no Federal rules requiring the

USe

of

PEMS; however. some sources have

obtained Administrator approval to use

PEMS as alternatives to continuous

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS).

Other sources may desire to use PEMS

in cases where initial and operational

costs

are less than CEMS and process

optimization for emissions control may

be desirable. Performance Specification

16 will

apply to any PEMS required in

future rules in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, or

63, and in cases where a source

petitions the Administrator and receives

approval to use a PEMS in lieu of

another emissions monitoring system

required under the regulation. We are

also finalizing minor technical

amendments.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on

April 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for

this action under Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-{)074. All

documents in the docket are listed on

the

http://www.regulations.govWeb

[Insert page number where the

document begins].

site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available,

e.g.,

CBl or other information whose

disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain

other material, such as

copyrighted material, is not placed on

the Internet and will be publicly

available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically through

http://www.regu/ations.govorinhard

copy at the Performance Specification

16 for

Predictive Emission Monitoring

Systems Docket, Docket

ID

No. EPA-

OAR-2003-{)074, EPA Docket Center,

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334,

1301

Constitution

Ave.,

NW., Washington,

DC. This Docket Facility is open from

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

Friday excluding legal holidays. The

docket telephone number is (202) 566-

1742. The Public Reading Room is open

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

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

The telephone number for the

Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr.

Foston

Curtis, Air Quality Assessment

Division,

Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards (E143-{)2),

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone number (919) 541-

1063; fax number (919) 541-0516; e-

mail address:

curtis.joston@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I.

Does This Action Apply to Me!'

n.

Where Can

I

Obtain a Copy of This

Action?

III.

Background

IV. This Action

A. PS-16

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

C. Performance Specification 11 of

Appendix B of Part 60

D. Procodures 1 and 2 of Appendix

F

of

Pert 60

E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63

V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

A.

Parameter Operating Level Terminology

B.

PS--16 Applicability to Market-Based

Programs

C. PS--16 and the Older Draft Performance

Specifications on the EPA Web site

D. PEMS Relative Accwacy Stringency vs

CEMS Stringency

E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters

F. Statistical Tests

G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the

Relative Accuracy Audit

H. Potential Overlap Between PS-16 and

PS-17

I.

Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit

Frequency for Good Performance

VI.

Judicial Review

VII.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive

Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination

with

Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protcction of

Children from Environmantal Health

Risks

and Safety Risks

H.

Executive Order 13211: Actions that

Significantly Affect Energy Supply.

Distribution, or Use

I.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Fadoral Actions

to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and

Low~Income

Populations

K.

CongresSional Review Act

I.

Does This Action Apply to Me?

Predictive

emission monitoring

systems

are not currently required in

any Federal rule. However, they may be

used under certain New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) to

predict nitrogen oxides emissions from

small industrial, commercial, and

institutional steam generating units. In

some cases,

PEMS have been approved

as alternatives to CEMS for the initial

30-day compliance test at these

facilities. Various State and Local

regulations

are incorporating PEMS as

an emissions monitoring tool. The major

entities that are potentially affected by

Performance Specification 16 and the

amendments to the subparts Bre

included in the following tables.

Performance Specification 16 will

neither apply to existing PEMS nor

those covered under Subpart E of 40

CFRparl 75.

Regulated Entities. Categories

and

entities potentially affected include the

following:

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12576

Federal Register

I

Vol. 74, No, 56

I

Wednesday, March 25, 2009/Rules and Regulations

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

Category

Industry ..................................... " ...•••........ ___ ................................................................ , ..••....

Industry

................ " ...•.................................. _ ...........••.•.... " .... ___ ........•••.. ,., .......................... .

a

North American Industry classification system.

NAICsa

Examples of regulated entities

333611 Stationary Gas Turbines.

332410 Industrial, Commercial, Institu-

tional Steam Generating Units.

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

AND PROCEDURES 1 AND 2, ApPENDIX F, PART 60

Category

NAICS'

Examples of regulated entities

Industry ......................................... _ .. "", ........ , ....................... " ............ , ............................................. .

Industry " ......... ,", ....... " ........... , ......... " ......... " ....................... , ........... ,', ........ , ................................... .

a North American

Industry Classsification System.

333298 Portland Cement Manufacturing.

562211 Hazardous Waste Incinerators.

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

60

Category

Industry ........................................... , ................................................................... " ........ , .... ..

Industry ............................................................................................................................... ..

Industry ................

. .................. ..

Industry ....................................................................... , ...................................................... .

Industry ............................................................... " ........................................................ , .... ..

Industry ................................................................................................................ , ............. ..

Industry ............... " ........................................................................................................... ..

Industry ............... ,', ................................................... "., ........................................ , ........... .

Industry ..............................................................................................................................

..

Industry ............ " ................... , ............................................ , ........... " .................................. ..

Industry ..... ,", ......................................................................................................... .

Industry ..... ,", .................................................. , ........................ " .......................................... ,

Industry ...... " ................................................... ,., ..................... , ........................................... ,

Industry ................................................ " ......................................................... ,', .................. .

Industry ................................................................................................................................ .

Industry ................................................................................................................................ .

Industry ........................................... ,", ...................................................... ,.,, ..................... ..

Industry ............. ,"', ...... ,." ......................................... , ..... , ...................................... ,", ....... " ..

Industry ............. "."., ...... " ........................................ "."., ...................................... ,,", ......... .

Industry ................

" ............................................ , ........ , .................................... " .................. .

Industry ................... , ....................................................... , ................................. ,""', .... , ....... .

Industry ............................................................ ,', ............................................. , ................ ..

Industry ........... "., ...... " ........................................ ,', ........ " ................................ , .. , ....... .

a

North Amencan Industry classificatllon System.

NAICS'

326211

323111

334613

326199

332812

337124

336111

323111

322222

421620

335931

332812

33641

Examples of regulated entities

Rubber Tire Manufacturing.

Flexible

Vinyl and Urethane Coating and

Printing,

Magnetic

Tape Coating Facilities.

Surface Coaling of Plastic Parts for Busi-

ness MachInes.

Polymeric Coating

of Supporting Sub-

strates FacilitIes.

Surface

Coating of Metal Fumiture.

Automobile and

Ught

Duty

Truck Surface

Coating.

Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Roto-

gravure Printing.

Pressure

Sensitive Tape and Label Sur-

face Coating Operations.

Industrial

Surface Coating: Large Appli-

ances.

Metal Coil

Surface Coaling.

Beverage Can Surface Coating.

Aerospace.

Boat and

Ship Manufacturing and Repair

Surface Coating.

Fabric Printing, Coating. and Dyeing.

Leather Finishing.

Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing.

Miscellaneous

Metal Parts and Products.

Paper and

Other Web Surface Coating.

Plastic Parts Surface Coating.

Printing and Publishing

Surface Coating.

Wood Building Products.

Wood Furniture.

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

63

Category

Industry .................. ,", •. " .. , .... .

aNorth American

Industry classsification System.

These tables are not intended to be

exhaustive. but rather to provide a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by these actions, These tables

list examples of the types of entities

EPA is

now aware could potentially be

affected by these final actions. Other

types

of entities not listed could also be

affected.

If

you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

NAICS'

Examples of regulated entities

33111111

Coke

Ovens.

to a particular entity. consult the person

listed

in the preceding

FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

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

12577

II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This

Action?

In addition to

being available in the

docket. an electronic copy of this rule

will also be available on the Worldwide

Web

(www)

through the Technology

Transfer Network (TTN). Following the

Administrator's signature, a copy of the

final rule will be placed on the TTN's

policy

and guidance page for newly

proposed or promulgated rules at

http://www.epa.govlttn!oarpg.

The TIN

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air

pollution control.

III. Background

Performance Specification 16 and the

amendments to PS-l1. Procedures 1

and 2, Method 24, and Method 303 were

proposed in the Federal Register on

August 8, 2005 with a public comment

period that ended October 7, 2005. A

public commenter asked that the

comment period be reopened to allow

for additional time to prepare their

response since they were a leading

vendor of PEMS and were significantly

impacted by the rule. We reopened the

comment period for two weeks, from

November 2-16, 2005. A total of 42

comment letters were received on the

proposed rule. Most comment letters

pertained to

PS--16 and contained

multiple comments. We have compiled

and responded to the public comments

and made appropriate changes to the

rule based on the comments.

IV.

This Action

A.

PS-16

This action finalizes PS-16 for PEMS.

This performance specification was

originally proposed by EPA on August

8,2005

(70 FR 45608). Performance

Specification 16 establishes procedures

that

must be used to determine whether

a PEMS is acceptable for use in

demonstrating compliance with

applicable requirements. Predictive

emission monitoring systems predict

source

emissions indirectly using

process parameters instead of measuring

them directly.

Additionally, the following

amendments are made to the noted

testing and monitoring provisions.

B.

Method

24

of Appendix A-7 of Part

60

Method 24, part 60, Appendix A-7 is

used to determine the contents and

properties of surface coatings under

NSPS applications. Method 24 currently

references ASTM D2369 as the method

for determining volatiles content. The

American Society for Testing and

Materials has recommended that ASTM

D6419 be allowed as an alternative to

D2369 in this case. We have amended

Method 24 to cite this optional method.

C.

Perfonnance Specification

11

of

Appendix B of Part 60

The publication on January 12, 2004

ofPS-11 for Appendix B and Procedure

2

for part 60, Appendix

F

contained

technical and typographical errors

and

unclear instructions. We have revised

the definition of confidence interval half

range to clarify the language, replacing

the word "pairs" with "sets" to avoid

possible confusion regarding the use of

paired sampling trains, corrected errors

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

corrected the procedures in paragraphs

(4) and (5) of section 12.3 for

determining confidence and tolerance

interval

half ranges for the exponential

and power correlation models, and

added a note following paragraph (5)(v)

concerning the application of

correlation equations to calculate

particulate matter

(PM) concentrations

using the response data from an

operating PM CEMS. We have also

renumbered some equations and

references for clarification, consistency,

and accuracy.

D. Procedures

1

and

2

of Appendix

F

of

Part 60

In Procedure 1 of Appendix F of part

60, we revised obsolete language that

describes

the standard reference

material that is required,

and in

Procedure 2, we added a needed

equation for calculating an absolute

correlation audit based

on the

applicable standard.

E. Method 303 of Appendix A of

Port 63

In Method 303 of Appendix A to part

63, a statement on varying the time of

day runs are taken that was deleted by

mistake in a recent amendment of the

method has been added.

V. Public Comments on the Proposed

Rule

A more detailed summary of the

public comments and our responses can

be

fowld in the Summary of Public

Comments and Responses document,

which is available from several sourCes

(see

ADDRESSES

section). The major

public comments are summarized by

subject as follows:

A. Parameter Operating Level

Terminology

Several commenters suggested we

revise the key parameter operating level

used for the relative accuracy (RA) test

from

"nonnal" to "mid."

It

was noted

that some units nonnally operate in the

high or

low levels and that a revised

listing of mid level would ensure that

the intended three levels would be

evaluated. We agree with the

commenters and changed

the reference

from

"normal" to "mid."

B.

