as reliable indicators of the performance of many types of emission
control devices, and (2) most part 60, 61, and 63 emission standards
require continuous monitoring of one or more of these parameters.
Temperature often is monitored as an indicator of the performance of
incineration devices, such as thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers,
boilers, and process heaters used for the control of organic emissions.
In addition, several part 60, 61, and 63 standards require the
monitoring of condenser outlet temperature or carbon adsorber bed
regeneration temperature. Monitoring of the temperature of scrubber
liquid also is required by some part 60, 61, and 63 standards. Several
existing standards require monitoring of pressure drop across control
devices, such as wet scrubbers, mist eliminators, and baghouses.
Several rules also require CPMS for monitoring scrubber liquid supply
pressure. A number of part 60, 61, and 63 standards require monitoring
of gas or liquid flow rates. Gas flow rate generally is an indicator of
residence time in control devices. The gas and liquid flow rates
through a wet scrubber are used to determine the liquid-to-gas ratio,
and several promulgated rules require wet scrubber liquid flow rate
monitoring. Many standards require mass flow CPMS for monitoring
process feed or production rates. In addition, some existing standards
require monitoring of carbon adsorber regeneration steam flow rate.
Scrubber liquid pH is an important indicator of the performance of acid
gas control. Finally, monitoring wet scrubber liquid conductivity
provides a good indication of the solids content of the scrubber liquid
and the need for blowdown. We recognize that other parameters also are

used to indicate control device performance or to monitor process
operations, but we believed it less critical to address those other
parameters at this time. However, we intend to address additional
parameters in PS-17 as the need arises and resources permit.

D. Why did we include requirements for flow CPMS in PS-17 if PS-6
already specifies requirements for flow sensors?

    The requirements of PS-6 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) apply
specifically to continuous emission rate monitoring systems (CERMS),
which generally include one or more sensors to measure exhaust gas flow
rate in addition to the sensor for measuring the concentration of the
target pollutant. The proposed PS-17 would have much broader
application, such as natural gas flow, steam flow through a carbon bed
adsorber, and exhaust gas flow through an emission control device. The
proposed PS-17 also would apply to liquid flow and mass flow rate
monitoring. In addition to applicability, there are other significant
differences in the requirements for flow rate sensors under PS-6 and
flow CPMS under the proposed PS-17. The PS-6 specifies CD and RA test
requirements for the flow sensor component of CERMS and generally
references PS-2 for other requirements. Specifying CD requirements for
CERMS in PS-6 is appropriate because PS-6 is meant to apply to
monitoring systems that are used for calculating emission rates for
determining compliance with emission limits or caps. The proposed PS-17
would have no provisions for checking CD because it is intended
primarily for monitoring indicators of control device performance and
process parameters rather than emission rates. Consequently, we believe
that less rigorous performance assessments are appropriate for CPMS
that would be subject to PS-17. Finally, unlike PS-6, PS-17 was
developed specifically for CPMS. As a result, we were able to
incorporate into the proposed PS-17 more specific design, installation,
and evaluation criteria than are provided in PS-6.

E. How did we select the equipment requirements?

    In selecting the equipment requirements for PS-17, our intent was
to specify criteria that would allow flexibility in the equipment that
owners and operators of affected CPMS choose, without compromising the
quality of data produced by that equipment. The proposed PS-17 would
specify two types of equipment: (1) The components that comprise a
CPMS, and (2) the equipment needed to validate that CPMS.
1. CPMS Equipment Requirements
    For CPMS components, we selected equipment criteria for overall
system accuracy and compatibility. The equipment requirements also
would address the measurement range and resolution of the data
recording system. The criterion for accuracy would simply be that the
equipment must have a demonstrable capability of satisfying the
accuracy requirement for the initial validation. We considered, but
decided against, specifying sensor design criteria. By not specifying
design criteria, we incorporated a considerable amount of flexibility
into proposed PS-17 by allowing affected owners and operators to select
any equipment, provided they can demonstrate that the CPMS meets the
accuracy requirements for the initial validation. However, we do
identify voluntary consensus standards that can be used as guidelines
for selecting specific types of sensors.
    The proposed PS-17 would require a resolution of one-half the
accuracy requirement or better to ensure that the accuracy of the CPMS
can be calculated to at least the minimum number of significant figures
for the data accuracy assessment to be meaningful. For example, if the
data recorder of a pressure CPMS had a resolution of 0.24 kPa (1.0 in.
wc), it would not be possible to determine that the CPMS is satisfying
the required accuracy of 0.12 kPa (0.5 in. wc). Selecting a resolution
of one-half the required accuracy ensures that measurements made during
validation checks can be readily compared to the accuracy requirement.
Furthermore, based on our review of equipment vendor catalogues, most
CPMS on the market easily satisfy this minimum resolution. The
requirements for measurement range were selected to ensure that the
CPMS can detect and record measurements beyond the normal operating
range. We believe that requiring a range of at least 20
percent beyond the normal operating range is reasonable and the minimum
measurement range needed to encompass most excursions. Owners and
operators may want to select equipment with even wider ranges if it is
likely that measurements beyond 20 percent of the normal
operating range will occur. We made an exception to the measurement
range requirement for pH CPMS by requiring the range of pH CPMS data
recorders to cover the entire pH scale of 0 to 14 pH units. Our review
of vendor literature indicates that, with few exceptions, pH CPMS are
designed to record over the entire pH scale.
    Finally, the proposed PS-17 would require the electronic components
of any CPMS to be internally compatible. We believe that internal
compatibility is essential for ensuring the accuracy and durability of
a CPMS.
2. CPMS Validation Equipment Requirements
    Two types of equipment would be needed to perform the initial
validation check of a CPMS: (1) A device that is used to directly check
the accuracy of the CPMS, and (2) work platforms, test ports, fittings,
valves, and other equipment that are needed to conduct the initial
validation. For the devices used to check CPMS accuracy, we would
require NIST-traceable accuracy and an accuracy hierarchy of at least
three. We would require that the accuracy of the device be NIST-
traceable as a way of ensuring the accuracy of the test device. We
incorporated into PS-17 two exceptions to the NIST-traceability
requirement. First, a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-tube
manometer could be used instead of a calibrated pressure measurement
device with NIST-traceable accuracy when validating a pressure CPMS or
a flow CPMS that uses a differential pressure flow meter. The reason
for making this exception is that the accuracy of such manometers can
be confirmed onsite by a simple measurement of the manometer scale. We
also included an exception to the NIST-traceable accuracy and accuracy
hierarchy for containers used to validate flow CPMS by either the
volumetric or gravimetric methods. In such cases, the volume of the
container could be determined onsite with sufficient accuracy to
provide a reliable assessment of flow CPMS accuracy.
    In selecting the accuracy hierarchy for validation devices, we
reviewed the requirements for existing standards and manufacturers'
recommendations. Several voluntary consensus standards, such as ISA-
S37.3-1982 (R1995) and ISA-S37.6-1982 (R1995), which apply to pressure
transducers, require that the testing or calibration device have an
accuracy at least five times that of the device that is to be tested
(i.e., an accuracy hierarchy of five). Other standards developed by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and Military
Specifications (MIL-SPEC) require an accuracy of four times that of the
equipment being tested, which establishes an accuracy hierarchy of
four. At least one equipment owner's manual specifies that testing
devices have an accuracy of at least three times that of the

equipment being tested. We believe that requiring an accuracy hierarchy
of three is adequate for the purposes of PS-17. Furthermore, a review
of manufacturers' literature indicates that calibration devices with
accuracies that would satisfy the accuracy hierarchy of the proposed
PS-17 are readily available at reasonable cost.
    We decided to require owners and operators of affected CPMS to
install work platforms, test ports, and other equipment needed for the
initial validation check to ensure that the validation check and
ongoing accuracy audits can be conducted properly. It is not necessary
that a permanent work platform be installed.

F. How did we select the installation and location requirements?

    In the proposed PS-17, we would require owners and operators of
affected CPMS to locate CPMS sensors where they will provide
measurements representative of the parameter that is being monitored.
The objective of this requirement is to help ensure that affected CPMS
produce quality data. The location and installation requirements
specified in the proposed PS-17 are generally consistent with the
requirements of rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63.

G. How did we select the initial QA measures?

    The initial QA measures specified in the proposed PS-17 include an
electronic calibration and an initial validation check. The initial
calibration generally is included as part of the manufacturer's
recommended procedures for the installation and startup of CPMS; we
would require these initial calibrations as a means of further ensuring
that the CPMS is placed into operation correctly. We consider the
initial validation necessary for demonstrating that the CPMS is
providing quality data from the outset.

