[Federal Register: September 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55635-55657]
[DOCID:fr13se10-12]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61, et al.

Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 61 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0531; FRL-9195-7]
RIN 2060-AP23

Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to promulgate amendments to the
General Provisions to allow accredited providers to supply stationary
source audit samples and to require sources to obtain and use these
samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA, as is the
current practice. All requirements pertaining to the audit samples have
been moved to the General Provisions and have been removed from the
test methods because the current language in the test methods regarding
audit samples is inconsistent from method to method. Therefore,
deleting all references to audit samples in the test methods eliminates
any possible confusion and inconsistencies. Under this final rule, the
requirement to use an audit sample during a compliance test will apply
to all test methods for which a commercially available audit exists.

DATES: This final rule is effective 30 days after September 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0531. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Restructuring of the
Stationary Source Audit Program Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-OAR-2008-
0531, EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Candace Sorrell, U.S. EPA, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
Measurement Technology Group (E143-02), Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action would apply to you if you operate a stationary source
that is subject to applicable requirements to conduct compliance
testing under 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63.
    In addition, this action would apply to you if Federal, State, or
local agencies take certain additional actions. For example, this
action would apply if State or local agencies implement regulations
using any of the stationary source compliance test methods in Appendix
M of Part 51 by adopting these methods in rules or permits (either by
incorporation by reference or by duplicating the method in its
entirety).
    The source categories and entities potentially affected include,
but are not limited to, the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
           Category                 NAICS \a\            entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................<PHONE_NUMBER>12  Surface Coating.
Industry......................            332410  Industrial,
                                                   Commercial,
                                                   Institutional Steam
                                                   Generating Units.
Industry......................            332410  Electric Generating
                                                   Units.
Industry......................            333611  Stationary Gas
                                                   Turbines.
Industry......................            324110  Petroleum Refineries.
Industry......................            562213  Municipal Waste
                                                   Combustors.
Industry......................            322110  Pulp and Paper Mills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I obtain a copy of this action and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the final rule is also available on the Worldwide Web (http://
www.epa.gov/ttn) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will
be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.

C. How is this document organized?

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I obtain a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. How is this document organized?
II. Background
III. This Action
IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
    A. Accreditation Program vs. Audit Program
    B. Alternatives to Restructuring the Audit Program
    C. Test Method Bias With Respect to the Audit Program
    D. Terms Need Defining or Clarifying
    E. Audit Sample Failure and Non-Compliance
    F. Reporting Period
    G. Choosing Correct Concentration for an Audit Sample
    H. Cost Estimates
    I. Requiring the Same Analyst and Analytical System for Sample
Analysis
    J. When are audit samples required?
    K. Audit Sample Availability
    L. Setting Acceptance Limits
    M. Audit Samples Should Not Apply to Instrumental Methods
    N. Notice and Comment Procedure
    O. Field Analysis of Audit Samples
    P. Audit Sample Matrix
    Q. Audit Results Reporting and Availability
    R. External QA Program
    S. No Justification for the Program
    T. Consistency
    U. Ordering Audit Samples
    V. EPA Maintained List of Audit Providers
    W. 2003 Study on Quality Gas Cylinder Samples
    X. Proposal Is Premature
    Y. Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) Standard Does Not
Meet EPA's Needs
    Z. Gas Audit Samples Entry Point
V. Judicial Review

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

II. Background

    The Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP) was
proposed in the Federal Register on June 16, 2009, with a public
comment period that ended July 16, 2009 (74 FR 28451). A public
commenter asked that the comment period be extended. We extended the
public comment period until August 5, 2009 (74 FR 31903). A total of 21
comment letters were received on the proposed rule. We have compiled
and responded to the public comments and made appropriate changes to
the final rule based on the comments.