PS-16 Applicability

to

Market-Based

Programs

Several comrnenters objected to

applying PS-16 to PEMS that are used

in a market-based program. They noted

that market-based PEMS are already

covered

in Subpart

E

of 40 CFR part 75

and those requirements are different

from proposed P8-16. This was deemed

confusing from an applicability

standpoint, especially for those PEMS

that have already been approved under

part 75. Other commenters stated that

they did not understand why

performance specifications for market.

based monitoring

were being added to

40 CFR part 60 since part 60 does not

address marketing regulations.

Some

commenters asked whether PS-16

would apply to PEMS already in use.

We have dropped the proposed

applicability

ofPS-16 to market-based

PEMS and agree that part 75 is the better

place to address market-based

PEMS.

Requirements for PEMS used in the part

75 market-based program are already

addressed in Subpart E of part 75, and

we do not believe the more stringent

requirements

given there for market-

based PEMS are warranted for

compliance monitoring under 40 CFR

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

rule that PS-16 applies only to PEMS

that are installed after the effective date

oftoday's action and to those used to

comply with requirements in 40 CFR

parts 60, 61, or 63.

C.

PS-16 and the Older Draft

Performance Specifications on the EPA

Web Site

A

number of commenters asked that

the draft

"Example Specifications and

Test Procedures for Predictive Emission

Monitoring Systems" on the EPA Web

site be adopted as PS-16 instead of the

proposed provisions. They note that

these specifications have been used in

the past to approve prospective PEMS

and felt the same guidelines should be

used in the future. One commenter

thought a departure from the draft

requirements would result in a demise

in PEMS use due to the increased costs

of initial certification and ongoing

maintenance.

The "Example Specifications and Test

Procedures for Predictive Emission

Monitoring Systems" was a guidance

document to give PEMS users and

regulators a general idea

of what could

be expected of PEMS in light of the

limited performance data available at

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12578

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

that time.

It

was primarily based on the

existing requirements in PS-2 for CEMS

and not on extensive research. The

document was offered on the EMC Web

site

until the Agency could develop and

finalize

PS-1B.

Since then, we have

acquired relative accuracy test

audit

(RATA) data from a number of PEMS

over time. and our understanding of

their capabilities has increased. This

data is presented in the docket and gives

a better indication of PEMS performance

than what is reflected in the guidance

document (see EPA-OAR-2003--o074-

0002,0003,

and 0004 dacket entries).

This data confirms that the performance

levels

set in PS-16 are achievable by the

vast majority of PEMS in the data pool

and are more reflecti

VB

of the

technology's capabilities. We disagree

with the commenter that the new

requirements in PS-16 will result in the

demise ofPEMS due to increased cost

for initial certification

and ongoing

maintenance.

D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency

vs. CEMS Stringency

Some commenters objected to the 10

percent relative accuracy limit for PEMS

in PS-16 considering that the

corresponding performance

specifications for

CEMS that are used

for the same purposes have a 20 percent

relative accuracy limit. They note that

previous approvals of PEMS were based

on the 20 percent criterion in the draft

Web site performance specifications.

Tbey also argued that the added

stringency of having to certify at a level

twice as accurate as a GEMS under the

same compliance conditions was not

warranted.

The 20 percent relative accuracy limit

was set for

CEMS in the 1970's and

reflects the performance capabilities of

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

CEMS are capable of much better

performance as

can be seen by their

success under the tighter part 75 rules

where a 10 percent relative accuracy is

required. We have obtained

perfonnance data on a number of

installed PEMS currently in use

(see

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003--o074--o002,0003,

and 0004 docket entries), and the data

show an overwhelming majority of the

PEMS are capable of meeting a 10

percent criterion on a repeated basis.

We believe

the quality of emissions data

should parallel the increased

capabilities of newer technologies, not

the capabilities of older, outdated

systems. Therefore, the 10 percent

relative accuracy

limit for PEMS is

retained in this final rule.

E. Alternative Limits for

Low

Emitters

Several commenters asked that

alternative relative accuracy limits be

allowed for low-emitting sources. They

were concerned that the 10 percent

relative accuracy limit would be

problematic for low-emitters because

the error in the reference method

measurement plays a significant part in

the accuracy determination at low

concentrations. One commenter noted

that many permits set emission limits

just above

the typical emission level of

the source. This results in low-emitting

sources running

in the 75-95 percent of

the emission standard range. The

proposed alternative limits would only

be

of use when the unit is operating

either below 25 or below 10 percent of

the emission standard. They thought it

would be more practical to base

alternative criteria on the measured

concentration ranges instead of the

emission standard. Two commenters

suggested scaling the relative accuracy

requirement such that 10 percent would

be the limit for measurements over 100

ppm, 20 percent for measurements

between 10 and 100 ppm, and within 2

ppm for measurements under 10 ppm.

We understand the commenters'

concerns and think their suggestion for

alternative criteria for low emitters

is a

practical idea. We have added the

suggested alternative criteria for

concentrations between

10 and 100 ppm

(20 percent RA) and below 10 ppm

(±

2 ppm difference between PEMS and

reference method).

F. Statistical Tests

One commenter thought the relative

accuracy requirements are, in some

cases, too severe and would prevent (1)

even most CEMS from certifying using

standard reference method testing

and

(2) all but the most sophisticated PEMS

from passing certification. Two

cornmenters proposed using daily zero

and span calibration checks and

quarterly linearity checks as alternatives

to the statistical tests and quarterly

relative accuracy audits (RAA). Others

recommended longer sampling times to

obtain the needed data for the relative

accuracy statistical tests similar to the

40 CFR part 75, Subpart E requirements.

Several commenters stated that they

anticipated difficulty in meeting the 0.8

r-correlation requirement in tests where

process v8!'iations are small. One

commenter recommended the proposed

waiver of the correlation test be made

permanent if the data are determined to

be either auto-correlated or if the signal-

to-noise ratio of the data is less than 4.

We do

not believe the relative

accuracy requirements are so severe as

to prevent most GEMS or PEMS from

certifying using standard reference

method testing. Most PEMS are not

amenable to daily zero and span checks

or quarterly linearity checks of their

sensors. The suggested long-term

relative accuracy evaluation

of PEMS

similar to the requirements of Subpart E

of part 75 would render PEMS use

economically impractical under parts

60, 61, and 63. Evaluation times similar

to those currently required

of CEMS

should be sufficient. We have taken the

recommendation that the correlation

test be permanently

waived in cases

where the data are auto-correlated or

have a signal-to-noise ratio less than 4

and have made this change in PS-16.

G.

Use of Portable Analyzers for the

Relative

Accuracy Audit

Several commenters opposed the use

of portable analyzers for the quarterly

relative accuracy audits. They felt the

analyzers lacked sufficient accuracy to

evaluate

PEMS. Two commenters cited

the report

"Evaluation of Portable

Analyzers for Use

in Quality Assuring

Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems

for NO

x

"

(a report prepared for EP

Ns

Clean Air Markets Division,

Washington,

DC, September 8,2004) as

proof of this inadequacy. They note that

in the report the only analyzer that

achieved accuracy better than 10

percent was the more sophisticated

analyzer using the reference method

methodology. Additionally, a

commenter suggested that sampling

problems related to sampling point

location, sample conditioning, high-

moisture and volume, particulate, and

high temperatures would render

portable analyzers ineffective. Another

commenter thought that portable

analyzers,

which were believed to be

accurate to

within 20 percent, would

not be able to show that PEMS are

accurate to

within 10 percent.

Three commenters asked that the

quarterly audit requirements be

removed altogether. One commenter

stated that helshe did not see any added

value in the audits because PEMS were

thought to be inherently reliable, and

two commenters urged a return to the

Web site performance specification

requirement to conduct biannual

relative accuracy test audits instead of

quarterly relative accuracy audits.

We are not aware of and commenters

did not present any data that supports

the idea that PEMS are inherently

accurate such that their perfonnance is

guaranteed over long periods of time.

The performance of PEMS, like CEMS,

depends on a number of criteria that are

subject to change over time. The

summary and findings of the noted

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

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

12579

report on portable analyzers state that

"The portable analyzers produced

results that were comparable to those of

the CEMS and Method 7E for the two

natural gas-fired combustion sources

and low concentrations tested." Portable

analyzers are offered as a cheaper

testing option to

add flexibility to the

relative accuracy audits. However,

reference methods

may also be used in

place of portable analyzers for the

relative accuracy audit. A relative

accuracy audit for a validated

PEMS

would not be valueless but would

confirm that such a PEMS is still

functioning properly. Therefore,

quarterly relative accuracy audits are

retained

and may be performed using a

portable analyzer

or a reference method.

H.

Potential Overlap Between PS-16

and PS-17

Three commenters asked that we

specifically state that

PS-16 will not

apply to parametric monitoring systems.

We were asked to clarify that PS-16

would not cover parametric systems that

are already covered

under PS-17.

Performance

Specification 17 applies

to parametric monitoring systems

(i.e.,

those that have associated parametric

limits), Performance Specification 16

applies to predictive emission

monitoring systems

(i.e.,

those that have

associated emission limits). This

difference has been noted in PS-16.

1.

Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit

Frequency for Good Performance

One commenter proposed that

quarterly relative accuracy audit tests be

required for the first year after initial

certification.

If

all tests are passed

through the second year relative

accuracy test audit (without tuning or

additional training),

the second year of

relative accuracy audits would be

waived. In cases of failed relative

accuracy audit or relative accuracy test

audit attempts during the year or

any

PEMS retraining that triggers

recertification

would nullify this option

until the subsequent year. The

commenter felt this waiver option was

important to the viability

of PEMS use

at remote sites.

We believe the commenter's

suggestion has merit

but think that at

least a semiannual test at a time

approximately one-half year from

the

previous RATA is needed to prevent

extended malfunctions. We have

therefore revised

P5-16 to allow a single

RAA

or RATA midway the second year

if three prior quarters

of RAA and a

second annual RATA are passed

without PEMS training or tuning.

VI. Judicial Review

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

Air Act

(CAA). judicial review of this

final rule is available by filing a petition

for review

in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District

of Columbia Circuit by

May 26, 2009. Under section

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

objection to this final rule that was

raised with reasonable specificity

during the period for public comment

can be raised during judicial review.

Moreover.

under section 307(b)(2) of the

CAA, the requirements established by

this action may not be challenged

separately

in any civil or criminal

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce

these requirements.

vn. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order

12866:

Regulatory

Planning

and Review

This action is not a "significant

regulatory action"

under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735.

October 4,1993) and is, therefore, not

subject to review

under the Executive

Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction

Act.

44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

Burden is

defined at 5

CFR 1320.3(b). This final

rule does not add information collection

requirements beyond those currently

required

under the applicable

regulations. This final rule adds

performance requirements

and amends

testing

and monitoring requirements as

necessary.

C.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RF A)

generally requires

an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements

under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number

of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses. small

organizations.

and small governmental

jurisdictions.