H. How did we select the methods for performing the initial validation
check?

    In selecting the methods for validating CPMS, we considered
existing voluntary consensus standards, State agency requirements,
manufacturers' and vendors' recommendations, and practices used by
industry. We tried to identify all methods that would provide a
reliable measure of CPMS accuracy to allow owners and operators of
affected CPMS as much flexibility as possible in choosing how to comply
with PS-17. In general, the validation methods specified in the
proposed PS-17 involve comparison of measurements made by the subject
CPMS to measurements made using a calibrated device that measures or
simulates the same parameter that is measured by the subject CPMS. A
primary objective in selecting these methods is to identify procedures
that assess the overall accuracy of the CPMS while assuring the quality
of data that are used to assess compliance. The initial validation
methods that rely on simulating sensor output actually measure how well
the rest of the system responds to a simulated sensor signal and do not
check the accuracy of the sensor itself. However, we believe that these
methods are reliable because the sensors used in new CPMS are factory-
calibrated and, therefore, should be accurate.
    Two general consensus standards were located, but they were
rejected for use with the proposed PS-17 because they are general
references for safe practices while working with electronics. The two
standards are: (1) ANSI/ISA S82.02.01-1999, ``Electric and Electronic
Test, Measuring, Controlling, and Related Equipment: General
Requirements''; and (2) ANSI/ISA S82.03-1988, ``Safety Standard for
Electrical and Electronic Test, Measuring, Controlling, and Related
Equipment (Electrical and Electronic Process Measurement and Control
Equipment).''
1. Temperature CPMS Validation Methods
    For validating temperature CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify
two methods: (1) Comparison to a calibrated temperature measurement
device, and (2) temperature simulation using a calibrated simulation
device. The first method is based on ASTM E 220-07e1, ``Standard Test
Methods for Calibration of Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques''
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17). Although the ASTM E220-
07e1 was developed for thermocouples, it should be applicable to other
types of temperature measurement devices. Handheld and otherwise
portable temperature measurement devices with NIST-traceable accuracy
are available from many equipment manufacturers and suppliers.
    The second validation method for temperature CPMS would involve the
use of calibrated temperature simulators. Although this simulation
method is not based on an existing standard method, calibrated
simulators with NIST-traceable accuracy are readily available and often
are used to check the accuracy of thermocouples and RTD's. Therefore,
we believe this method is appropriate for the initial validation of
thermocouple-based or RTD-based temperature CPMS, as well as for any
other type of CPMS for which the sensor response can be simulated.
    Two other consensus standards relating to temperature measurement
were located, but they were both rejected for use with the proposed PS-
17. The first standard, ASTM E839-05, ``Standard Test Methods for
Sheathed Thermocouples and Sheathed Thermocouple Material'' specifies
tests that pertain to material quality and instrument assembly rather
than direct indicators of instrument performance; many of the tests
specified are either destructive or impractical to perform at the
installation site. The second standard, ASTM E1350-07, ``Standard Guide
for Testing Sheathed Thermocouples, Thermocouple assemblies, and
Connecting Wires Prior to, and After Installation or Service''
specifies tests to determine if specific components of thermocouple
assembly were damaged during storage, shipment, or installation, but
the tests specified do not provide a measure of accuracy.
2. Pressure CPMS Validation Methods
    For validating pressure CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify
three methods for performing the initial validation check. The first
method would involve comparison to a calibrated pressure measurement
device. This method is based on the same principle as is the
temperature CPMS comparison method. Handheld and portable pressure
measurement devices with NIST-traceable accuracy are available from
many equipment suppliers. Therefore, we believe this method is
appropriate for validating pressure CPMS. The other two pressure CPMS
validation methods in the proposed PS-17 are similar to the simulation
method for validating temperature CPMS and are based on the same
principle. The difference between the temperature simulation method and
the two pressure simulation methods is that the latter generate
pressures instead of electronic signals. One pressure simulation method
uses a calibrated pressure source with NIST-traceable accuracy. These
devices can simulate a range of pressures to high degrees of accuracy.
The other pressure simulation method allows the use of any pressure
source. The pressure applied by the pressure source is measured
concurrently by the subject CPMS and a separate calibrated pressure
measurement device. We believe these methods also can provide reliable
assessments of pressure CPMS accuracy.
    Two other voluntary consensus standards relating to pressure

measurement were located, but they were both rejected for use with the
proposed PS-17. Both standards (ISA-S37.6-1982 (R1995),
``Specifications and Tests for Potentiometric Pressure Transducers''
and ISA-S37.3-1982 (R1995), ``Specifications and Tests for Strain Gage
Pressure Transducers'') provide general calibration procedures, but
neither specifies criteria for evaluating performance.
3. Flow CPMS Validation Methods
    For validating flow CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify seven
methods. The volumetric and gravimetric methods are based on voluntary
consensus standards and could be used to validate liquid flow CPMS.
Both methods are described in ISA RP 16.6-1961, ``Methods and Equipment
for Calibration of Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),'' and ISA RP
31.1-1977, ``Specification, Installation, and Calibration of Turbine
Flow Meters'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17). The
gravimetric method also is described in ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988,
``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits by Weighing Method,''
and ASHRAE 41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flow Meters'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  60.17). These methods are relatively simple to
perform provided that the process flow that is monitored can be
diverted easily to a suitable container for measurement. The
gravimetric method also could be used to validate liquid mass flow or
solid mass flow CPMS.
    The differential pressure measurement and pressure flow source
simulation methods for validating liquid or gas flow CPMS would apply
to flow CPMS that use differential pressure meters. These methods would
require accurate pressure measurements and are based on the same
principles as are the methods used for validating pressure CPMS. The
primary difference between the pressure CPMS methods and these flow
CPMS methods is that the flow CPMS would require the calculation of
flow rates based on the pressure differentials measured. The flow
calculation methods are described in ASME MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of
Fluid Flow in Pipes Using Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi'' (incorporated
by reference--see Sec.  60.17). The calibrated pressure measurement
devices and calibrated pressure sources with NIST-traceable accuracy
needed for these validation methods are readily available. Therefore,
we believe these methods are appropriate for validating flow CPMS
accuracy.
    The electronic simulation method is identical to the simulation
methods described in this section for temperature and pressure CPMS.
This method would apply only to flow CPMS that use flow sensors that
generate electronic signals, which can be simulated. Examples of flow
CPMS that can be validated using this method are CPMS that use turbine
meters or vortex shedding flow meters.
    To validate flow CPMS that measure gas flow, PS-17 also would
specify the RA test using Reference Method 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, or 2F (40
CFR part 60, appendix A-1), or 2G (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2), as
appropriate. The RA test for flow CPMS is similar to the RA test
procedures specified in other performance specifications. We selected
this method because it may be the method of choice for facilities that
perform their own emissions testing, have the emissions test equipment,
and are familiar with the procedures of the reference methods for
determining stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    Finally, the proposed PS-17 would specify the material weight
comparison method for validating solid mass flow CPMS. This method
would apply only to CPMS that incorporate a belt conveyor, weigh scale,
and totalizer. The method is based on the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems
Method, which is described in NIST Handbook 44--2002 Edition:
Specifications, Tolerances, And Other Technical Requirements for
Weighing and Measuring Devices (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
60.17), as adopted by the 86th National Conference on Weights and
Measures 2001. We selected this method because it is relatively simple
and is the only method we could identify that applies specifically to
belt conveyors systems, which are often used to monitor process raw
material feed rates and/or production rates.
    Five other voluntary consensus standards relating to flow
measurement were located, but they were rejected for use with the
proposed PS-17. The first standard, ASTM D 3195-90 (2004), ``Standard
Practice for Rotameter Calibration,'' specifies calibration procedures
for rotameters used to determine air sample volumes, but applies only
to air at ambient temperature and pressure. The second standard, ANSI/
ASME MFC-8M-2001, ``Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits--Connections for
Pressure Signal Transmissions between Primary and Secondary Devices,''
only applies to installations where very high accuracy is required. The
third standard, ASTM D 3464-96 (2007), ``Standard Test Method for
Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' refers to
another ASTM standard for calibration procedures. The fourth standard,
ASTM D5540-94a (2003), ``Standard Practice for Flow Control and
Temperature Control for On-Line Water Sampling and Analysis,'' details
the sampling of the stream, but provides no information on the
calibration of the flow. The fifth standard, ``Process Monitors in the
Portland Cement Industry'' (published by the EPA) notes that nuclear
weigh belts have 0.5 percent operational accuracy, while gravimetric
and impaction plate weigh belts have 1 percent accuracy; these
accuracies may not hold true for all industries or applications.
4. pH CPMS Validation Methods
    For validating pH CPMS, the proposed PS-17 would specify two
methods. The first method would entail comparison to a calibrated pH
meter and is similar to the comparison methods specified for
temperature and pressure CPMS. The second method would be a single
point calibration method using a standard buffer solution. We selected
these methods because they are relatively simple and are in common use
by many facilities to calibrate pH meters.
5. Conductivity CPMS Validation Methods
    The proposed PS-17 would specify two methods for validation
conductivity CPMS: Comparison to a calibrated conductivity meter and
single point calibration. These methods are essentially the same as
those used for validating pH CPMS, the only differences being the types
of calibrated instrument and standard solutions used. We selected these
methods because both are reliable, yet relatively simple to perform.
    Four other voluntary consensus standards relating to conductivity
measurement were located, but they were rejected for use with the
proposed PS-17. The first and second standards, ASTM E1511-93 (2005),
``Standard Practice for Testing Conductivity Detectors Used in Liquid
and Ion Chromatography,'' and ASTM D3370-95a (2003)e1, ``Standard
Practices for Sampling Water from Closed Conduits,'' detail the mixing
of conductivity standards, so they are good calibration methods, but
far more time-consuming than using readily available pre-mixed
conductivity standards as specified in PS-17. The third standard, ASTM
D6504-07, ``Standard Practice for On-Line Determination of Cation
Conductivity in High Purity Water,'' references other standards for

calibration procedures. The fourth standard, ASTM D3864-06, ``Standard
Guide for Continual On-Line Monitoring Systems for Water Analysis,''
contains statistical methods that are more rigorous than needed.