For purposes

of assessing the impacts

of this rule on small entities, small

entity is defined

as:

(1)

A small business

whose parent company has fewer

than

100 or 1,000 employees. or fewer than

4 billion kilawatt-hr per

yea~

of

electricity usage, depending on the size

defmition for the affected North

American Industry Classification

System code;

(2) a small governmental

jurisdiction

that is a government of a

city,

county, town. school district or

special district

with a population of less

than

50.000; and (3) a small

organization

that is any not-for-profit

enterprise

which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of this final rule on small

entities. I certify

that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial

number of small entities.

This final rule will

not impose any

requirements on small entities because

it does not impose

any additional

regulatory requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no Federal

mandates

under the provisions of Title

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995

(UMRA). 2 U.S.C. 1531-

1538 for State. local. or tribal

governments or the private sector. This

action imposes no enforceable

duty on

any State. local or tribal governments

of

the private sector. Therefore, this action

is not subject

to the requirements of

sections 202

or 205 of the UMRA. This

action is also not subject

to the

requirements

of section 203 of UMRA

because

it

contains no regulatory

requirements

that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. This

action adds procedures that

apply when

applicable parties choose to use a

different monitoring tool than

what is

currently required. Other amendments

are made to correct various errors in

testing provisions.

E. Executive Order

13132:

FederaHsm

Executive Order 13132 entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255. August 10.

1999) requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

"meaningful

and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism

implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have "substantial direct

effects on

the States. on the relationship

between the national government

and

the States. or on the distribution of

power

and responsibilities among the

various levels

of government."

This final rule does

not have

federalism implications.

It

will not have

substantial direct effects

on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government

and the States. or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels

of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. This rule will

benefit State

and local governments by

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12580

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

providing performance specifications

they can use to evaluate PEMS. Other

amendments being made will correct

P5-11, Procedures 1 and 2, Method 24,

and Method 303. No added

responsibilities or increase in

implementation efforts or costs for State

and local governments are being added

by this action. Thus, Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order

13175:

Consultation

and Coordination

with

Indian Tribal

Governments

This action does not have tribal

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13175 [65 FR 67249, November 9,

2000). This action adds an optional

monitoring tool to

the monitoring

provisions

that have already been

mandated. Thus, Executive

Order 13175

does

not apply to this action.

G.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 [62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997) as

applying only

to those regulatory actions that concern

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5-501 of

the EO has the potential to influence the

regulation. This action is not subject to

EO 13045 because it does not establish

an environmental standard intended to

mitigate

health or safety risks.

H.

Executive Order

13211:

Actions

Concerning Regulations That

significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution,

or

Use

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211 [66 FR 28355 [May 22,

2001)), because it is not a significant

regulatory action

under Executive Order

12866.

1.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12[d) of the National

Technology Transfer

and Advancement

Act of 1995 ["NTTAA"), Public Law No.

104-113, 12[d) [15 U.S.c. 272 note)

directs

EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards

(e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices)

that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to

provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This action does

not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

/.

Executive Order

12898:

Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations.

Executive Order [EO) 12898 [59 FR

7629 [Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal

executive policy

on environmental

justice. Its main provision directs

federal agencies, to

the greatest extent

practicable

and permitted by law, to

make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate,

disproportionately high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs,

policies,

and activities on minority

populations and low-income

populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final

rule

will not have disproportionately

high

and adverse human health or

environmental effects on minority or

low-income

populations because it does

not affect the level of protection

provided to human health or the

environment. This final rule does not

relax the control measures on sources

regulated

by the rule and, therefore, will

not cause emissions increases from

these sources.

K.

Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801

et seq.,

as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness

Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of

the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States.

EPA

will submit a

report containing

this rule and other

required information to

the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A Major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after

it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is

not a "major rule" as

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

will be effective April 24, 2009.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

Administrative practice and

procedures. Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting

and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March ]6, 2009.

Lisa

Jackson,

Administrator.

• For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 60-STANDARDS OF

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW

STATIONARY SOURCES

•

I. The authority citation for Part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23

V.S.C.

101; 42

V.S.c. 7401-

7671q.

• 2. Section 6.7 is added to Method 24

of

Appendix A-7 to read as follows:

Appendix A-7 to Part 60-Test

Methods 19 through 25E

•

•

•

•

•

Method 24-Determination of Volatile

Matter Content, Water Content, Density.

Volume Solids, and Weight Solids

of Surface

Coatings

•

•

•

•

•

6.7 ASTM D 64]9-00, Test Method for

Volatile Content of Sheet-Fed

and Coldset

Web Offset Printing Inks.

•

•

•

•

• 3. Performance Specification 11 of

Appendix B is amended as follows:

• a. By revising Section 3.4.

• b. By revising Section 6.6,

introductory text.

• c. By revising paragraphs [l)[ii),

[l)[iii), (2), (4),

and (5) of Section 12.3

• d. By revising paragraph (3)[ii) of

Section 12.4.

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

of Section 13.2.

• f. By adding Sections 16.8 and 16.9.

• g. By revising Table 1 of Section 17.0

to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 50-Performance

Specifications

•

•

•

•

•

Performance Specificatiun 11-

Specifications and Test Procedures for

Particulate Matter Continuous Emission

Monitoring

Systems at Stationary Sources

•

•

•

•

•

3.4 "Confidence Interval Half Range (CI),'

is a statistical term and means one-half of the

width of the

95 percent confidence interval

Ill'OtUld the predicted mean PM concentration

(y

value) calculated at the PM CEMS

response value (x value) where the

confidence interval is narrowest. Procedures

for calculating

CI are specified

in

section

12.3. The CI as a percent of the emission

limit value

(CI%J is calculated at the

appropriate

PM CEMS response value and

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

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

12581

must satisfy the criteria specified

in

Section

13.2 (2).

•

•

•

•

•

B.6 How do I conduct my PM GEMS

correlation lest? You must conduct the

correlation test according to the proceduxe

giVE;lD

in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this

section.

If

you need multiple correlations,

you must conduct testing and collect at least

15

sets of reference method and PM CEMS

data for calculating each separate correlation.

•

•

•

•

•

12.3 How do I detennine my PM GEMS

correlation?

.

(1)

.

11

.

11

..

(ii) Calculate the half range of the 95

percent confidence interval (GI) for the

predicted PM concentration {yJ at the mean

value of x, using Equation 11-8:

Cl

=

t

dr

.

l-n/2 . SL

V;;

IT

(Eq. 11-8)

Where:

CI

=

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval for the predicted PM

concentration at the mean x value.

4Jr,[.a/2

=

the value for the

t

statistic provided

in Table 1 for df

=

(n - 2), and

51, = the scatter or deviation of y values about

the correlation curve,

which is

determined using Equation 11-9:

(Eq. 11-9)

Calculate the confidence interval half range

for the predicted PM concentration

(:y)

at the

mean x value as a percentage of the emission

limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10:

CI

CI%

= _.

100%

EL

(Eq.II-IO)

Where:

CI

=

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval for the predicted PM

concentration at the mean x value, and

EL =

PM emission limit, as described in

section 13.2.

(iii) Calculate the half range of the

tolerance interval (TIl for the predicted PM

concentration (5') at the mean

x

value using

Equation 11-11:

(Eq. II-II)

Where:

TI

=

the half range of the tolerance interval

for the predicted PM concentration (5') at

the mean x value,

kT

=

as calculated using Equation 11-12, and

5

L

= as calculated using Equation 11-9:

(Eq.II-12)

Where:

n'

=

the number of test runs (n],

u,,- = the tolerance factor for 75 percent

coverage at

95 percent confidence

provided in Table

1 for df

=

(n - 2), and

Vdf = the value from Table

1

for df = (n - 2).

[

OS,S,]

A=S,S,S"

S, s, S,

S, = I,(x;),S, = i(xn,s, =i(xij,s, =i(x:j

;",1

;=1

;=1

;=1

Calculate the half range of the tolerance

interval for

the predicted PM concentration

(:9") at the mean x value as a percentage of the

emission limit

(n%)

using Equation 11-13:

TI

TI%

= - .

100%

EL

Where:

(Eq.II-I3)

11

=

the half range of the tolerance interval

for the predicted

PM

concentration (5') at

the mean x value, and

EL

=

PM emission limit, as described in

section 13.2 .

•

•

•

•

•

(2) How do I eV8luate a polynomial

correlation for

my correlation test d8ta? To

evaluate a polynomial correlation, follow the

procedwes described in paragraphs

(2)(0

through (iv) of this section.

(i) Calcul8te

the polynomial correlation

equation. which is indicated by Equation 11-

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

(Eq. 11-16)

Where:

y

=

the PM CEM:S concentration predicted by

the polynomial correlation equation,

and

b

o

,

b L. b:z =

the coefficients determined from

the solution to ilie matrix equation Ab=B

Where:

(Eq.I1-17)

(Eq. 11-18)

Where:

Xi

=

the PM CEMS response for run i,

Y

L

=

the reference method PM concentration

for run

i,

and

n

=

the number of test runs_

Calculate the polynomi81 correlation curve

coefficients

(bo,

bl.

and

b

z)

using Equations

11-19 through 11-21, respectively:

b

=

(S, .S, .S, +S, .S, .S, +S, .S, .S, -S, .S, .S, -S, .S, .S, -S, .S, .S,)

o

det

A

(Eq. 11-19)

b

=

(n.S,

.S, +S, .S, .S, +S, .S, .S, -S, .S, .S, -S, .S,

.n-S,

.S, .S,)

,

det

A

(Eq. 11-20)

b

=

(n.S,

.S, +S, .S, .S, +S, .S, .S, -S, .S, .S, -S, .S,

.n-S,

.S, .S,)

,

det

A

(Eq.I1-21)

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12582

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

Where:

det

A

~

n'S, -S, -S, -S, .S,

+SI

.S, .S, -S, .S, .n+S,

A

.S, -S,

,SI,SI

(Eq. 11-22)

(iiJ Calculate the 95 percent confidence

C coefficients (Co to C,) using Equations 11-

interval halfrange (GI) by fust calculating the 23 and 11-24:

Co

(S,.S,-Sil

C

I

(S, S, - SI'

S, )

C,=

(SI' S,- Sn

D

D

,

C,

(nS, - Sn

C,

(SI' S, - nS,)

C,

(nS, - s;j

(Eq. 11-23)

D

D

D

Where:

D

=

n(

S,

.S, -S;)

+SI

(S, .S,

-SI

.S,)+

S, (SI

.S, -S;)

(Eq.II-24)

Calculate 11 using Equation 11-25 for each x

value:

Determine

the x value that corresponds to the

minimum value of 11 (6

m

l

n

).

DBtCrnllne the

scatter or deviation ofyvalues about the

Calculate the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval

(el)

for the predicted PM

concentration

(y)

at the x value that

corresponds to

.6.,,,ln using Equation 11-27:

(Eq. 11-27)

Where:

df = (n-3), and

tdf

=

as listed

in

Table 1 (see section 17).

Calculate

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval for the predicted PM

concentration at

the x value that corresponds

to dmin as a percentage of the emission limit

(CI%) using Equation 11-28:

CI

CI%=-.lOO%

EL

Where:

(Eq. 11-28)

CI

=

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval for the predicted PM

concentration at the x value that

corresponds to .6.

min,

and

EL

=

PM emission limit, as described

in

section 13.2.

polynomial correlation

curve

(Sp)

using

Equation 11-26:

(Eq. 11-25)

(Eq.II-26)

(iii) Calculate the tolerance interval half

range (TIl for the predicted PM concentration

at the x value that corresponds to 6

m

in, as

indicated

in

Equation 11-29 for the

polynomial correlation, using Equations 11-

30 and 11-31:

Tl="-r'Sp

(Eq. 11-29)

Where:

(Eq.11-30)

n'=-

11

(Eq.11-31)

Un' =

the value indicated in Table 1 for df

=

(n'-3). and

vdf

=

the value indicated

in

Table 1 for df

= (n'-3).

Calculate the tolerance interval half range for

the predicted PM concentration at the x value

that corresponds to 6.

min

as a percentage of

the emission limit (TI%) using Equation 11-

32:

TI%

Where:

=

Tl.lOO

EL

(Eq.l1-32)

TI

=

the tolerance interval half range for the

predicted PM concentration at the x

value that corresponds to

dmin, and

EL

=

PM emission limit, as described in

section 13.2.

(iv) Calculate

the polynomial correlation

coefficient (rl using Equation

11-33:

r

=

~I

_

S~

S,

(Eq.11-33)

Where:

81' =

as calculated using Equation 11-26, Wld

Sy =

as calculated using Equation 11-15.

•

*

*

•

•

(4) How do 1 evaluate an exponential

correlation for my correlation test data? To

evaluate

Wl exponential correlation, which

has the form indicated by Equation 11-37,

follow the procedures described in

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

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

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

12583

(Eq, 11-37)

(i)

Perform a logarithmic transformation of

each PM concentration measurement

(y

values) using Equation 11-38:

y;'

= Ln

(y;)

(Eq. 11-38)

Where:

y'.

=

is the transfonned value of Yi. and

Ln(Yi)

=

the natural logarithm of the PM

concentration measurement for run

i.

(ii)

Using the values for y';

in

place of the

values for

Yi.

perfonTI the same procedures

used to develop the linear correlation

equation described

in

paragraph (l)(i) of this

section. The resulting equation will have the

form indicated by Equation] 1-39,

(Eq.11-39)

Where:

r

=

the predicted log PM concentration

value,

b' 0

=

the natural logarithm of bo, and the

variables bOt bit and x are as defined

in

paragraph (t){O of this section.

(iii) Using the values for

Y'I

in place of the

values for Yit calculate the half range of the

95 percent confidence interval

(CY),

as

described

in paragraph (l)(ii) of this section

for

CI. Note that CI' is on the log scale. Next,

calculate

the upper and lower 95 percent

confidence limits for the mean value

t

using

Equations 11-40 and 11-41;

LCL'

= r'

-Ci'

(Eq. II-40)

VCL'

= y' +

Ci'

(Eq. 11-41)

Where;

LeL'

=

the lower 95 percent confidence limit

for

the mean value

t.

UCL'

=

the upper 95 percent confidence limit

for the mean value

t.

t

=

the mean value of ilie log-transformed

PM concentrations, and

CI'

=

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval for the predicted

PM

concentration

(f),

as calculated in

Equation 11-8.

Calculate the halfnmge of the 95 percent

confidence interval (CI) on the original PM

concentration scale using Equation 11-42;

CI

=

UCL'

LeL'

e

-e

(Eq.

Il-42)

2

Where:

CI

=

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval on the original PM

concentration scale, and UCL' and LCL'

are as defined previously.

Calculate

the half range of the 95 percent

confidence interval for the predicted PM

concentration corresponding to the mean

value of x as a percentage of the emission

limit (CI%) using Equation 11-10.

(iv) Using the values for y' ; in place of

the values for

y;.

calculate the half range

tolerance interval

(Tl1,

as described in

paragraph (l)[ili) of this section for 11. Note

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

half range tolerance limits for the mean value

'l

using Equations 11-43 and 11-44:

LTL' = r' - TI'

UTL' = y' +TI'

Where:

(Eq. 11-43)

(Eq. II-44)

LTL'

=

the lower 95 percent tolerance limit

for

the mean value

i,

UTL'

=

the upper 95 percent tolerance limit

for the mean value y',

t.

=

the mean value of ilie log-transformed

PM concentrations, and

TI'

=

the half range of the 95 percent

tolerance interval for the predicted PM

concentration

W),

as calculated in

Equation 11-11.

Calculate the half range tolerance interval

(TI) on the original PM concentration scale

using Equation 11-45:

UTl:

LTV

TI=e -e

2

(Eq. 11-45)

TI

=

the half range of the 95 percent tolerance

interval

on the original PM scale, and

UTL' and LTL' are as dermed previously.

Calculate

the tolerance interval half range for

the predicted PM concentration

corresponding to

the mean value of x as a

percentage

of the emission limit (TI%) using

Equation 11-13.

(v) Using the values for

y' f

in place of the

values for

y ...

calculate the correlation

coefficient (r)

using the procedure described

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

(5) How do I evaluate a power correlation

for my correlation

test data? To evaluate a

power correlation, which has the form

indicated by Equation 11-46, follow the

procedures described in paragraphs (5)[i)

through (v) of this section.

(Eq_ 11-46)

(i) Perform logarithmic transformations of

each PM CEMS response (x values) and each

PM concentration measurement (yvalues)

using Equations 11-35 and 11-3B,

respectively.

(ti) Using the values for x'/ in place of the

values for x" and the values for

y';

in place

of the values for

Yf,

perform the same

procedures used to develop the linear

correlation equation described

in paragraph

(1)[i)

of this section. The resulting equation

will have the form indicated by Equation 11-

47:

Y

=

b;

+

b,x'

(Eq. 11-47)

Whero:

f =

the predicted log PM concentration

value,

and

x'

=

the natural logarithm of the PM CEMS

response values.

b'o

=

the natural logarithm of 1>0, and the

variables

ho.

hi,

and x are as defined in

paragraph (1)(i) of this sectioD.

(iii)

Using the same procedure described

for

exponential models in paragraph (4)(iii)

of this section, calculate the half range of the

95 percent confidence interval for the

predicted PM concentration corresponding to

the mean value of x' as a percentage of the

emission limit.

{iv) Using the same procedure described

for exponential models

in

paregraph (4)(iv) of

this section, calculate the tolerance interval

half range for the predicted PM concentration

corresponding to the

mean value of

x

as a

percentage

of the emission limit.

(v)

Using the values for

y'/

in place of the

values for

Y;,

calculate the correlation

coefficient (r) using

the procedure described

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

Note:

PS-11 does not address the

application of correlation equations to

calculate

PM emission concentrations using

PM CEMS response data during normal

operations of a PM CEMS. However, we will

provide guidance on the use of spocific

correlation

models (i.e., logarithmic,

exponential.

and power models) to calculate

PM concentrations in an operating PM CEMS

in situations when the PM CEMS response

values are equal to

or less than zero, and the

correlation model is undefined.

12.4

What correlation model should I

use?

•

•

•

•

•

(3) * *

(il) Calculate the minimum value using

Equation 11-4B.

mmormax=--

•

hI

2h,

(Eq. 11-48)

•

•

•

•

•

13.2 What performance criteria must my

PM CEMS correlation satisfy?

•

•

•

•

(2) The confidence interval half range must

satisfy the applicable criterion specified in

paragraph (2)(i), (lil, or (iii) of this section.

based

on the type of correlation model.

(1) For linear or logarithmic correlations,

the 95 percent confidence interval halfrnnge

at the mean PM CEMS response value from

the correlation test must be within 10 percent

of the PM emission limit value specified in

the applicable regulation. Therefore, the CI%

calculated using Equation 11-10 must be less

than or equal to 10 percent.

(il) For polynomial correlations, the 95

percent confidence interval half range at the

PM CEMS response value from the

correlation test that corresponds to the

minimum value for

fl

must be within 10

percent of the PM emission limit value

specified

in the applicable regulation.

Therefore,

the CI% calculated using Equation

11-28 must be less than or equal to 10

percent.

(iii) For exponential or power correlations,

the 95 percent confidence interval half range

at

the mean of the logarithm of the PM CEMS

response values from the correlation test

must be within 10 percent of the PM

emission limit value specified in the

applicable regulation. Therefore, the CI%

calculated

using Equation 11-10 must bo less

than or equal to 10 percent.

(3) The tolerance interval half range must

satisfy the applicable criterion specified in

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12584

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

paragraph (3)(i),

(ii),

or (iii)

of this

section,

based on the type of correlation model.

(0 For linear or logarithmic correlations,

the

half range tolerance interval

with

95

percent confidence and 75 percent coverage

at the mean PM GEMS response value from

the correlation test must be within 25 percent

of the PM emission limit value specified in

the applicable regulation. Therefore, the TI%

calculated using Equation 11-13 must be less

than or equal to 25 percent.

(ii)

For polynomial correlations, tho half

range tolerance interval with 95 percent

confidence and 75 percent coverage at the

PM GEMS response value from the

correlation test that corresponds to the

minimum value for 11 mllst be within 25

percent of the PM emission limit value

specified in the applicable regulation.

Therefore, the TI% calculated using Equation

11-32 must be less than or equal to 25

percent.

(iii) For exponential or power correlations,

the

half range

tolerance interval with 95

percent confidence and 75 percent coverage

at the mean of the logarithm of the PM CEMS

response values from the correlation test

must be within 25 percent of the PM

emission limit value specified in the

applicable regulation. Therefore,

the 11%

calculated

using Equation 11-13 must be less

than or equal to 25 percent.

•

•

•

•

•

16.0 Which references are relevant to this

perfonnance specification?

•

•

•

•

•

16.8 Snedecor, George W. and Cochran,

William

G. (1989), Statistical Methods,

Eighth Edition, Iowa

State University Press.

16.9 Wallis, W. A. (1951)

"Tolerance

Intervals for Linear Regression," in Second

Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical

Statistics and Probability, ed.

J.

Neyman,

Berkeley:

University of California Press, pp.

43-51.

17.0

* * '*

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

Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95%

df

Student's t, ilr

confidence level

Vdf

(95

c

/c)

Un' (75%)

kT

3 ...................................................................................................................... .

3.182

2.920

1.266

3.697

4 ...................•.............••.......................••...........................................................

2.776

2.372

1.247

2.958

5 .......................................................................................................... .

2.571

2.089

1.233

2.576

6 ...................................................................................................................... .

2.447

1.915

1.223

2.342

7 ...................................................................................................................... .

2.365

1.797

1.214

2.183

8 ..................................................................................................................... .

2.306

1.711

1.208

2.067

9 ...................................................................................................................... .

2.262

1.645

1.203

1.979

10 ................................................................................................................... .

2.228

1.593

1.198

1.909

11 .................................................................................................................... .

2.201

1.551

1.195

1.853

12 .................................................................................................................... .

2.179

1.515

1.192

1.806

13 ................................................................................................................... .

2.160

1.485

1.189

1.766

14 .................................................................................................................... .

2.145

1.460

1.186

1.732

15 .................................................................................................................... .

2.131

1.437

1,184

1.702

16 .................................................................................................................. .

2.120

1.418

1.182

1.676

17 .................................................................................................................... .