I. How did we select the performance criteria for the initial
validation check?

    In selecting the performance criteria for the initial validation
checks of CPMS, we considered the accuracies required by existing rules
and the capabilities of off-the-shelf equipment available from the
manufacturers and vendors of CPMS components. Based on our review of
CPMS manufacturer and vendor literature, equipment that satisfies the
accuracy requirements specified in this proposed rule is readily
available.
    Existing rules that require the use of CPMS specify a range of
instrument or system accuracies. For some of the affected source
categories, the proposed PS-17 would specify a higher minimum accuracy
than is specified in the applicable subpart. However, this proposed
rule would not increase the stringency of the underlying emission
standards in such cases. Instead, the proposed PS-17 would improve the
accuracy and reliability of, and reduce the uncertainty in, data used
to demonstrate compliance with those emission standards.
1. Temperature CPMS Accuracy
    Several rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 specify an
accuracy requirement for temperature CPMS. Most of these rules specify
temperature accuracy in units of temperature ([deg]C) and as a
percentage of the measured temperature. For example, 40 CFR part 60,
subpart EE, requires thermal incinerator temperature CPMS to have an
accuracy of 2.5 [deg]C or 0.75 percent. Although there is a wide range
of accuracies specified in these rules, the accuracy required for
temperature CPMS associated with high temperature applications, such as
thermal oxidizers or boilers, generally range from 0.75 to 1.0 percent
or from 0.5 [deg]C to 2.5 [deg]C (0.9 [deg]F to 4.5 [deg]F). For lower
temperature applications, such as wet scrubbers, the specified percent
accuracies often are not as stringent; that is, accuracies are
specified as a higher percentage of the measured temperature. This
distinction between low and high temperature applications is consistent
with ANSI specifications for thermocouples. The minimum standard
accuracies for ANSI Type J and K thermocouples in non-cryogenic
applications are [deg]0.75 percent or 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F), whichever is greater; for cryogenic applications, the
minimum standard accuracies are 2.0 percent or 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F), whichever is greater. The
reason for specifying a higher percentage accuracy for lower
temperature ranges is to offset the fact that the accuracy percentage
applies to a lower value. In selecting the temperature accuracy
requirements for the proposed PS-17, we decided to incorporate a
similar distinction between higher temperatures (non-cryogenic
applications) and lower temperatures (cryogenic applications). Our
selection of temperature accuracies of 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F) or [deg]1
percent for non-cryogenic applications, and 2.8 [deg]C (5 [deg]F) or
2.5 percent for cryogenic applications is consistent with
the required accuracies for most standards, and we believe that the
accuracies specified in proposed PS-17 are adequate for ensuring good
quality data. In addition, our review of vendor literature indicates
that temperature CPMS that satisfy these accuracy requirements are
readily available at reasonable costs.
2. Pressure CPMS Accuracy
    Among the part 60, 61, and 63 rules that require pressure
monitoring and also specify a minimum accuracy, the accuracy specified
generally is either 0.25 to 0.5 kPa (1 to 2 in. wc) or 5 percent for
pressure drop, and 5 to 15 percent for liquid supply pressure. These
accuracies are easily achievable because most pressure transducers are
accurate to 0.25 to 1.0 percent, and all but the lowest grade (Grade D)
of ANSI-rated pressure gauges have accuracies better than 5 percent.
For the proposed PS-17, we selected an accuracy requirement of 0.12 kPa
(0.5 in. wc) or 5 percent, whichever is greater. The 0.12
kPa criterion would apply only in low pressure applications. Some
existing rules require pressure CPMS to have accuracies of 0.24 kPa
(1.0 in. wc) or better. However, those accuracies generally do not
apply to pressure CPMS in low pressure applications, where the 0.12 kPa
accuracy would apply. We believe this level of accuracy specified for
pressure CPMS is appropriate, considering that some control devices
operate with pressure drops of less than 1.2 kPa (5 in. wc). For
applications with pressures in excess of 2.5 kPa (10 in. wc), the 5
percent accuracy criterion would apply. This criterion is consistent
with most rules that specify pressure device accuracies, and CPMS that
are capable of achieving this accuracy are readily available.
3. Flow CPMS Accuracy
    Rules promulgated under parts 60, 61, and 63 that require flow rate
monitoring all specify flow rate accuracy in terms of percent. For
liquid flow rate measurement, these rules generally require accuracies
of 5 percent, and rules that require steam flow rate
monitoring generally require an accuracy of 10 percent or
better. We believe that these accuracies are reasonable, and we have
incorporated them into the proposed PS-17. According to our review of
vendor literature, flow CPMS that can achieve these accuracies are
readily available.
    Unlike rules that address temperature and pressure monitoring, most
existing rules that require continuous flow rate monitoring do not
specify flow rate monitoring device accuracies in units of flow rate.
However, there is an advantage to specifying accuracy in units of
measurement as well as a percent; in low flow rate applications, an
accuracy criterion based solely on percent can result in an
unreasonably stringent accuracy requirement. For that reason, we have
incorporated into the proposed PS-17 accuracy criteria as a percent of
flow rate and in units of flow rate. The exceptions are the accuracy
criteria for liquid mass flow rate and solid mass flow rate, both of
which would be specified only as a percentage (i.e., 5
percent). We concluded that it would not be reasonable to specify
accuracy criteria for mass flow in units of mass flow because of the
wide range of flow rates that could be monitored (e.g., carbon
injection rate vs. rotary kiln raw material feed rate). We based the 5
percent accuracy criterion primarily on vendor literature.
    Recognizing the differences in the relative magnitudes and the
commonly used units of flow rate measurement for liquids and gases, we
have specified in the proposed PS-17 separate accuracy criteria for
liquid and gas flow rates. For liquid flow rate CPMS, which typically
are associated with wet scrubber operation, the minimum accuracy would
be 1.9 L/min (0.5 gal/min) or 5 percent, whichever is
greater. For gas flow rate CPMS, which often are used to monitor stack
gas flow rate or natural gas fuel flow rate, PS-17 would require a
minimum accuracy of 280 L/min (10 ft\3\/min) or 5 percent,
whichever is greater.
    The proposed PS-17 also would specify a relative accuracy criterion
for owners or operators who choose to validate a gas flow rate CPMS
using the RA test, which is specified in section 8.6(6) of PS-17. In
such cases, owners or operators would have to demonstrate that the
affected CPMS achieves a relative accuracy of 20 percent or better. The
relative accuracy criterion of 20 percent was selected because that
value

is consistent with the relative accuracy required by most performance
specifications promulgated under 40 CFR part 60.
4. pH CPMS Accuracy
    Although several subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 require pH
monitoring, the only rule to specify an accuracy requirement for pH
CPMS is 40 CFR part 61, subpart E; the accuracy required by that rule
for pH measurement devices is 10 percent. Our review of
manufacturer and vendor literature indicates that pH CPMS generally
have accuracies of 0.01 to 0.15 pH units. Based
largely on the vendor literature, we decided to require pH CPMS to have
accuracies of 0.2 pH units or better. An accuracy of 0.2 pH
units should allow most facilities that currently monitor pH to
continue using their pH CPMS, provided the CPMS satisfies the other
equipment criteria specified in PS-17.
5. Conductivity CPMS Accuracy
    Because none of the part 60, 61, or 63 rules specify accuracy
requirements for conductivity CPMS, we reviewed manufacturer and vendor
literature, which indicates that conductivity CPMS generally have
accuracies of 1 to 2 percent. Conductivity
measurements range from 0.1 to 200,000 micromhos per centimeter
([mu]mhos/cm) (0.1 to 200,000 microsiemens per centimeter ([mu]S/cm))
at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). To account for this large range and the
accuracies that can be met by most available instruments, we decided to
require conductivity CPMS to have accuracies of 5 percent.
An accuracy requirement of 5 percent should allow most
facilities that currently monitor conductivity to continue using their
conductivity CPMS, provided their CPMS satisfies the other equipment
criteria specified in PS-17.

J. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?

    The proposed PS-17 would require owners or operators of affected
CPMS to maintain records that identify their CPMS and document
performance evaluations, and to retain those records for a period of at
least 5 years. These requirements are consistent with the recordkeeping
requirements specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions to part
63.

IX. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Requirements of Procedure 4

A. What information did we use to develop Procedure 4?

    The information used to develop Procedure 4 is essentially the same
information used to develop PS-17 and includes information from
existing standards, manufacturer and vendor recommendations, and
current practices in industry. Section VIII.A of this document provides
additional details on how this information was obtained.

B. Why did we decide to apply Procedure 4 to all CPMS that are subject
to PS-17?

    Rules promulgated under part 63 establish enforceable operating
limits for parameter monitoring systems. As is the case for CEMS that
are used to demonstrate continuous compliance and are subject to
Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, there is a need for ongoing
QA requirements to ensure that the data generated by CPMS are reliable
and accurate. Although the data generated by CPMS that are required
under parts 60 and 61 are not used directly to demonstrate compliance,
we believe there still is a need to ensure the quality of those data is
maintained. For that reason, we believe it is warranted to require that
all part 60, 61, and 63 sources that are required to install and
operate CPMS be subject to PS-17 and Procedure 4.

C. How did we select the accuracy audit procedures?

    With the exception of audit procedures for CPMS with redundant
sensors, the accuracy audit procedures specified in the proposed
Procedure 4 would essentially be the same procedures that could be used
to perform the initial validation checks that would be required by PS-
17. For CPMS with redundant sensors, we selected the accuracy audit
procedure of comparing the values of the parameter measured by the two
sensors because that method currently is used by many industrial
facilities to ensure the accuracy of their parameter monitoring
systems. The most significant distinction between the audit procedures
specified in the proposed Procedure 4 and the initial validation
procedures specified in the proposed PS-17 is that the accuracy audit
procedures address sensor accuracy, whereas some of the initial
validation procedures do not address sensor accuracy. When CPMS are
first installed, we assume sensors to have been manufactured and
factory-calibrated under stringent QC requirements. Consequently, the
proposed PS-17 does not require the initial validation check procedures
to include sensor accuracy assessments. However, after a CPMS has been
placed into operation, and the sensor is subjected to process
environments, loss of calibration can occur quickly. Recognizing that
possibility, we have incorporated a check of sensor accuracy into the
accuracy audit procedures of the proposed Procedure 4. Some audit
procedures assess the accuracy of the overall CPMS, including the
sensor. For those procedures, a separate accuracy assessment of the
sensor would not be necessary. For those audit procedures that do not
assess the accuracy of the entire CPMS, we have incorporated into the
proposed Procedure 4 a separate accuracy check of the CPMS sensor.
These sensor accuracy assessments are based on voluntary consensus
standards.

D. How did we select the accuracy audit frequencies?

    To determine the appropriate audit frequencies, we reviewed the
requirements of existing rules, the procedures practiced by industry,
and vendor recommendations. Most of the rules promulgated under 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, and 63 do not specify calibration or audit frequencies.
Those rules that do specify accuracy audit frequencies usually require
annual calibrations; a few rules require semi-annual or quarterly
calibrations of CPMS. The information provided by industry in its
responses to the CPMS survey indicated that the typical calibration
frequency for most CPMS is once per year. Two facilities perform
calibrations on thermocouples semiannually. One of those facilities
also checks pressure meter calibration semiannually. Another facility
reported that it checks and calibrates its pH CPMS on a weekly basis.
With the exception of pH CPMS, Procedure 4 would require quarterly
accuracy audits. This frequency is comparable to the audit frequencies
required for CEMS specified in many part 60, 61, and 63 standards, and
we believe that quarterly accuracy assessments are warranted for CPMS
to ensure that monitoring data are accurate. The available information
indicates that pH sensors require more frequent calibration than do
other types of sensors, and weekly calibration of pH CPMS is common.
Therefore, we believe that weekly accuracy audits are warranted for pH
CPMS.

E. How did we select the performance criteria for accuracy audits?

    The performance criteria for the accuracy audits specified in
Procedure 4 are identical to those specified for the initial validation
check required by PS-17. The rationale for the validation check
accuracy requirements is described in section VIII.H of this document.

F. How did we select the recordkeeping requirements?

    The proposed Procedure 4 would require owners or operators of
affected CPMS to maintain records of all accuracy audits and corrective
actions taken to return the CPMS to normal operation and to retain
those records for a period of at least 5 years. These requirements are
consistent with the recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec.  63.10
of the General Provisions to part 63.

X. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to Procedure 1

A. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to PS-9?