2.110

1.400

1.181

1.653

18 ................................................................................................................... .

2.101

1.384

1.179

1.833

19 ................................................................................................................... .

2.093

1.370

1.178

1.614

20 .................................................................................................................... .

2.066

1.358

1.177

1.597

21 .................................................................................................................... .

2.080

1.346

1.175

1.582

22 ................................................................................................................... .

2.074

1.335

1.174

1.568

23 ......................................................

' ........................................................... .

2.069

1.326

1.173

1.555

24 .................................................................................................................... .

2.064

1.316

1.172

1.544

25 .................................................................................................................... .

2.060

1.308

1.172

1.533

26 .................................................................................................................... .

2.056

1.300

1.171

1.522

27 .................................................................................................................... .

2.052

1.293

1.170

1.513

28 ................................................................................................................... .

2.048

1.286

1.170

1.504

29 ....................................................................................................... .

2.045

1.280

1.169

1.496

30 .................................................................................................................... .

2.042

1.274

1.168

1.488

31 .................................................................................................................... .

2.040

1.268

1.168

1.481

32 .................................................................................................................... .

2.037

1.263

1.167

1.474

33 .................................................................................................................... .

2.035

1.258

1.167

1.467

34 .................................................................................................................... .

2.032

1.253

1.166

1.461

35 .................................................................................................................. .

2.030

1.248

1.166

1.455

36 .................................................................................................................... .

2.028

1.244

1.165

1.450

37 .................................................................................................................... .

2.026

1.240

1.165

1.444

38 ................................................................................................................... .

2.024

1.236

1.165

1.439

39 .................................................................................................................... .

2.023

1.232

1.164

1.435

40 ...................................................................................................... .

2.021

1.228

1.164

1.430

41 ................................................................................................................... .

2.020

1.225

1.164

1.425

42 .................................................................................................................... .

2.018

1.222

1.183

1.421

43 .................................................................................................................... .

2.017

1.218

1.183

1.417

44 ................................................................................................................... .

2.015

1.215

1.163

1.413

45 .................................................................................................................... .

2.014

1.212

1.163

1.410

46 .................................................................................................................... .

2.013

1.210

1.162

1.406

47 .................................................................................................................... .

2.012

1.207

1.162

1.403

48 .................................................................................................................... .

2.011

1.204

1.162

1.399

49 .................................................................................................................... .

2.010

1.202

1.162

1.396

50 .................................................................................................................... .

2.009

1.199

1.161

1.393

51. ................................................................................................................... .

2.008

1.197

1.161

1.390

52 .................................................................................................................... .

2.007

1.195

1.161

1.387

53 .................................................................................................................... .

2.006

1.192

1.161

1.384

54 .................................................................................................................... .

2.005

1.190

1.161

1.381

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

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

12585

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

Tolerance interval with 75% coverage and 95%

df

Student's I, t!r

1-____

--,CO,-"_fi_de_n_c_e_l_ev_o_I,-____ _

55 .................................................................................................................... .

2.004

2.003

2.002

2.002

2.001

2.000

56 ................................................................................................................... ..

57 .................................................................................................................... .

58 ...................................................................................................................

..

59 .................................................................................................................... .

60 .................................................................................................................... .

References 16.8 (I values) and 16.9 (Vdf and Un' values) .

• 4.

In

Appendix B, Performance

Specification 16 is added to read as

follows:

Appendix B to Part 60-Performance

Specifications

•

•

•

•

•

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 16--

SPECIFICATIONS AND TEST

PROCEDURES

FOR PREDICTIVE EMISSION

MONITORING SYSTEMS

IN STATIONARY

SOURCES

1.0 Scope and Application

1,1 Does this performance specification

apply to me?

If

you, the source owner or

operator, intend to usc (with any necessary

approvals) a predictive emission monitoring

system (PEMS) to show compliance with

your emission limitation under 40 CFR 60.

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

perfonnance

specification (PS) to determine

whether your

PEMS is acceptable for use in

demonstrating compliance with applicable

requirements.

Usc these procedures to certify

your

PEMS after initial installation and

periodically thereafter to ensure the

PEMS is

operating properly.

If

your PEMS contains a

diluent

(0

2

or CO

2)

measuring component

and your emissions limitation is in

WlitS that

require a diluent measurement

(e.g.lbs/mm

Btu), the diluent component must be tested

as well. These speCifications apply to PEMS

that arc installed under 40 CFR 60, 61, and

63 after the effective date of this performance

specification. These specifications do not

apply

to parametric monitoring systems,

these are covered under

PS-17.

1.1.1 How

do! certjfy

my

PEMS after it

is installed?

PEMS must pass a relative

accuracy

(RA)

test and accompanying

statistical tests in the initial certification test

to

be

acceptable for use

in

demonstrating

compliance with applicable requirements.

Ongoing quality assurance tests also must be

conducted

to ensure the PEMS is operating

properly.

An

ongoing sensor evaluation

procedure must be

in place before the PEMS

certification is complete. The amount of

testing and data validation that is required

depends upon the regulatory needs,

i.e.,

whether precise quantification of emissions

will be needed or whether indication

of

exceedances of some regulatory threshold

will suffice.

PerformWlce criteria are more

rigorous for

PEMS used

in

determining

continual compliance with an emission limit

than those used to measure excess emissions.

You must perform the initial certification test

on your PEM:S before reporting any PEMS

data as quality-assured.

1.1.2 Is other testing required after

certification?

After you initially certify your

PEMS, you must pass additional periodic

performance checks to ensure the long-term

quality of data. These periodiC checks are

listed

in

the table in Section 9. You are

always responsible for properly maintaining

and operating your

PEMS.

2.0 Summary of Perfonnance Specification

The following performance tests are

required

in addition to other equipment and

measurement location requirements.

2.1 Initial PEMS Certification.

2.1.1 Excess Emissions PEMS. For a

PEMS that is used for excess emission

reporting, the owner or operator must

perform a minimum

9-nm, 3-level (3 runs at

each level)

RA

test (see Section

8.2).

2.1.2 Compliance PEMS. For

n

PEMS that

is usod for continual compliance standards,

the owner or operator must perform a

minimum 27-run, 3-level

(9

runs at each

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

the data must be evaluated for bias and by

F-test and correlation analysis.

2.2

Periodic Quality Assurance (QA)

Assessments. Owners and operators of all

PEMS are required to conduct quarterly

relative accuracy audits

(RAA)

and yearly

relative accuracy test audits

(RATA) to assess

ongoing

PEMS operation. The frequency of

these periodic assessments may be shortened

by successful operation during a prior year.

3.0 Definitions

The following definitions apply:

3.1 Centroidal Area

moans that area in

the center

of the stack (or duct) comprising

no more than

1

percent of the stack cross-

sectional area and having the same geometric

shape

as the stack.

3.2 Data Recorder

means the equipment

that provides a permanent record

of the

PEM:S output. The data recorder may include

automatic data reduction capabilities and

may include electronic data records, paper

records,

or a combination of electronic data

and paper records.

3.3 Defective sensor

means a sensor that

is responsible for

PEMS malfunction or that

operates outside the approved operating

envelope. A defective sensor may be

functioning properly.

but because

it

is

operating outside the approved operating

envelope, the resulting predicted emission is

not validated.

1.188

1.186

1.184

1.182

1.180

1.179

Un' (75%)

1.160

1.160

1.160

1.160

1.160

1.160

1.379

1.376

1.374

1.371

1.369

1.367

3.4 Dj1uent

PEMS

means the total

equipment required to predict a diluent gas

concentration or emission rate.

3.5 Operating envelope

means the

defined range of a parameter

input that is

established during

PEMS development.

Emission data generated from parameter

inputs that

are beyond the operating

envelope are not considered quality assured

and

are therefore unacceptable.

3.6 PEMS

means all of the equipment

required

to predict an emission concentration

or emission rate. The system may consist of

any

of the following major subsystems:

sensors and sensor interfaces, emission

model, algorithm, or equation that uses

process data

to generate an output that is

proportional to

tho emission concentration or

emission rate, diluent emission modeJ, data

recorder, and senser evaluation system.

Systems that use fewer thWl 3 variables do

not qualify

as PEMS Wlless the system has

been specifically approved by the

Administrator for usc as a

PEMS.

A

PEMS

may predict emissions data that are corrected

for diluent if the relative accuracy and

relevant

QA tests are passed in the emission

WlitS corrected for diluent. Parametric

monitoring systems that serve as indicators of

compliance and have

parametric

limits but

do not predict emissions

to comply with an

emissjons

limit are not included in this

definition.

3.7 PEMS

trajningmeans the process of

developing or confirming the operation of the

PEMS against a reference method under

specified conditions.

3.6 Quarter

means a quarter of a calendar

year in which there are at least

168 Wlit

operating hours.

3.9 Reconciled Process Data

means

substitute data that

are generated by a sensor

evaluation system

to replace that of a failed

sensor. Reconciled process data may not be

used without approval [rom the

Administrator.

3.10

Relative Accuracy

means the

accuracy of the

PEMS when compared to a

reference method

(RM) at the source. The

RA

is the average difference between the

pollutant

PEMS and RM data for a specified

number of comparison runs plus a 2.5

percent confidence coefficient, divided by

the average of the

RM tests. For a diluent

PEMS, the RA may be expressed as a

percentage

of absolute difference between the

PEMS and RM. Alternative specifications are

given for units that have very low emissions.

3.11

Relative Accuracy Audit

means a

quarterly audit

of the PEMS against a

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12586

Federal Register/Va\. 74, No. 56/Wedoesday, March 25, 2009/Rules and Regulations

portable analyzer meeting the requirements

of ASTM D6522-00 or a RM for a specified

number

of runs. A RM may be used in place

oftha portable analyzer for the RAA.

3.12 Relative Accuracy Test Audit

means

a

RA

test that is performed at least Once every

four calendar quarters after the initial

certification test while the

PEMS is operating

at the normal operating level.

3.13 Reference Value

means a PEMS

baseline value that may be established by RM

testing under conditions when all sensors are

functioning properly. This reference value

may then be used

in the sensor evaluation

system or

in

adjusting new sensors.

3.14 Sensor Evaluation System

means the

equipment

or procedure used to periodically

assess the quality of sensor

input data. This

system may be a sub-model that periodically

cross-checks sensor inputs among themselves

or any other procedure that checks sensor

integrity at least daily (when operated for

more

than one hour in any calendar day).

3.15 Sensors and Sensor Interface

means

the equipment that measures the process

input signals and transports them to the

emission prediction system.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0

Safety [Reserved}

6.0

Equipment and Supplies

6.1 PEMS Design. You must detail the

design

of your PEMS and make this available

in reports

and for on-site inspection. You

If PEMS is measuring.

Uncontrolled emissions, such as

NOx at the

stack of a natural gas-fired boiler.

Uncontrolled emissions, such as

NOx at the

stack of a natural gas-fired boiler.

Controlled emissions ......................................... .

Continual compliance emiSSions for an applica-

ble regulation.

6.1.7 Sensor Location and Repair. We

recommend you install sensors in an

accessible location in order to perfonn

repairs

and replacements. PennanenUy

installed platfonns or ladders may not be

needed.

If

you install sensors in an area that

is not accessible, you may be required to shut

down the emissions unit to repair or replace

a sensor. Conduct a new RATA after

replacing a sensor. All sensors must be

calibrated as often

as needed but at least as

often as recommended by the manufacturers.

6.1.S Sensor Evaluation System. Your

PEMS must be designed to perform automatic

or manual detennination of defective sensors

on at least a daily basis. This sensor

evaluation system may consist

of a sensor

validation sub-model, a comparison of

redundant sensors, a spot check of sensor

input readings at a reference value,

operation, or emission level, or other

procedure that

detects faulty or failed

sensors.

Some sensor evaluation systems

generate substitute values (reconciled data)

that are used

when a sensor is perceived to

must also establish the following, as

applicable:

6.1.1 Number

of Input Parameters.

An

acceptable PEMS will nonnally use three or

more

input parameters. You must obtain the

Administrator's permission

on a case-by-case

basis

if you desire to use a PEM:S having

fewer than three

input parameters.

6.1.2

Parameter Operating Envelopes.

Before you evaluate your

PEMS through the

certification test, you must specify the

input

parameters your PEM:S uses, define their

range of minimum and maximum values

(operating envelope),

and demonstrate the

integrity of the

parameter operating envelope

using graphs

and data from the PEMS

development process, vendor information, or

engineering calculations, as appropriate.

If

you operate the PEMS beyond these

envelopes at

any time after the certification

test, the data generated during this condition

will not be acceptable

for use in

demonstrating compliance with applicable

requirements.

If

these parameter operating

envelopes are

not clearly defined and

supported

by development data, the PEMS

operation will be limited to the range of

parameter inputs encountered during the

certification test until the

PEMS has a new

operating envelope established.

6.1.3

Source-Specific Operating

Conditions. Identify any source-specific

operating conditions, such as fuel type, that

affect the output

of your PEMS. You may

only usc the

PEMS under the source-specific

operating conditions

it

was certified for.

And

if. ..

No other regulation sets an upper limit for the

data recorder's range.

Another regulation sets an upper

limit for the

data recorder's range.

have failed. You must obtain prior approval

before using reconciled data.

6.1.9 Parameter Envelope Exceedances.

Your

PEMS must include a plan to detect and

notify the operator of parameter envelope

exceedances. Emission data collected

outside

the ranges of the sensor envelopes will not

be considered quality assured.

6.2 Recordkeeping. All valid data

recorded by the

PEMS must be used to

calculate the emission value.

7.0 Reagents and Standards [ReSOlVed]

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation,

Storage. and Transport

8.1 Initial Certification. Use the following

procedure to certify your

PEMS. Complete all

PEMS training before the certification begins.

8.2 Relative Accuracy Test.

8.2.1 Reference Methods. Unless

otherwise specified

in the applicable

regulations, you

must use the test methods in

Appendix A of this part for the RM test.

Conduct

the RM tests at three operating

levels of the key

parameter that most affects

6.1.4 Ambient Conditions.

You must

explain whether and how ambient conditions

and seasonal changes affect your

PEMS.

Some

parameters such as absolute ambient

hUmidity cannot be manipulated during a

test. The effect

of ambient conditions such as

humidity on the pollutant concentration

must

be

detennined and this effect

extrapolated to include future anticipated

conditions. Seasonal changes

and their

effects on the

PEMS must be evaluated unless

you can

show that such effects are negligible.

6.1.5

PEMS Principle of Operation.

If

your PEMS is developed on the basis of

known physical principles, you

must identify

the specific physical assumptions or

mathematical manipulations that support its

operation.

If

your PEMS is developed on the

basis

of linear or nonlinear regression

analysis, you must make available the paired

data (preferably

in graphic form] used to

develop

or train the model.

6.1.6 Data Recorder

Scale.

If

you are not

using a digital recorder, you must choose a

recorder scale that accurately captures the

desired range of potential emissions. The

lower limit of your data recorder's range

must be no eater than 20 percent of the

applicable emission standard

(if subject to an

emission standard). The upper limit of your

data recorder'S range must be determined

using the following table.

If

you obtain

approval first, you may use other lower and

upper recorder limits.

Then your upper limit.

Must be 1.25 to 2 times the

average

potential

emission

level

Must follow the other regulatlon

Must be 1.5 to

2.0 times concentration of the

emission standard that applies to your

emission

unit

Must be 1.1 to 1.5 times the concentration of

the emission standard that applies to your

emission unit

emissions

(e.g ..

load level). Conduct the

specified number of

RM tests at the low

(minimum to

50 percent of maximum), mid

(an intermediary level between the low

and

bigb levels), and high (80 percent to

maximum) key parameter opemting levels, as

practicable.

If

these levels are not practicahle,

vary the key parameter range as

much as

possible over three levels.

8.2.2 Number of

RM Tests for Excess

Emission

PEMS. For PEMS used for excess

emission reporting, conduct at least the

folJowing number of

RM tests at the

following key parameter operating levels:

(1) Three at a low level.

(2) Three at a mid level.

(3) Three at a high level.

You may choose to perform more than

nine

total RM tests.

If

you perform more than nine

tests, you may reject a maximwn of three

tests as long as the total number of test

results used to determine tho

RA is nine or

greater and each operating level has at least

three tests. You must report all data,

including the rejected data.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 56/Wednesday, March 25, 2009/Ru\es end Regulations

12587

8.2.3 Number of RM Tests for Continual

Compliance

PEMS.

For PEMS used to

detennine compliance, conduct at least the

following

number of RM tests at the

following key parameter operating levels:

(1) Nine at a low level.

(2) Nine at a mid level.

(3) Nine at a high level.

You

may choose to perform more than 9

RM runs at each operating level.

If

you

perform more than 9 runs, you may reject a

maximum

of three runs per level as long as

the total

number of runs used to determine

the RA at each operating level is 9 or greater.

8.2.4 Reference Method Measurement

Location. Select an accessible measurement

point for the RM that will ensure you

measure emissions representatively. Ensure

the location is at least two equivalent stack

diameters downstream and half an equivalent

diameter upstream from the nearest flow

disturbance

such as the control device, point

of pollutant generation, or other place where

the pollutant concentration

or emission rate

can change. You may

use a half diameter

downstream instead

of the two diameters

if

you meet both of the following conditions:

{1J Changes in the pollutant concentration

are caused solely by diluent leakage, such as

leaks from air heaters.

(2) You measure pollutants and diluents

Simultaneously at

the same locations.

If ...

8.2.5 Traverse Points. Select traverse

points that

ensure representative samples.

Conduct all

RM tests within 3 em of each

selected traverse

point but no closer than 3

em to the stack or duct walL The minimum

requirement for traverse points are as

follows:

(1) Establish a measurement line across the

stack that passes through the center and

in

the direction of any expected stratification.

(2) Locate a minimum of three traverse

points on the line at 16.7,50.0, and 83.3

percent

of the stack inside diameter.

(3) Alternatively, if the stack inside

diameter is greater than 2.4 meters, you may

locate

the three traverse points on the Hne at

0.4,1.2,

and 2.0 meters from the stack or duct

wall. You may not use this alternative option

after wet scrubbers

or at points where two

streams with different pollutant

concentrations are combined. You

may select

different traverse points

if you demonstrate

and prOvide verification that it provides a

representative sample.

You may also use tho

traverse point speCifications given the RM.

8.2.6 Relative Accuracy Procedure.

Perform the number of RA tests at the levels

required

in Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3. For

integrated samples

(e.g .•

Method 3A or 7E),

make a sample traverse of at least 21 minutes,

sampling for 7 minutos at each traverse point.

For grab samples

(e.g.,

Method 3 or 7), take

Then ...

The AM has an instrumental or integrated non- Directly compare AM and PEMS results.

instrumental

sampling technique.

The AM has a grab

sampling technique ..... ...... Average the results from all grab samples

taken during the lest run. The test run must

include ::::3 separate grab measurements.

Use the paired PEMS and RM data and the

equations

in

Section 12.2 to calculate the RA

in the units oftha applicable emission

standard. For this 3-level

RA test, calculate

the

RA at each operation level.

8.3 Statistical Tests for

PEMS that are

Used for Continual Compliance.

In

addition

to the

RA determination. evaluate the paired

RA and PEMS data using the following

statistical tests.

8.3.1 Bias Test. From the

RA data taken

at the mid-level, determine if a bias exists

between the

RM Wld PEMS. Use the

equations

in Section ]2.3.1.

8.3.2 F-test.

Perfonn a separate F-test for

the

RA paired data from each operating level

to determine

if the RM and PEMS variances

differ by more than might be expected from

chance. Use

the equations in Section 12.3.2.

8.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Perform a

correlation analysis using

the RA paired data

from all operating levels combined to

determine

how well the RM and PEMS

correlate. Use the equations in Section 12.3.3.

The correlation is waived

if

the process

cannot be varied to produce a concentration

change sufficient for a successful correlation

Test

test because of its technical deSign. In such

cases, should a subsequent RATA identify a

variation in

the RM measured values by more

than

30 percent, the waiver will not apply,

and a correlation analysis test must be

perfonDed at the next RATA.

8.4 Reporting. Summarize in tabular form

the results

of the RA and statistical tests.

Include all data sheets, calculations,

and

charts (records of PEMS responses) necessary

to verify that your

PEMS meets the

performance speCifications. Inc1ude in the

report the documentation used to establish

your

PEMS parameter envelopes.

a.5 Reevaluating Your PEMS After a

Failed Test, Change

in Operations, or Change

in Critical

PEMS Parameter. After initial

certification,

if

your PEMS fails to pass a

quarterly RAA or yearly RATA,

or

if

changes

occur or are

made that could result in a

significant change

in

the emission rate

(e.g.,

turbine aging, process modification, new

process operating modes, or changes to

emission controls), your

PEMS must be

recertified using the

tests and procodures in

Section 8.1. For example,

if you initially

developed your

PEMS for the emissions unit

ONGOING QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTS

PEMS regulatory purpose

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

one sample at each traverse point, scheduling

the grab samples so that they are taken

simultaneously (within

a 3-minute period) or

at an equal interval of time apart over a 21-

minute period. A test run for grab samples

must be made up of at least three separate

measurements. Where multiple fuels arc

used

in the monitored unit and the fuel type

affects

the predicted emissions, determine a

RA for each fuel unless the effects of the

alternative fuel

on predicted emissions or

diluent were addressed in the model training

process.

The unit may only use fuels that

have been evaluated this way.

8.2.7 Correlation

ofRM and PEMS Data.

Mark the beginning

and end of each RM test

run (including the exact time of day) on the

permanent record of

PEMS output. Correlate

the

PEMS and the RM test data by the time

and duration using

the following steps:

A. Detennine the integrated pollutant

concentration for

the PEMS for each

corresponding

RM test period.

B. Consider system response time,

if

important, and confirm that the pair of

results is

on a consistent moisture,

temperature, and

diluent concentration basis.

c. Compare each average PEMS value to

the corresponding .average

RM value. Use the

following guidelines to make these

comparisons.

And then ...