    Before drafting the proposed amendments to Procedure 1 (40 CFR part
60, appendix F), we reviewed the procedure and PS-9 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix B) to identify those sections of Procedure 1 that did not
address, or were inconsistent with, the specific requirements of PS-9.
We identified three such sections of Procedure 1: section 1,
Applicability and Principle; section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5,
Data Accuracy Assessment. The applicability section of Procedure 1
applies to CEMS that are used for monitoring a single pollutant or
diluent. The section does not address CEMS that can be used for
monitoring more than one pollutant, such as those that are subject to
PS-9. Therefore, it is necessary to amend section 1 to clarify that
Procedure 1 would apply to single and multiple pollutant CEMS.
    Section 4.1 of Procedure 1 requires owners or operators of affected
CEMS to check the daily CD at two concentration values. In the case of
a single pollutant CEMS, there is no ambiguity in this requirement.
However, for multiple pollutant CEMS, Procedure 1 is unclear as to
which pollutant can or must be used for the daily CD check. We are
proposing to amend Procedure 1 to allow owners and operators of
affected CEMS to perform the CD check using any of the target
pollutants specified in the applicable subpart.
    Section 5 of Procedure 1, which addresses data accuracy audits, is
inconsistent with the requirements of PS-9. Procedure 1 requires RATA's
at least once every four calendar quarters; the accuracy audit
requirement for the other three calendar quarters can be satisfied by
performing either RATA's, CGA's, or RAA's. However, PS-9 requires
quarterly CGA's and does not address RATA's or RAA's. To resolve this
inconsistency in Procedure 1, these proposed amendments would add
section 5.1.5, which would clarify that owners and operators of CEMS
subject to PS-9 are not required to perform RATA's; the accuracy audit
requirement would have to be satisfied by performing quarterly CGA's.
The CGA's would have to be conducted at two points for each target
pollutant specified in the applicable subpart. Finally, the proposed
new section would clarify that these quarterly CGA's satisfy the
quarterly CGA requirement of PS-9.

B. How did we select the amendments to Procedure 1 that apply to PS-15?

    After reviewing Procedure 1, we identified three sections that
either were inconsistent with the requirements of PS-15 (40 CFR part
60, appendix B) or did not address the unique characteristics of CEMS
that are subject to PS-15. The sections identified were section 1,
Applicability and Principle; section 4, CD Assessment; and section 5,
Data Accuracy Assessment. As explained in the section X.A of this
document, these proposed amendments to section 1 of Procedure 1 would
clarify that the procedure also applies to CEMS that are used for
monitoring more than one pollutant or diluent. To address the CD
assessment of CEMS subject to PS-15, we are proposing to add three
paragraphs to section 4 of Procedure 1. Unlike other types of CEMS,
extractive FTIR CEMS are not generally checked for CD. Instead, PS-15
specifies other procedures for checking these instruments on a daily
basis. In these proposed amendments we are adding section 4.1.2 to
Procedure 1 to specify the proper procedures for checking FTIR CEMS
performance that are comparable to the CD checks of other types of
CEMS. These daily assessments serve the same purpose as do the daily CD
check requirements for other types of CEMS. We also recognize that the
term ``excessive CD,'' as defined in section 4.3 of Procedure 1, needs
to be clarified for CEMS subject to PS-15. To address this need, we are
proposed to add section 4.3.3 to Procedure 1. Section 4.3.3 would
clarify how excessive CD is defined for CEMS subject to PS-15 and also
would specify when such CEMS are out of control.
    Section 4.4 of Procedure 1 addresses CEMS data reporting and
recordkeeping. Because of the unique data storage requirements for PS-
15, we believe adding another paragraph to section 4.4 of Procedure 1
is warranted. The new paragraph in section 4.4 essentially would
reference the data storage requirements specified in PS-15.
    The Procedure 1 specifies three methods for assessing data
accuracy: RATA's, CGA's, and RAA's. On the other hand, PS-15 specifies
a different set of accuracy audit procedures: audit sample checks,
audit spectra checks, and an independent accuracy assessment performed
by us. Consequently, there is an obvious need to amend Procedure 1 if
we were to extend the applicability of Procedure 1 to include CEMS
subject to PS-15. To resolve this inconsistency, we would add section
5.1.6 to Procedure 1. We modeled section 5.1.6 after the accuracy audit
requirements that were already incorporated in Procedure 1. The most
rigorous of the accuracy assessment methods specified in PS-15 is the
audit sample check. In this respect, the audit sample check is
analogous to the RATA. For consistency with the requirements for other
types of CEMS, we would require audit sample checks for CEMS subject to
PS-15 to be performed at least once every four calendar quarters, as is
the case for RATA's for other types of CEMS. For the other three
calendar quarters, we would allow owners and operators of CEMS subject
to PS-15 to perform any of the three audit procedures specified in PS-
15 (audit sample check, audit spectra check, and submitting spectra for
independent analysis), with one exception. The audit spectra check
assesses the accuracy of the analytical measurement but not the
sampling system measurement. Therefore, we would allow owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS-15 to use the audit spectra check only
once every four quarters to satisfy the accuracy audit requirement of
Procedure 1. Finally, proposed section 5.1.6 of Procedure 1 would
clarify that the quarterly accuracy assessments required by Procedure 1
satisfy the quarterly or semiannual QA/QC checks required by PS-15.

XI. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to the General
Provisions to Parts 60, 61, and 63

A. How did we select the amendments to the General Provisions to parts
60, 61, and 63?

    The proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would specify CPMS accuracies,
audit frequencies, and other requirements that differ from some of the
requirements for CPMS specified in applicable subparts to parts 60, 61,
and 63. Eliminating the resulting discrepancies would require either
amending each of the applicable subparts or amending the General
Provisions to those parts. We concluded that amending the General
Provisions would be the preferred approach for avoiding such conflicts
or discrepancies.
    After reviewing the General Provisions to parts 60 and 61 that
apply

specifically to monitoring (i.e., Sec. Sec.  60.13 and 61.14), we
decided to amend only the applicability sections of those parts. By
stating that, upon promulgation, performance specifications and QA
procedures for CPMS (i.e., the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4) apply to
CPMS instead of requirements in the applicable subparts to parts 60 and
61, we believe we can eliminate any discrepancies between the
applicable subparts and the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. We
concluded that this proposed rule would not conflict with the
monitoring requirements specified in subsequent sections of the General
Provisions to parts 60 and 61, and further amendments to those General
Provisions were unnecessary.
    With respect to the General Provisions to part 63, we identified
several inconsistencies between the requirements specified in Sec.
63.8 and the requirements in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. In
this action, we are proposing several changes to Sec.  63.8 to
eliminate those inconsistencies.
    We believe that the installation requirement of Sec.  63.8(c)(2)
should apply to all CMS, and not simply CEMS; we are proposing to amend
Sec.  63.8(c)(2) accordingly. We believe that the requirement for
continuous operation specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(4) should apply to all
CMS, and not just CEMS and COMS as now specified in the General
Provisions.
    Section 63.8(c)(4) addresses cycle time for CEMS and COMS, but not
for CPMS. We believe it is necessary to address CPMS cycle time also.
Consequently, we are proposing to add Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(iii) for that
purpose.
    The last three sentences of Sec.  63.8(c)(6) address calibration
and daily checks of CPMS. We are proposing to delete these provisions
because the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would address CPMS operation
and maintenance more thoroughly.
    Section 63.8(c)(7) of the General Provisions defines CMS that are
out of control in terms of excessive calibration drift checks and
periodic audits that apply to CEMS and COMS, but not to CPMS.
Consequently, we are proposing to amend Sec.  63.8(c)(7) to clarify
that, for CPMS, out of control is defined in terms of failed accuracy
audits only. The proposed amendments would clarify in Sec.
63.8(c)(7)(i)(A) that out of control, when defined in terms of
excessive calibration drift, applies to CEMS and COMS and not CPMS. We
also would revise Sec.  63.8(c)(7)(i)(B), which relates out of control
to failed performance test audits, relative accuracy audits, relative
accuracy test audits, and linearity test audits that apply to CEMS and
COMS, but not to CPMS. We propose adding Sec.  63.8(c)(7)(i)(D) to
clarify that a CPMS is out of control when it fails an accuracy audit.
    Quality control programs for CMS are addressed in Sec.  63.8(d). We
are proposing to revise Sec.  63.8(d)(2)(ii) to clarify that the
requirement for written protocols for calibration drift determinations
and adjustments would apply only to applicable CMS; that is, the
requirement would apply to CEMS and COMS, but not to CPMS because
calibration drift is not relevant to many CPMS.
    Finally, we are proposing changes to Sec.  63.8(e), which address
CMS performance evaluations. We are proposing to amend Sec.  63.8(e)(2)
and (3)(i) to clarify that prior written notice of performance
evaluations and performance evaluation test plans are required for CEMS
or COMS only. Under the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4, CPMS initial
validations and/or accuracy audits would be required at least quarterly
using procedures that are much simpler than those required for CEMS or
COMS performance tests. Consequently, we believe that requiring written
notifications and test plans is unnecessary for CPMS performance
evaluations. We also are proposing to revise Sec.  63.8(e)(4), which
addresses conducting CMS performance evaluations during any required
performance test. Currently, Sec.  63.8(e)(4) states that CMS
performance evaluations must be conducted in accordance to the
applicable performance specification. We are proposing to clarify
paragraph (e)(4) to state that such evaluations of CMS performance
should be conducted in accordance with the applicable performance
specification or QA procedure because procedures for performing CPMS
accuracy audits would be specified in the proposed Procedure 4.

XII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart SS

    Our proposed amendments to subpart SS (65 FR 76444, December 6,
2000) included revisions to the general monitoring requirements
specified in Sec.  63.996. At that time, we had not completed our
development of performance specifications and QA procedures for CPMS,
which we are now proposing as PS-17 and Procedure 4, respectively.
After reviewing the public comments on the December 6, 2000 proposal
and comparing the requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 to the proposed
changes to Sec.  63.996, we decided that further revisions to Sec.
63.996 are warranted to ensure consistency between the monitoring
requirements of subpart SS, PS-17, and Procedure 4. We identified the
requirements of the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 that were most
relevant to the generic MACT source categories and incorporated those
requirements into the amendments that we are proposing for subpart SS.
We believe that these proposed amendments would ensure consistency with
PS-17, Procedure 4, and subpart SS.

XIII. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the impacts of PS-17 and Procedure 4?