Compare this average AM result with the

PEMS result obtained during the run.

operating at 80-100 percent of its range, you

would have perfonned the initial test under

these conditions. Later,

if

you wanted to

operate the emission unit at 50-100 percent

of its range, you must conduct another RA

test and statistical tests, as applicable, to

verify that the

new conditions of 50-100

percent of range are functionaL These tests

must demonstrate that your PEMS prOVides

acceptable data when operating in the new

range or with the new critical PEMS

parameter(s). The requirements of Section 8.1

must be completed by the earlier of 60 unit

operating days or 180 calendar days after the

failed RATA or after

the change that caused

a significant change

in

emission rate.

9.0

Quality

Control

You must incorporate a QA plan beyond

the initial PEMS certification test to verify

that your system

is generating quality-

assured data.

The QA plan must include the

components of this section.

9.1 QAlQC

Summary. Conduct the

applicable ongoing tests listed below.

Acceptability

Frequency

Daily

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12588

Federal RegisterlVol. 74, No.

56/Wednesday,

March 25,

2009/Rules

and Regulations

ONGOING QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTS-Continued

Test

PEMS regulatory purpose

Acceptability

Frequency

RAA .......................................................... Compliance .............................................. 3-1e51 average :s;10% of simultaneous Each quarter

except

quarter

when

RATA per.

formed

PEMS

average.

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

quarter

when RAA

not per-

formed

Bias Correction ......................................... All ............................................................. If

days

~

lccl ............................................. . Bias test

passed (no

correction

factor

needed)

PEMS Training .........................................

All............................................................. If

Fo::ritical

~F

r

~O.6

.................................. ..

Optional after

initial and

subsequent

RATAs

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

After each

PEMS

training

9.2 Daily Sensor Evaluation Check. Your

sensor evaluation system must check the

integrity

of each PEMS input at least daily.

9.3 Quarterly Relative Accuracy Audits.

In the first year of operation after the initial

certification, perform a

RAA consisting of at

least three 30-minuto portable analyzer or

RM determinations each quarter a RAT A is

not performed. The average

of the 3 portable

analyzer or

RM determinations must not

differ from the simultaneous

PEMS average

value by more than

]0 percent of the analyzer

or

RM value or the test is failed.

If

a PEMS

passes all quarterly RAAs in the first year

and also passes the subsequent yearly RATA

in

the second year, you may elect to perform

a single mid-year

RAA in the second year

in

place of the quarterly RAAs. This option may

be repeated, but only until the

PEMS fails

either a

mid.year RAA or a yearly RATA.

When such a failure occurs, you must resume

quarterly

RAAs in the quarter follOwing the

failure and continue conducting quarterly

MAs

until the PEMS successfully passes

both a year of quarterly RAAs and a

subsequent

RATA.

9.4 Yearly Relative Accuracy Test Audit.

Perform a minimum 9-run

RATA at the

normal operating level

on a yearly basis

in

the quarter that the RAA is not performed.

10.0 Calibraaon and Standardization

[Reserved]

11.0 Analytical Procedure [Reserved]

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

12.1 Nomenclature

B

=

PEMS bias adjustment factor.

cc

=

Confidence coefficient.

d

l

=

Difference between each RM and PEMS

run.

d

=

Arithmetic mean of differences for all

runs.

ei

=

Individual measurement provided by the

PEMS or RM at a particular level.

em

=

Mean of the PEMS or RM measurements

at a particular level.

e

p

=

Individual measurement provided by the

PEMS.

e

v

=

Individual measurement provided by the

RM.

F

=

Calculated F-value.

n

=

Number ofRM runs.

PEMSi

=

Individual measurement provided

by the PEMS.

PEMSiAdjusted

=

Individual measurement

provided

by the PEMS adjusted for bias.

PEMS

=

Mean of the values provided by the

PEMS at the normal operating range during

the bias test.

r

=

Coefficient of correlation.

RA

=

Relative accuracy.

RAA

=

Relative accuracy audit.

RM

=

Average RM value (or in the case of the

RAA. the average portable analyzer value).

In cases where the average emissions for

the test

arc less than 50 percent of the

applicable standard, substitute the

emission standard value here

in place of

the average RM value.

Sd

=

Standard deviation of differences.

S2

=

Variance of your PEMS or RM.

10.025

=

t-value for a one-sided, 97.5 percent

confidence interval (see Table 16-1).

12.2 Relative Accuracy Calculations.

Calculate the mean of the

RM values.

Calculate the differences between the pairs

of

observations for the

RM:

and the PEMS

output sets. Finally, calculate the mean of the

differences. standard deviation, confidence

coefficient,

and PEMS RA, using Equations

]6-],16-2. ]6-3, and ]6-4, respectively. For

compliance

PEMS, calculate the RA at each

test level. The

PEMS must pass the RA

criterion at each test level.

12.2.] Arithmetic Mean.

Calculate the

arithmetic mean of the differences between

paired

RM and PEMS observations using

Equation 16-1.

d

=

IA

Eq. 16-1

n

1=1

12.2.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the

standard deviation

of the differences using

Equation

]6-2 (positive square root).

Eq. 16-2

12.2.3 Confidence Coefficient. Calculate

the confidence coefficient using Equation

]6-

3 and Tablo 16-].

S,

ee

=

t

o

.

025

J;,

Eq.16-3

12.2.4 Relative Accuracy. Calculate the

RA of your data using Equation ]6-4.

RA=

Iill + Iccl

xIOO

RM

Eq. 16-4

12.3 Compliance PEMS Statistical Tests.

If

your PEMS will be used for continual

compliance purposes. conduct the following

tests using the information obtained during

the

RA tests. For the pollutant measurements

at

anyone test level, if the mean value of the

RM is less than either 10 ppm or 5 percent

of the emission standard, all statistical tests

are waived at that specific test level. For

diluent measurements at

anyone test level,

if the mean value of the RM is less than 3

percent

of span, all statistical tests are

waived for that specific test level.

]2.3.] Bias Test. Conduct a bias test to

determine

if your PEMS is biased relative to

the

RM. Determine the PEMS bias by

comparing the confidence coefficient

obtained from Equation

]6-3 to the

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

Federal Register

IVaI.

74, No. 56/Wednesday, March 25, 2009/Rules and Regulations

12589

arithmetic mean of the differences

detennined

in

Equation 16-1.lfthe

arithmetic mean of the differences

(a)

is

greater

than the absolute value of the

confidence coefficient (cc), your PEMS must

incorporate a bias factor to adjust future

PEMS values as

in

Equation 16-5.

PEMSiAdj~,,,,

=

PEMS,

X

B

Where:

Eq. 16-5

B=l+

Illl

PEMS

Eq. 16-6.

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

oftha three

RA

data sets collected at different

test levels. Calculate the variances of the

PEMS and the RM using Equation 16-6.

r

12.4 Relative Accuracy Audit. Calculate

the quarterly RAA using Equation 16-4.

13.0 Method Performance

13.1 PEMS Relative Accuracy. The RA

must not exceed 10 percent

if

the PEMS

measurements are greater than 100 ppm or

0.2 Ibs/mrn Btu. The RA must not exceed 20

percent if the PEMS measurements 8I'e

between 100 ppm (or 0.2 Ib/nun Btu) and 10

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

below

10 ppm, the absolute mean difference

between

the PEMS measurements and the

RM measurements must not exceed 2 pppm.

For

diluent PEMS, an alternative criterion of

±

1 percent absolute difference between the

PEMS and RM may be used

if

less stringent.

L(e,

"

-e.)

,

S'

.!'"=',----

n-I

Eg. 16-6

Determine if the variance of the PEMS data

is significantly different from

that of the RM

data at each level by calculating the F.value

using Equation 16-7.

F

S'

PEMS

S'RM

Eq.16-7

Compare the calculated F-value with the

critical value

of F at the 95 percent

confidence level with

n-1 degrees of

freedom.

The critical value is obtained from

Table

16-2 or a simil8l' table for F.

distribution.

If

the calculated F-value is

greater than the critical value at any level,

your proposed PEMS 1s unacceptable. For

Lepev-(LepHLev)/ n

pollutant PEMS measurements, if the

standard deviation of the RM is less than

either 3 percent of the span or 5 ppm, usc

aRM standBJ'd deviation of either 5 ppm or

3 percent of span. For diluent

PEMS

measurements, if the standard deviation of

the reference method is less than 3 percent

of span, use a RM stand8l'd deviation of 3

percent of span.

12.3.3 Correlation Analysis. Calculate

the

correlation coefficient either manually using

Eq.

16-8, on a graph, or by computer using

all of the paired data points from all

operating levels. Your

PEMS correlation must

be

O.B

or greater to be acceptable.

If

during

the initial certification test, your

PEMS data

are determined to be

auto.correlated

according to the procedures in 40 CFR

75.41(b)(2), or

if

the signal.to.noise ratio of

the data is less than 4, then the correlation

analysis is permanently waived.

Eg. 16-8

RAA= PEMS-RM

X

100

RM

Eq. 16-9

13.2 PEMS Bias. Your PEMS data is

considered biased and must be adjusted if the

arithmetic mean

(d) is greater than the

absolute value of the confidence coefficient

(cc)

in

Equations 16.1 and 16.3. In such

cases, a bias factor

must be used to correct

your

PEMS data.

13.3

PEMS Variance. Your calculated F.

value must not be greater than the critical F.

value at the 95-percent confidence level for .

your

PEMS to be acceptable.

13.4

PEMS Correlation. Your calculated r-

value must be greater than or equal to 0.8 for

your PEMS to be acceptable.

13.5 Relative Accuracy Audits. The

average of the 3 portable analyzer or RM

determinations must not differ from the

simultaneous

PEMS average value by more

than

10 percent of the analyzer or RM value.

14.0 Pollution Prevention {Reserved]

15.070 Waste Management {Reserved/

16.0 References (Reserved]

17.0 Tables, Diagmms, Flowcharts, and

Validation Data

TABLE 16-1-T-VALUES FOR ONE-SIDED, 97.5 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR SELECTED SAMPLE SIZES'

0-1

10.""

0-1

10.""

2 ................................................................................................................................................. .

12.706

16

2.131

3 ................................................................................................................................................... .

4.303

17

2.120

4 ...•...................•...................................................................•.•.................••.........•...........•...........

3.182

18

2.110

5 ................................................................................................................................................. .

2.776

19

2.101

6 .................................................................................................................................................. .

2.571

20

2.093

7 .................................................................................................................................................. .

2.447

21

2.096

8 .................................................................................................................................................. .

2.365

22

2.080

9 ................................................................................................................................................. .

2.306

23

2.074

10 ................................................................................................................................................ .

2.262

24

2.069

11 .............................................................................................................................................. .

2.228

25

2.064

12 ................................................................................................................................................ .

2.201

26

2.080

13 ............................................................................................................................................... .

2.179

27

2.056

14 ............................................................................................................................................... .

2.160

28

2.052

15 ................................................................................................................................... .

2.145

>

29

t-Table

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

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

12590

Federal Register

I

Vol. 74, No. 56/Wednesday, March 25,

2009/Rules

and Regulations

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

d.f. for

S'nM

1

2

3

1 ...............

161

199

215

.4

.5

2 ...............

18

19

51

00

3 ...............

10

9.5

13

52

4 ...............

7.7

6.9

09

44

5 ...............

6.6

5.7

08

86

6 ...............

5.9

5.1

87

43

7 ...............

5.5

4.7

91

34

8 ...............

5.3

4.4

18

59

9 ...............

5.1

4.2

17

57

10 .............

4.9

4.1

65

03

11 .............

4.8

3.9

44

82

12 .............

4.7

3.8

47

85

.5.

In

Procedure 1 of Appendix F,

paragraph (3) of Section 5.1.2 and

Section 8 is revised as follows:

.7

19

16

9.2

77

6.5

91

5.4

10

4.7

57

4.3

47

4.0

66

3.8

63

3.7

09

3.5

87

3.4

90

Appendix F to Part 60-Quality Assurance

Procedures

Procedure 1. Quality Assurance

Requirements for Cns Continuous Emission

Monitoring Systems Used for Compliance

Determination

•

•

•

•

•

...

5.1,2

(3)

U.se

Cylinder

Certified

Gas

Reference

Audit

(eGA).

Materials

(eRM's)

(See

Citation 1) audit

gases

that

have

been certified by comparison to National

Institute

of Standards and Technology (NIST)

or EPA Traceability Protocol Materials

(ETPM's)

following the most recent edition of

EPA's Traceability Protocol No.1 (See

Citation Z). Procedures for preparation of

CRM's are described in Citation

1.

Procedures for preparation of ETPM's are

described

in Citation 2. As an altemati ve to

CRM's or ETPM gases, Method 205 (See

Citation 3) may be used. The difference

between the actual concentration of the audit

gas and the concentration indicated

by the

monitor

is used to assess the accuracy of the

CEMS.

•

•

•

•

•

8. Bibliography

1. "A Procedure for Establishing

Traceability

of Gas Mixtures to Certain

d.f. for SlpF.MS

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

224

230

234

236

238

240

241

243

243

.6

.2

.0

.8

19

19

19

19

25

30

33

35

9.1

9.0

8.9

8.8

17

14

41

87

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

88

56

63

94

5.1

5.0

4.9

4.8

92

50

50

76

4.5

4.3

4.2

4.2

34

87

84

07

4.1

3.9

3.8

3.7

20

71

66

87

3.8

3.6

3.5

3.5

38

88

81

01

3.6

3.4

3.3

3.2

33

82

74

93

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

78

26

17

36

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.0

57

04

95

12

3.2

3.1

2.9

2.9

59

06

96

13

National Bureau of Standards Standard

Reference Materials." Joint publication by

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

Available from

the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Quality Assurance

Division (MD-77). Research Triangle Park,

NC 27711.

2. "EPA Traceability Protocol For Assay

And Certification Of Gaseous Calibration

Standards."

EPA-600!R-97/121,

September

1997. Available from

EPA's Emission

Measurement Center at

http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/eme.

3. Method 205, "Verification

of Gas

Dilution Systems for Field Instrument

Calibrations,"

40 ern 51, Appendix M.

•

•

•

•

•

.6.

In

Procedure 2 of Appendix F,

Section 10.1, paragraph (3) of Section

10.4,

and paragraph (2) of Section 12.0

are revised as follows:

Procedure 2-Quality Assurance

Requirements

for Particulate Matter

Continuous Emission Monitoring

Systems at Stationary Sources

•

•

•

•

•

10.1 When should I use paired trains

for .reference method testing? Although

not required,

we recommend that you

should use paired-train reference

method testing to generate data used to

develop your PM GEMS correlation and

for RCA testing. Guidance on the use of

.9

.5

.8

.0

.9

19

19

19

19

19

37

38

50

40

41

8.8

8.8

8.7

8.7

8.7

45

12

86

63

45

6.0

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.9

41

99

64

35

12

4.8

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.6

18

73

35

03

78

4.1

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

47

99

60

27

00

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.5

26

77

37

03

75

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

38

88

47

12

84

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.0

30

97

37

02

73

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.9

2.9

72

20

78

42

13

2.9

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.7

48

96

54

17

88

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.6

49

96

53

17

87

paired sampling trains can be found in

the PM GEMS Knowledge Document

(see section 16.5 of

PS-11).

•

•

•

•

•

10.4 What are my limits for

excessive audit inaccuracy?

•

•

•

•

(3) What are the criteria for excessive

AGA error? Your PM GEMS is out of

control

if

the results of any ACA exceed

±

10 percent ofthe average audit value,

as calculated using Equation 2-1a, or

7.5 percent of the applicable standard,

as calculated using Equation 2-1b,

whichever is greater.

•

•

•

•

12.0 What calculations and data

analysis must I perfonn

for my PM

GEMS?

•

•

•

•

•

(2) How do I calculate AGA accuracy?

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

Ib to calculate ACA accuracy for each

of the three audit points. However,

when calculating ACA accuracy for the

first audit point (0 to 20 percent of

measurement range), you must use

Equation 2-1 b to calculate AGA

accuracy if the reference standard value

(Rv) equals zero.

ACA Accuracy

=

IR

CEM

-R

V

I

xl 00%

Rv

Eq.2-1a

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

Federal Register

1

Vol. 74, No. 56/Wednesday, March 25,

20091

Rules and Regulations

12591

Where:

Where:

ACA Accuracy; The ACA accuracy at

each audit point. in percent,

CCEM =

The PM concentration that

corresponds

to your PM CEMS

response to the reference standard,

as calculated using

the correlation

equation for

your PM CEMS,

CRY =

The PM concentration that

corresponds

to the reference

standard value in units consistent

with CCEM, and

C~

=

The PM concentration that

corresponds to the applicable

emission limit in units consistent

withC

CEM

.

•

•

•

•

•

Part 63-[Amendedl

• 7. The authority citation for Part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.c. 7401

et seq.

.8. In Method 303 of Appendix A, add

a sentence to the end of Section 1.1 to

read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63-Test Methods

Method 303-Detennination of Visible

Emissions From By-Product Coke Oven

Batteries

1.1 Applicability.

* * * In

order for the

test method results to be indicative of plant

performance.

the time of day of the run

should vary,

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

Bil-UNG CODe

~

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R09-0AR-20ll~759;

FRL-8783-7]

Delegation of National Emission

Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Source Categories; State of

California; Amador County Air

Pollution Control District, San Diego

County

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

AcnON:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARV:

EPA is amending certain

regulations to reflect the current

delegation status

of national emission

ACA Accuracy

=

The ACA accuracy at

each audit point,

in

percent.

ACA Accuracy

=

I

c

CEM

-c

RV

I

X I 00%

C

s

.

Eq.2-1b

standards for hazardous air pollutants in

California. Amador County Air

Pollution Control District and San Diego

County Air Pollution Control District

requested delegation of these federal

standards as they apply to non-major

sources.

Their delegation requests were

approved by letter on September 4,

2008. The purpose of this action is to

update the listing in the Code of Federal

Regulations,

EPA Region IX is also

waiving

the need for duplicate reporting

after a California district is delegated

these federal standards applicable to

non-major sources.

DATES:

This rule is effective on May

26.

2009 without fwther notice. unless EPA

receives relevant adverse comments by

April 24, 2009.

If

EPA receives such

comments, then it will publish a timely

withdrawal

in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments,

identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2008--D759, by one of the

following methods:

1.

Federol eRulemaking Portal:

www.reguJations.gov,

Follow the on-line

instructions.

2. E-mail: steckeJ.andreW@epa.gov,

3. Mail or deliver:

Andrew Steckel

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

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Instructions:

All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

online at

www.regu/ations.gov,

including any personal information

provided. unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

you consider

eBI

or othenNise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through

www.regulations.govor

e-mail.

www,regulations.govis

an "anonymous

access" system, and EPA will not know

your identity or contact information

unless you provide

it in

the body of

your comment. If you send e-mail

directly to EPA, your e-mail address

will be automatically captured and

included as part of the public comment.

If

EPA cannot read your comment due

to technical difficulties and cannot

contact you for clarification, EPA may

R

CEM

; Your PM CEMS response to the

reference standard. and

Rv

=

The reference standard value.

not

be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files

should avoid the use of

special characters, any form of

encryption. and be free of any defects or

viruses.

Docket:

The index to the docket for

this action is available electronically at

www,regu]ations.govand

in hard copy

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California. While all

documents in the docket are listed in

the index. some information may be

publicly available only

at the hard copy

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

some may not be publicly available in

either location (e.g.,

CBI). To inspect the

hard copy materials. please schedule an

appointment during normal business

hours with the contact listed in the

FOR

FURTHER (NFORMA nON CONTACT

section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Mae

Wang, EPA Region

IX, (415) 947-4124,

wang.mae@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document "we," "us,"

and "our" refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I.

Background

A. Delegation of NESHAP

B.

California Delegations

C. Area Source Delegation Requests

II. EPA Action

A. Area Source Delegation Requests

B. Waiver of Duplicate Reporting

III.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I.

Background

A. Delegation of NESHAP

Section 112(1) of the Clean Air Act, a.

amended in 1990 (CAA). authorizes

EPA to delegate to State or local air

pollution control agencies

tJ18

authority

to implement and enforce the standards

set out in Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), Part 63. National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Source Categories

(NESHAP). On November 26,1993, EPA

promulgated regulations, codified at 40

CFR part 63, subpart E (hereinafter

referred to as "Subpart E"), establishing

procedures for EPA's approval of State

rules or programs

under CM 112(1)

(see

58 FR 62262). The procedures of

Subpart E were later amended on

September 14, 2000

(see

65 FR 55810).

Any request for approval under

eAA

section 112(1) must meet the approval

criteria in 112(1)(5) and Subpart E. To

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

COUNTY OF SANGAMON

)

)

)

)

SS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached

FIRST-NOTICE COMMENTS OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, upon the following person:

John Therriault

Assistant

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph

St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

and electronically to the following persons:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Dated: July 6, 2009

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Gina

~~

Roccaforte

Assistant Counsel

Division

of Legal Counsel

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *

---

SERVICE LIST 08-19

Timothy J. Fox

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 6060 I

foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

Virginia Yang

Deputy Legal Counsel

Illinois Department

of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Katherine D. Hodge

Monica T. Rios

Hodge Dwyer

&

Driver

3150 Roland Ave.

P.O. Box 5776

Springfield,

IL 62705-5776

khodge@hddattorneys.com

mrios@hddattorneys.com

Christina

L.

Archer

Associate General Counsel

ArcelorMittal

USA, Inc.

I

South Dearborn Street, 19

th

Floor

Chicago,

IL 60603

christina.archer@arcelormittal.com

Gerald T. Karr

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

Office

of the Attorney General

69 W. Washington

St., Suite 1800

Chicago,

IL 60602

gkarr@atg.state.il.us

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Stephen

J. Bonebrake

Schiff Hardin LLP

6600 Sears Tower

233

S. Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-6473

kbassi@schiffhardin.com

sbonebrake@schiffhardin.com

Alec M. Davis

General Counsel

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group

215 E. Adams

St.

Springfield, IL 62701

adavis@ierg.org

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 6, 2009

* * * * * * PC # 17 * * * * * *