    The proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would apply only to CPMS that
are required under an applicable subpart to 40 CFR parts 60, 61, or 63;
that is, this proposed rulemaking would not require the installation or
operation of CPMS, other than those already required by rule. The cost
and economic impact analyses that are completed as part of the
rulemaking process for any part 60, 61, or 63 rule account for the
costs associated with any required CPMS that would be subject to PS-17
and Procedure 4. Those costs, which are not attributable to this
proposed rulemaking, include the capital costs for equipment,
installation costs, the costs for operating and maintaining the CPMS,
and the costs for maintaining records and reporting CPMS data. However,
in some cases, the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would require more
accurate sensors and more frequent accuracy audits and inspections than
would be required otherwise for some source categories. Therefore, the
incremental costs associated with replacing those sensors and
conducting additional audits and inspections can be attributed to the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. Because the applicability of the
proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 will be phased in over a 5-year period,
we estimated the costs for each of those initial 5 years. Based on
those estimates, the nationwide additional annualized costs to
implement the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 amount to $17.7 million
for the first year, $26.4 million for the second, $35.0 million for the
third year, $43.7 million for the fourth year, and $52.3 million for
the fifth year of this proposed rule. The average annualized cost per
source is estimated to be $320, $470, $610, $740, and $870 for the
first through fifth years, respectively. These costs are based on the
assumption that affected facilities would not choose to use redundant

sensors. If facilities elected to use redundant sensors, the estimated
compliance costs for the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would be
reduced.
    The proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4 would improve the quality of the
data measured and recorded by CPMS and thereby would also reduce the
uncertainty in those data. However, this proposed rulemaking would not
require the installation or operation of additional CPMS. Therefore,
with respect to other potential impacts associated with this proposed
rulemaking, we have concluded that PS-17 and Procedure 4, as proposed,
would have no energy or environmental impacts beyond those that have
already been attributed by to the various part 60, 61, and 63 rules
that require the use of CPMS.

B. What are the impacts of the amendments to Procedure 1?

    The proposed amendments to Procedure 1 clarify how owners and
operators of CEMS subject to PS-9 or PS-15 must satisfy the
requirements already established by Procedure 1. Therefore, we have
determined that there are no additional impacts that should be
attributed to these proposed amendments to Procedure 1.

C. What are the impacts of the amendments to the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63?

    The proposed amendments to 40 CFR 60.13 and 40 CFR 61.14 would
eliminate any discrepancies between the requirements for CPMS specified
in an applicable subpart to parts 60 or 61 and requirements for CPMS
specified in the proposed PS-17 and Procedure 4. The amendments to 40
CFR 63.8 that we are proposing clarify how the monitoring requirements
of the General Provisions to part 63 apply to CPMS. These proposed
amendments do not add any additional requirements to what is already
required by the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63.
Consequently, we have concluded that the proposed amendments do not
have any significant environmental, energy, or economic impacts on the
affected source categories.

D. What are the impacts of the amendments to subpart SS?

    The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS clarify the
monitoring requirements for CPMS that are required under subpart SS and
the General Provisions to part 63. Furthermore, these proposed
amendments provide consistency between those monitoring requirements
and the proposed requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4. For these
reasons, we have concluded that there are no significant environmental,
energy, or economic impacts associated with the proposed amendments.

XIV. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We want to have full public participation in arriving at our final
decisions, and we encourage comment on all aspects of this proposal
from all interested parties. Interested parties should submit
supporting data and detailed analyses with their comments so we can
make maximum use of them. Information on where and when to submit
comments is listed in ``Comments'' under the DATES and ADDRESSES
sections.

XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2269.01.
    The information collection requirements for the proposed PS-17 and
Procedure 4 are based on the requirements in the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63, which are mandatory for all operators subject to
NSPS or NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to EPA's policies set forth in 40 CFR 2, subpart
B.
    This proposed rule would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and
63. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific
information needed to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 318,662 labor hours per
year at a total annual cost of $23.3 million. This burden estimate
includes time for the maintenance and evaluation of monitoring system
operation. Total capital costs associated with the monitoring
requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $18.2
million. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0640. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after October 9, 2008, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by November 10, 2008. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because of
the number of different source categories involved and the small cost
per facility, a case study approach was used to assess the likelihood
of significant impact on small entities. A subset of source categories
that most likely would be the most impacted was chosen by two criteria.
The first criterion was whether or not the underlying regulation was
expected to have adverse small business impacts at the time of
promulgation. The second criterion was the relative magnitude of the
estimated costs for complying with the CPMS Rule on a per-plant basis.
In none of the case studies were costs likely to approach 1 percent of
sales because the average per facility costs were always less than 3
percent of the compliance costs of underlying regulation.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The nationwide additional annualized
costs to implement the proposed rule are estimated to be $52.3 million
in the fifth year of this proposed rule. Thus, this proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 have already
been addressed under the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63,
and in the applicable subparts that require the installation and
operation of CPMS. Furthermore, the amendments to Procedure 1 merely
clarify the applicability and requirements of the procedure. Finally,
these proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements in the General
Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to subpart SS are made
to ensure consistency with PS-17 and Procedure 4.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The requirements of PS-17 and
Procedure 4 have already been addressed under the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63, and in the applicable subparts that require the
installation and operation of CPMS. Furthermore, these proposed
amendments to Procedure 1 merely clarify the applicability and
requirements of the procedure. Finally, these proposed amendments to
the monitoring requirements specified in the General Provisions to
parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to subpart SS are made to ensure
consistency with PS-17 and Procedure 4. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with our
policy to promote communications between us and State and local
governments, we specifically solicit comment on this proposed rule from
State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The
requirements of PS-17 and Procedure 4 have already been addressed under
the General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, and in the applicable
subparts that require the installation and operation of CPMS.
Furthermore, these proposed amendments to Procedure 1 merely clarify
the applicability and requirements of the procedure. Finally, these
proposed amendments to the monitoring requirements specified in the
General Provisions to parts 60, 61, and 63, as well as to subpart SS
are made to ensure consistency with PS-17 and Procedure 4. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health

Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis
required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards (VCS).
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use the following VCS: American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) E220-07e1, ASTM D1293-99 (2005), ASTM D1125-95 (2005), ASTM
D5391-99 (2005), ASTM E251-92 (2003), ASTM E452-02 (2007), ASTM E585/E
585M-04, ASTM E644-06, ASTM E235-06, ASTM E608/E 608M-06, ASTM E696-07,
ASTM E1129/E1129M-98 (2002), ASTM E1137/E1137M-04, and ASTM E1159-98
(2003); International Organization for Standardization (ISO) MC96.1-
1982 and ISO 10790:1999; American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) B40.100-2005 and ASME MFC-3M-2004; American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 41.8-1989;
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ASME MFC-4M-1986 (R2003),
ANSI/ASME MFC-6M-1998 (R2005), ANSI/ASME MFC-7M-1987 (R2001), ANSI/ASME
MFC-9M-1988; ANSI/Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society
(ISA) RP 31.1-1977, ISA RP 16.6-1961, ISA RP 16.5-1961, and ISA
8316:1987; and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Handbook 44--2002 Edition (incorporated by reference--see 40 CFR
60.17). The Agency conducted a search to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards. While the Agency identified
15 VCS as being potentially applicable to PS-17 and Procedure 4, we do
not propose to use these standards in this proposed rulemaking. The use
of these VCS would be impractical for the purposes of this proposed
rule. See the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these
determinations for the standards.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of this proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The proposed rule will help to ensure that emission
control devices are operated properly and maintained as needed, thereby
helping to ensure compliance with emission standards, which benefit all
affected populations.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative Practice and Procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.13 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a) as
paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.13  Monitoring requirements.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) Performance specifications for continuous parameter monitoring
systems (CPMS) promulgated under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B and quality
assurance procedures for CPMS promulgated under 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F apply instead of the requirements for CPMS specified in an
applicable subpart upon promulgation of the performance specifications
and quality assurance procedures for CPMS.
* * * * *
    3. Section 60.17 is amended by:
    a. Adding paragraphs (a)(93) through (a)(106);

    b. Adding paragraphs (h)(5) through (h)(10); and
    c. Adding paragraphs (o), (p) and (q) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (93) ASTM E220-07e1, ``Standard Test Methods for Calibration of
Thermocouples by Comparison Techniques,'' IBR approved for Table 6 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 2 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (94) ASTM E452-02 (2007), ``Standard Test Method for Calibration of
Refractory Metal Thermocouples Using an Optical Pyrometer,'' IBR
approved for Table 6 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 2 to Procedure 4 to appendix F of this part.
    (95) ASTM E585/E 585M-04, ``Specification for Compacted Mineral-
Insulated, Metal-Sheathed, Base Metal Thermocouple Cables,'' IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part.
    (96) ASTM E644-06, ``Standard Test Methods for Testing Industrial
Resistance Thermometers,'' IBR approved for Table 6 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 2 to Procedure 4 of
appendix F to this part.
    (97) ASTM E235-06, ``Specification for Thermocouples, Sheathed,
Type K, for Nuclear or for Other High-Reliability Applications,'' IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part.
    (98) ASTM E608/E 608M-06, ``Specification for Mineral-Insulated,
Metal-Sheathed Base Metal Thermocouples,'' IBR approved for Table 2 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
    (99) ASTM E696-07, ``Specification for Tungsten-Rhenium Alloy
Thermocouple Wire,'' IBR approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard
17 of appendix B to this part.
    (100) ASTM E1129/E 1129M-98 (2002), ``Standard Specification for
Thermocouple Connectors,'' IBR approved for Table 2 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
    (101) ASTM E1137/E 1137M-04, ``Standard Specification for
Industrial Platinum Resistance Thermometers,'' IBR approved for Table 2
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
    (102) ASTM E1159-98 (2003), ``Specification for Thermocouple
Materials, Platinum-Rhodium Alloys, and Platinum,'' IBR approved for
Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
    (103) ASTM E251-92 (2003), ``Standard Test Methods for Performance
Characteristics of Metallic Bonded Resistance Strain Gages,'' IBR
approved for Table 7 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 3 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (104) ASTM D1293-99 (2005), ``Standard Test Methods for pH of
Water,'' IBR approved for section 8.7 of Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part and section 8.4 of Procedure 4 of appendix F to
this part.
    (105) ASTM D1125-95 (2005), ``Standard Test Methods for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of Water,'' IBR approved for section 8.8
of Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and section 8.5
of Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (106) ASTM D5391-99 (2005), ``Standard Test Method for Electrical
Conductivity and Resistivity of a Flowing High Purity Water Sample,''
IBR approved for section 8.8 of Performance Standard 17 of appendix B
to this part and section 8.5 of Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (5) ASME B 40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments,''
IBR approved for section 6.3 and Table 7 to Performance Standard 17 of
appendix B to this part and Table 3 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to
this part.
    (6) ASME MFC-3M-2004, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using
Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and section 8.3 of Procedure 4
to appendix F of this part.
    (7) ANSI/ASME MFC-4M-1986 (R2003), ``Measurement of Gas Flow by
Turbine Meters,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17
of appendix B to this part.
    (8) ANSI/ASME MFC-6M-1998 (R2005), ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in
Pipes Using Vortex Flow Meters,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
    (9) ANSI/ASME MFC-7M-1987 (R2001), ``Measurement of Gas Flow by
Means of Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles,'' IBR approved for Table 3 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part.
    (10) ANSI/ASME MFC-9M-1988, ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits by Weighing Method,'' IBR approved for Table 5 to Performance
Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of
appendix F to this part.
* * * * *
    (o) The following material is available for purchase from the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th
Floor, New York, NY, 10036.
    (1) ISA-MC96.1-1982, ``Temperature Measurement Thermocouples,'' IBR
approved for Table 2 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (2) ASHRAE 41.8-1989, ``Standard Methods of Measurement of Flow of
Liquids in Pipes Using Orifice Flowmeters,'' IBR approved for Table 5
to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Table 5 to
Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (3) ANSI/ISA RP 31.1-1977, ``Recommended Practice: Specification,
Installation, and Calibration of Turbine Flow Meters,'' IBR approved
for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and
Table 5 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (p) The following material is available for purchase from the
Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society (ISA), 67 Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
    (1) ISA RP 16.6-1961, ``Methods and Equipment for Calibration of
Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),'' IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to
Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this part and Tables 4 and 5
to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (2) ISA RP 16.5-1961, ``Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
Instructions for Glass Tube Variable Area Meters (Rotameters),'' IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part.
    (q) The following material is available for purchase from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. de la
Voie-Creuse, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
    (1) ISO 8316:1987, ``Measurement of Liquid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Method by Collection of Liquid in a Volumetric Tank,'' IBR
approved for Table 4 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 4 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.
    (2) ISO 10790:1999, ``Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed
Conduits--Guidance to the Selection, Installation, and Use of Coriolis
Meters (Mass Flow, Density and Volume Flow Measurements),'' IBR
approved for Table 3 to Performance Standard 17 of appendix B to this
part and Table 4 to Procedure 4 of appendix F to this part.

    4. Appendix B to part 60 is amended by adding Performance
Specification 17 in numerical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

Performance Specification 17--Specifications and Test Procedures
for Continuous Parameter Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

1.0 What is the purpose of Performance Specification 17?

    The purpose of Performance Specification 17 (PS-17) is to
establish the initial installation and performance procedures that
are required for evaluating the acceptability of a continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS). This performance specification
applies instead of the requirements for applicable CPMS specified in
any applicable subpart to 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63, unless
otherwise specified in the applicable subpart. This performance
specification does not establish procedures or criteria for
evaluating the ongoing performance of an installed CPMS over an
extended period of time. Procedures for evaluating the ongoing
performance of a CPMS are described in Procedure 4 of appendix F to
40 CFR part 40, Quality Assurance Procedures.
    1.1 Under what circumstances does PS-17 apply to my CPMS? This
performance specification applies to your CPMS if your CPMS meets
the conditions specified in section 1.2 of this specification and
you meet either conditions (1) or (2) of this section:
    (1) You are required by any applicable subpart of 40 CFR parts
60 or 61 to install and operate the CPMS, or
    (2) You are required by any applicable subpart of 40 CFR part 63
to install and operate the CPMS, and Sec.  63.8(a)(2) of the General
Provisions applies to the applicable subpart.
    1.2 To what types of devices does PS-17 apply? This performance
specification applies if your total equipment meets the conditions
of (1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) You are required by an applicable subpart to install and
operate the total equipment on a continuous basis, and
    (2) You, as owner or operator, use the total equipment to
monitor the parameters (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow
rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and conductivity)
associated with the operation of an emission control device or
process unit.
    1.3 When must I comply with PS-17? You must comply with PS-17
when any of conditions (1) through (5) of this section occur:
    (1) At the time you install and place into operation a CPMS that
is required by the applicable subpart after 90 days following the
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or
    (2) At the time you replace or relocate the sensor of an
affected CPMS after 90 days following the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register, or
    (3) At the time you replace the electronic signal modifier or
conditioner, transmitter, external power supply, data acquisition
system, data recording system, or any other mechanical or electrical
component of your CPMS that affects the accuracy, range, or
resolution of your CPMS after 90 days following the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, or
    (4) For CPMS located at facilities that are required to obtain a
title V permit, at the time of your title V permit renewal.
    (i) Prior to submitting your title V permit renewal, you must
comply with the basic requirements of this performance
specification.
    (5) For CPMS located at area source facilities that are exempt
from obtaining a title V permit, 5 years after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

2.0 What are the basic requirements of PS-17?

    This performance specification requires you, as an owner or
operator of an applicable CPMS, to perform and record initial
installation and calibration procedures to confirm the acceptability
of the CPMS when it is installed and placed into operation.
    2.1 How does PS-17 address the installation and equipment
requirements for my CPMS? This specification stipulates basic
installation, location, and equipment requirements for CPMS and
identifies applicable voluntary consensus standards that provide
additional guidance on the selection and installation of specific
types of sensors associated with CPMS. This specification also
identifies the types of equipment needed to check the accuracy of
your CPMS. General equipment requirements are identified in section
6 of this specification. Location and installation requirements are
addressed in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of this specification.
    2.2 What types of procedures must I perform to demonstrate
compliance with PS-17? This specification requires you, as owner or
operator of a CPMS, to demonstrate that your CPMS satisfies minimum
requirements for accuracy. For each of the monitoring parameters
addressed (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, and conductivity), this specification
offers you the choice of two or more methods that you can use to
demonstrate that your CPMS meets the specified accuracy
requirements. For accuracy demonstrations that involve measurement
of gas or liquid pressures, this specification also requires you to
perform a leak test on any pressure connections. Accuracy
demonstration methods are described in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of
this specification; section 8.9 addresses alternative procedures for
demonstrating compliance with this specification; and leak test
procedures are described in section 8.10 of this specification.
    2.3 What does PS-17 require me to do if my CPMS does not meet
the specified accuracy requirements? If your CPMS does not meet the
accuracy requirements, section 8 of this specification requires you
to take corrective action until you can demonstrate that your CPMS
meets the accuracy requirement.
    2.4 What types of recordkeeping and reporting activities does
PS-17 require? This specification does not have any reporting
requirements but does require you to record and maintain data that
identify your CPMS and show the results of any performance
demonstrations of your CPMS. Recordkeeping requirements are
described in section 14 of this specification.

3.0 What special definitions apply to PS-17?

    3.1 Accuracy. A measure of the closeness of a measurement to the
true or actual value.
    3.2 Accuracy hierarchy. The ratio of the accuracy of a
measurement instrument to the accuracy of a calibrated instrument or
standard that is used to measure the accuracy of the measurement
instrument. For example, if the accuracy of a calibrated temperature
measurement device is 0.2 percent, and the accuracy of a
thermocouple is 1.0 percent, the accuracy hierarchy is 5.0 (1.0 /
0.2 = 5.0).
    3.3 Conductivity CPMS. The total equipment that is used to
measure and record the conductivity of a liquid on a continuous
basis.
    3.4 Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS). The total
equipment that is used to measure and record a parameter (currently
temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass flow
rate, pH, and conductivity) on a continuous basis in one or more
locations.
    3.5 Cryogenic Application. An application of a temperature CPMS
in which the sensor is subjected to a temperature of zero degrees
Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit) or less.
    3.6 Differential pressure tube. A device, such as a pitot tube,
that consists of one or more pairs of tubes that are oriented to
measure the velocity pressure and static pressure at one or more
fixed points within a duct for the purpose of determining gas
velocity.
    3.7 Electronic Components. The electronic signal modifier or
conditioner, transmitter, and power supply associated with a CPMS.
    3.8 Flow CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure and
record liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, or mass flow rate on a
continuous basis.
    3.9 Integrator. The equipment that is used to calculate the
material feed rate using two inputs: weight of the load on the
material transfer system (e.g. belt conveyor) and the speed of the
system.
    3.10 Mass flow rate. The measurement of solid, liquid, or gas
flow in units of mass per time, such as kilograms per minute or tons
per hour.
    3.11 Mechanical Component. Any component of a CPMS that consists
of or includes moving parts or that is used to apply or transfer
force to another component or part of the CPMS.
    3.12 pH CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure and
record the pH of a liquid on a continuous basis.
    3.13 Pressure CPMS. The total equipment that is used to measure
and record the pressure of a liquid or gas at any location, or the
differential pressure of a liquid or gas between any two locations,
on a continuous basis.
    3.14 Resolution. The smallest detectable or legible increment of
measurement.

    3.15 Sensor. The component or set of components of a CPMS that
reacts to changes in the magnitude of the parameter that is measured
by the CPMS (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or conductivity) and generates an
output signal. Table 1 identifies the sensor components of some
commonly used CPMS.
    3.16 Solid mass flow rate. The measurement of the rate at which
a solid material is processed or transferred (in units of mass per
time). Examples of solid mass flow rate are the rate at which ore is
fed to a material dryer or the rate at which powdered lime is
injected into an exhaust duct.
    3.17 Temperature CPMS. The total equipment that is used to
measure and record the temperature of a liquid or gas at any
location, or the differential temperature of a liquid or gas between
any two locations, on a continuous basis.
    3.18 Total Equipment. The sensor, mechanical components,
electronic components, data acquisition system, data recording
system, electrical wiring, and other components of a CPMS.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 What do I need to know to ensure the safety of persons who perform
the procedures specified in PS-17?

    The procedures required under this specification may involve
hazardous materials, operations, site conditions, and equipment.
This performance specification does not purport to address all of
the safety issues associated with these procedures. It is the
responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and
health practices and determine the applicable regulatory limitations
prior to performing these procedures.

6.0 What equipment and supplies do I need?

    The types of equipment that you need to comply with this
specification depend upon the parameter that is measured by your
CPMS and upon site-specific conditions. You must select the
appropriate equipment based on manufacturer's recommendations, your
site-specific conditions, the parameter that your CPMS measures, and
the method that you choose for demonstrating compliance with this
specification. For most CPMS, you will need the two types of
equipment described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The total equipment that is used to monitor and record the
appropriate parameter, as defined in section 3.17 of this
specification, and
    (2) The equipment needed to perform the initial validation check
of your CPMS, as specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification.
    6.1 What design criteria must my CPMS satisfy? You must select a
CPMS that meets the design specifications in paragraphs (1) through
(5) of this section.
    (1) Your CPMS must satisfy the accuracy requirements of Table 8
of this specification.
    (2) Your CPMS must be capable of measuring the appropriate
parameter (currently temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas
flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or conductivity) over a range that
extends from a value that is at least 20 percent less than the
lowest value that you expect your CPMS to measure, to a value that
is at least 20 percent greater than the highest value that you
expect your CPMS to measure.
    (3) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data
acquisition and recording system of your CPMS must be compatible
with the output signal of the sensors used in your CPMS.
    (4) The data acquisition and recording system of your CPMS must
be able to record values over the entire range specified in
paragraph (2) of this section.
    (5) The data recording system associated with your CPMS must
have a resolution of one-half of the required overall accuracy of
your CPMS, as specified in Table 8 of this specification, or better.
    6.2 Are there any exceptions to the range requirements specified
in section 6.1 of PS-17? A pH CPMS must be capable of measuring pH
over the entire range of pH values from 0 to 14.
    6.3 What additional guidelines should I use for selecting the
sensor of my CPMS? Additional guidelines for selecting temperature
and pressure sensors are listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
    (1) For a temperature CPMS, you should select a sensor that is
consistent with the standards listed in Table 2 of this
specification.
    (2) If your pressure CPMS uses a pressure gauge as the sensor,
you should select a gauge that conforms to the design requirements
of ASME B40.100-2005, ``Pressure Gauges and Gauge Attachments''
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17).
    6.4 What types of equipment do I need for checking the accuracy
of my CPMS? The specific types of equipment that you need for
checking the accuracy of your CPMS depend on the type of CPMS and
the method that you choose for conducting the initial validation
check of your CPMS, as specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this
specification. In most cases, you will need the equipment specified
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) A separate device that either measures the same parameter as
your CPMS, or that simulates the same electronic signal or response
that your CPMS generates, and
    (2) Any work platform, test ports, pressure taps, valves,
fittings, or other equipment required to perform the specific
procedures of the validation check method that you choose, as
specified in sections 8.4 through 8.8 of this specification.
    6.5 What are the accuracy requirements for the equipment that I
use for checking the accuracy of my CPMS? Any measurement instrument
or device that is used to conduct the initial validation check of
your CPMS must have an accuracy that is traceable to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards and must have
an accuracy hierarchy of at least three. To determine if a
measurement instrument or device satisfies this accuracy hierarchy
requirement, follow the procedure described in section 12.1 of this
specification.
    6.6 Are there any exceptions to the accuracy requirement of
section 6.5 of PS-17? There are two exceptions to the NIST-traceable
accuracy requirement specified in section 6.5 of this specification,
as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) As an alternative for a calibrated pressure measurement
device with NIST-traceable accuracy specified in paragraphs (1) and
(3) of section 8.5 and in paragraph (3) of section 8.6 of this
specification, you can use a mercury-in-glass or water-in-glass U-
tube manometer to validate your pressure CPMS.
    (2) When validating a flow rate CPMS using the methods specified
in paragraphs (1), (2), or (7) of section 8.6 of this specification,
the container used to collect or weigh the liquid or solid is not
required to have NIST-traceable accuracy.

7.0 What reagents or standards do I need to comply with PS-17?

    The specific reagents and standards needed to demonstrate
compliance with this specification depend upon the parameter that
your CPMS measures and the method that you choose to check the
accuracy of your CPMS. Section 8.3 of this specification identifies
the specific reagents and standards needed for each initial
validation check of CPMS accuracy.

8.0 What performance demonstrations must I conduct?

    You must satisfy the installation requirements, perform an
initial calibration, and perform an initial validation check of your
CPMS using the procedures specified in sections 8.1 through 8.8 of
this specification.
    8.1 How must I install my CPMS? The installation of your CPMS
must satisfy the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section.
    (1) You must install each sensor of your CPMS in a location that
provides representative measurement of the applicable parameter over
all operating conditions, taking into account the manufacturer's
guidelines and any location specified in the applicable requirement.
    (2) You must also install any work platforms, test ports,
pressure taps, valves, fittings, or other equipment needed to
perform the initial validation check, as specified in sections 8.4
through 8.8 of this specification.
    8.2 What additional guidelines can I use for installing my CPMS?
If you are required to install a flow CPMS and the sensor of your
flow CPMS is a differential pressure device, turbine flow meter,
rotameter, vortex formation flow meter or Coriolis mass flow meter,
you can use the standards listed in Table 3 of this specification as
guidelines for installation.
    8.3 What initial quality assurance measures are required by PS-
17 for my CPMS? You must perform an initial calibration of your CPMS
based on the procedures specified in the manufacturer's owner's
manual. You also must perform an initial validation check of the
operation of your CPMS using the methods described in sections 8.4
through 8.8 of this specification.
    8.4 How do I perform the initial validation check of my
temperature CPMS? To perform the initial validation check of a
temperature CPMS, you can choose one of

the methods described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Comparison to Calibrated Temperature Measurement Device.
Place the sensor of a calibrated temperature measurement device
adjacent to the sensor of your temperature CPMS so that the sensor
of the calibrated test device is subjected to the same environment
as the sensor of your temperature CPMS. The calibrated temperature
measurement device must satisfy the accuracy requirements specified
in section 6.5 of this specification. The calibrated temperature
measurement device must also have a range equal to or greater than
the range of your temperature CPMS. Allow sufficient time for the
response of the calibrated temperature measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process or control device that is monitored by
your CPMS operating under normal conditions, concurrently record the
temperatures measured by your temperature CPMS and the calibrated
temperature measurement device. Using the temperature measured by
the calibrated measurement device as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8, the validation check is complete.
If your CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this specification, check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check procedure until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If you
are required to measure and record temperatures at multiple
locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
    (2) Temperature Simulation Procedure. Disconnect the sensor from
your temperature CPMS and connect to your CPMS a calibrated
simulation device that is designed to simulate the same type of
response as the sensor of your CPMS. The calibrated simulation
device must satisfy the accuracy requirements specified in section
6.5 of this specification. Simulate a typical temperature that is
measured by your temperature CPMS under normal operating conditions.
Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated simulation
device to reach equilibrium. Record the temperature that is
indicated by your temperature CPMS. Using the temperature simulated
by the calibrated simulation device as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification
to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8, the validation check
is complete. If the calculated accuracy does not meet the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all system
components and take any corrective action that is necessary to
achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation check
procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record temperatures at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    8.5 How do I perform an initial validation check of my pressure
CPMS? To perform the initial validation check of your pressure CPMS,
you can choose one of the methods described in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Comparison to Calibrated Pressure Measurement Device.
Connect a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube
manometer, or calibrated pressure measurement device to operate in
parallel with your pressure CPMS so that the manometer or sensor of
the calibrated pressure measurement device is subjected to the same
pressure as the sensor of your pressure CPMS. If a calibrated
pressure measurement device is used, the device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this specification. The
calibrated pressure measurement device also must have a range equal
to or greater than the range of your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak
test on all manometer or calibrated pressure measurement device
connections using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the response of the
manometer or calibrated pressure measurement device to reach
equilibrium. With the process or control device that is monitored by
your pressure CPMS operating under normal conditions, concurrently
record the pressures that are measured by your pressure CPMS and by
the calibrated pressure measurement device. Using the pressure
measured by the calibrated pressure measurement device as the value
for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    (2) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a Calibrated Pressure
Source. Disconnect or close off the process line or lines to your
pressure CPMS. Connect an adjustable calibrated pressure source to
your CPMS so that the pressure source applies a pressure to the
sensor of your pressure CPMS. The calibrated pressure source must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. The calibrated pressure source also must be
adjustable, either continuously or incrementally over the pressure
range of your pressure CPMS. Perform a leak test on all calibrated
pressure source connections using the procedure specified in section
8.10 of this specification. Using the calibrated pressure source,
apply a pressure that is within 10 percent of the normal
operating pressure of your pressure CPMS. Allow sufficient time for
the response of the calibrated pressure source to reach equilibrium.
Record the pressure applied by the calibrated pressure source and
the pressure measured by your pressure CPMS. Using the pressure
applied by the calibrated pressure source as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    (3) Pressure Simulation Procedure Using a Pressure Source and
Calibrated Pressure Measurement Device. Disconnect or close off the
process line or lines to your pressure CPMS. Attach a mercury-in-
glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-glass U-tube manometer, or a
calibrated pressure measurement device (the reference pressure
measurement device) in parallel to your pressure CPMS. If a
calibrated pressure measurement device is used, the device must
satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. Connect a pressure source to your pressure CPMS and
the parallel reference pressure measurement device. Perform a leak
test on all pressure source and parallel reference pressure
measurement device connections using the procedure specified in
section 8.10 of this specification. Apply pressure to your CPMS and
the parallel reference pressure measurement device. Allow sufficient
time for the response of your CPMS and the parallel reference
pressure measurement device to reach equilibrium. Record the
pressure measured by your pressure CPMS and the reference pressure
measurement device. Using the pressure measured by the parallel
reference pressure measurement device as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not meet the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this
validation check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record pressure at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    8.6 How do I perform an initial validation check of my flow
CPMS? To perform the initial validation check of your flow CPMS, you
can choose any one of the methods described in paragraphs (1)
through (7) of this section that is applicable to the type of

material measured by your flow CPMS and the type of sensor used in
your flow CPMS.
    (1) Volumetric Method. This method applies to any CPMS that is
designed to measure liquid flow rate. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your flow CPMS operating under normal
conditions, record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS for the
subject process line. At the same time, collect the liquid that is
flowing through the same process line for a measured length of time
using the Volumetric Method specified in one of the standards listed
in Table 4 of this specification. Using the flow rate measured by
the Volumetric Method as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    (2) Gravimetric Method. This method applies to any CPMS that is
designed to measure liquid flow rate, liquid mass flow rate, or
solid mass flow rate. With the process or control device that is
monitored by your flow CPMS operating under normal conditions,
record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS for the subject
process line. At the same time, collect the material (liquid or
solid) that is flowing or being transferred through the same process
line for a measured length of time using the Weighing, Weigh Tank,
or Gravimetric Methods specified in the standards listed in Table 5.
Using the flow rate measured by the Weighing, Weigh Tank, or
Gravimetric Methods as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    (3) Differential Pressure Measurement Method. This method
applies only to flow CPMS that use a differential pressure
measurement flow device, such as an orifice plate, flow nozzle, or
venturi tube. This method may not be used to validate a flow CPMS
that measures gas flow by means of one or more differential pressure
tubes. With the process or control device that is monitored by your
CPMS operating under normal conditions, record the flow rate
measured by your flow CPMS. Under the same operating conditions,
disconnect the pressure taps from your flow CPMS and connect the
pressure taps to a mercury-in-glass U-tube manometer, a water-in-
glass U-tube manometer, or calibrated differential pressure
measurement device. If a calibrated pressure measurement device is
used, the device must satisfy the accuracy requirements of section
6.5 of this specification. Perform a leak test on all manometer or
calibrated differential pressure measurement device connections
using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this specification.
Allow sufficient time for the response of the calibrated
differential pressure measurement device to reach equilibrium.
Within 30 minutes of measuring and recording the flow rate using
your CPMS, record the pressure drop measured by the calibrated
differential pressure measurement device. Using the manufacturer's
literature or the procedures specified in ASME MFC-3M-2004
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17), calculate the flow
rate that corresponds to the differential pressure measured by the
calibrated differential pressure measurement device. For CPMS that
use an orifice flow meter, the procedures specified in ASHRAE 41.8-
1989 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) also can be used
to calculate the flow rate. Using the calculated flow rate as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you
determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, the validation check is complete. If your
CPMS does not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of
this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    (4) Pressure Source Flow Simulation Method. This method applies
only to flow CPMS that use a differential pressure measurement flow
device, such as an orifice plate, flow nozzle, or venturi tube. This
method may not be used to validate a flow CPMS that measures gas
flow by means of one or more differential pressure tubes. Disconnect
your flow CPMS from the pressure taps. Connect separate pressure
sources to the upstream and downstream sides of your pressure CPMS,
where the pressure taps are normally connected. The pressure sources
must satisfy the accuracy requirements of section 6.5 of this
specification. The pressure sources also must be adjustable, either
continuously or incrementally over the pressure range that
corresponds to the range of your flow CPMS. Perform a leak test on
all connections between the calibrated pressure sources and your
flow CPMS using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Using the manufacturer's literature or the procedures
specified in ASME MFC-3M-2004 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.
60.17), calculate the required pressure drop that corresponds to the
normal operating flow rate expected for your flow CPMS. For CPMS
that use an orifice flow meter, the procedures specified in ASHRAE
41.8-1989 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) also can be
used to calculate the pressure drop. Use the calibrated pressure
sources to apply the calculated pressure drop to your flow CPMS.
Allow sufficient time for the responses of the calibrated pressure
sources to reach equilibrium. Record the flow rate measured by your
flow CPMS. Using the flow rate measured by your CPMS when the
calculated pressure drop was applied as the value for Vc,
follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification
to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of
Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS
satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification,
the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this procedure
until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification is
satisfied. If you are required to measure and record flow rate at
multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each location.
    (5) Electronic Signal Simulation Method. This method applies to
any flow CPMS that uses a flow sensor that generates an electronic
signal. Disconnect the sensor from your flow CPMS and connect to
your CPMS a calibrated simulation device that is designed to
simulate the same type of electrical response as the sensor of your
CPMS. The calibrated simulation device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements of section 6.5 of this specification. Perform a leak
test on all connections between the calibrated simulation device and
your flow CPMS using the procedure specified in section 8.10 of this
specification. Simulate a typical flow rate that is monitored by
your flow CPMS under normal operating conditions. Allow sufficient
time for the response of the calibrated simulation device to reach
equilibrium. Record the flow rate measured by your flow CPMS. Using
the flow rate simulated by the calibrated simulation device as the
value for Vc, follow the procedure specified in section
12.2 of this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you
determine that your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, the validation check is complete. If the
calculated accuracy does not meet the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification, check all system components and take any
corrective action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum
accuracy. Repeat this validation check until the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification is satisfied. If you
are required to measure and record flow rate at multiple locations,
repeat this procedure for each location.

    (6) Relative Accuracy (RA) Test. This method applies to any flow
CPMS that measures gas flow rate. If your flow CPMS uses a
differential flow tube as the flow sensor, you must use this method
to validate your flow CPMS. The reference methods (RM's) applicable
to this test are Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2F of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-1 and Method 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2. Conduct
three sets of RM tests. Mark the beginning and end of each RM test
period on the flow CPMS chart recordings or other permanent record
of output. Determine the integrated flow rate for each RM test
period. Perform the same calculations specified by section 7.5 in
PS-2 of this appendix. If the RA is no greater than 20 percent of
the mean value of the RM test data, the RA test is complete. If the
RA is greater than 20 percent of the mean value of the RM test data,
check all system components and take any corrective action that is
necessary to achieve the required RA. Repeat this RA test until the
RA requirement of this section is satisfied. If you are required to
measure and record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this
procedure for each location.
    (7) Material Weight Comparison Method. This method applies to
any solid mass flow CPMS that uses a combination of a belt conveyor
and scale and is equipped with a totalizer. To conduct this test,
pass a quantity of pre-weighed material over the belt conveyor in a
manner consistent with actual loading conditions. To weigh the test
quantity of material that is to be used during the initial
validation, you must use a scale that satisfies the accuracy
requirements of section 6.5 of this specification. The test quantity
must be sufficient to challenge the conveyor belt-scale system for
at least three revolutions of the belt. Record the length of the
test. Calculate the mass flow rate using the measured weight and the
recorded time. Using this mass flow rate as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, check all system components and take any corrective
action that is necessary to achieve the required minimum accuracy.
Repeat this validation check until the accuracy requirement of Table
8 of this specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure
and record flow rate at multiple locations, repeat this procedure
for each location. In addition, you must perform an initial
validation check on the integrator used by your material feed CPMS
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
    8.7 How do I perform an initial validation check of my pH CPMS?
You must perform an initial validation check of your pH CPMS using
either of the methods described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
section.
    (1) Comparison to Calibrated pH Measurement Device. Place a
calibrated pH measurement device adjacent to your pH CPMS so that
the calibrated test device is subjected to the same environment as
your pH CPMS. The calibrated pH measurement device must satisfy the
accuracy requirements specified in section 6.5 of this
specification. Allow sufficient time for the response of the
calibrated pH measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the
process or control device that is monitored by your CPMS operating
under normal conditions, concurrently record the pH measured by your
pH CPMS and the calibrated pH measurement device. If concurrent
readings are not possible, extract a sufficiently large sample from
the process stream and perform measurements using a portion of the
sample for each meter. Using the pH measured by the calibrated pH
measurement device as the value for Vc, follow the
procedure specified in section 12.2 of this specification to
determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8
of this specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record pH at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for each
location.
    (2) Single Point Calibration. This method requires the use of a
certified buffer solution. All buffer solutions used must be
certified by NIST and accurate to 0.02 pH units at 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). Set the temperature on your pH meter to the
temperature of the buffer solution, typically room temperature or 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). If your pH meter is equipped with automatic
temperature compensation, activate this feature before calibrating.
Set your pH meter to measurement mode. Place the clean electrodes
into the container of fresh buffer solution. If the expected pH of
the process fluid lies in the acidic range (less than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 4.00. If the expected pH of the
process fluid lies in the basic range (greater than 7 pH), use a
buffer solution with a pH value of 10.00. Allow sufficient time for
the response of your pH CPMS to reach equilibrium. Record the pH
measured by your CPMS. Using the buffer solution pH as the value for
Vc, follow the procedure specified in section 12.2 of
this specification to determine if your CPMS satisfies the accuracy
requirement of Table 8 of this specification. If you determine that
your CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification, the validation check is complete. If your CPMS does
not satisfy the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this procedure,
calibrate your pH CPMS using the procedures specified in the
manufacturer's owner's manual. If the manufacturer's owner's manual
does not specify a two-point calibration procedure, you must perform
a two-point calibration procedure based on ASTM D1293-99 (2005)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17). If you are required to
measure and record pH at multiple locations, repeat this procedure
for each location.
    8.8 How do I perform an initial validation check of my
conductivity CPMS? You must perform an initial validation check of
your conductivity CPMS using either of the methods described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Comparison to Calibrated Conductivity Measurement Device.
Place a calibrated conductivity measurement device adjacent to your
conductivity CPMS so that the calibrated measurement device is
subjected to the same environment as your conductivity CPMS. The
calibrated conductivity measurement device must satisfy the accuracy
requirements specified in section 6.5 of this specification. Allow
sufficient time for the response of the calibrated conductivity
measurement device to reach equilibrium. With the process or control
device that is monitored by your CPMS operating under normal
conditions, concurrently record the conductivity measured by your
conductivity CPMS and the calibrated conductivity measurement
device. If concurrent readings are not possible, extract a
sufficiently large sample from the process stream and perform
measurements using a portion of the sample for each meter. Using the
conductivity measured by the calibrated conductivity measurement
device as the value for Vc, follow the procedure
specified in section 12.2 of this specification to determine if your
CPMS satisfies the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification. If you determine that your CPMS satisfies the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, the
validation check is complete. If your CPMS does not satisfy the
accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this specification, check all
system components and take any corrective action that is necessary
to achieve the required minimum accuracy. Repeat this validation
check procedure until the accuracy requirement of Table 8 of this
specification is satisfied. If you are required to measure and
record conductivity at multiple locations, repeat this procedure for
each location.
    (2) Single Point Calibration. This method requires the use of a
certified conductivity standard solution. All solutions used must be
certified by NIST and accurate to 2 percent micromhos
per centimeter ([mu]mhos/cm) (2 percent microsiemens per
centimeter ([mu]S/cm)) at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F). Choose a
conductivity standard solution that is close to the measuring range
for best results. Since conductivity is dependent on temperature,
the conductivity tester should have an integral temperature sensor
that adjusts the reading to a standard temperature, usually 25
[deg]C (77 [deg]F). If the conductivity meter allows for manual