III. This Action

    This action finalizes revisions to the General Provisions of Parts
51, 60, 61, and 63 to allow accredited audit sample providers to supply
stationary source audit samples and to require sources to obtain and
use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from EPA, as
was the practice. It also revises test methods 5I, 6, 6A-C, 7, 7A-D, 8,
15A, 16A, 18, 23, 25, 25C, 25D, 26, 26A, 104, 106, 108, 108A-C, 204A-F,
306, 306A, and 308 to delete any language pertaining to audit samples.
By adding language to the General Provisions of Parts 51, 60, 61 and
63, the requirement to obtain and use audits for stationary source
compliance testing using EPA stationary source test methods is expanded
and clarified. The previous General Provisions and EPA test methods
were not consistent in their language concerning the use or
availability of audit samples. This action will potentially increase
the number of test methods required to use audit samples and clarify
how the samples are to be obtained and used. By clarifying the
requirement for audit samples and expanding their availability through
multiple providers, EPA believes audit samples will be used during more
compliance tests and, therefore, the overall quality of the data used
for determining compliance will improve.
    This action finalizes the regulatory criteria which list the
minimum requirements for the audit samples, the accredited audit sample
providers (AASP), and the audit sample provider acceditor (ASPA). The
AASP is the company that prepares and distributes the audit samples and
the ASPA is a third-party organization that will accredit and monitor
the performance of the AASPs. Both the AASP and the ASPA must work with
a Voluntary Consensus Standard Body (VCSB) using the consensus process
to develop criteria documents that describe how they will function and
meet EPA regulatory criteria listed in this rule. The Federal Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-119 defines a VCSB as one having the
following attributes: (i) Openness; (ii) balance of interest; (iii) due
process; (iv) an appeals process; and (v) consensus, which is general
agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for
attempting to resolve objections by interested parties. As long as all
comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the
disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reason(s) why, and the
consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes
after reviewing the comments.
    AASPs must be accredited by an ASPA according to a technical
criteria document developed by a VCSB. The technical criteria document
must meet EPA regulations. There may be many AASPs and more than one
ASPA and VCSB. We predict that initially there will only be one VCSB.
    This action finalizes language that outlines the responsibilities
of the regulated source owner or operator to acquire and use an audit
sample for all testing conducted to determine compliance with an air
emission limit. The requirement applies only if there are commercially
available audit samples for the test method used during the compliance
testing. The source owner, operator or representative shall report the
results for the audit sample along with a summary of the emission test
results for the audited pollutant to the appropriate compliance
authority.
    In addition to allowing private AASPs to provide audit samples for
the stationary source audit program, this action shifts the burden of
obtaining an audit sample from the compliance authority to the source.
In the past, the EPA provided the samples to the compliance authorities
at no cost, but this action requires the source to purchase the samples
from an accredited provider. The samples will vary in cost depending on
the type of audit sample required; however, the cost will be a very
small portion of the cost of a compliance test (approximately one
percent). Based on historical data, EPA estimates that the total cost
to industry to purchase audit samples will be between $150,000 to
$200,000 per year at the current usage rate.

IV. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    A more detailed summary of the public comments and our responses
can be found in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document,
which is available from several sources (see ADDRESSES section). The
major public comments are summarized by subject as follows:

A. Accreditation Program vs. Audit Program

    Comment: Several comments suggested that the audit program was not
needed due to the existence of accreditation programs for laboratories
or that EPA should conduct a proficiency testing program as part of an
accreditation program.
    Response: An accreditation program or proficiency testing program
serves a different purpose than an audit program. An accreditation
program looks to see if the laboratory has the capabilities to conduct
the analysis in question. The audit program is an event driven program
that looks to see at a particular time that the combination of
equipment and analyzer is able to analyze the sample within an
acceptable range. Analyzing the audit samples at the same time as the
field samples using the same equipment and analyst give the compliance
authorities and the regulated community more confidence in the test
results.

B. Alternatives to Restructuring the Audit Program

    Comment: A number of commenters suggested alternatives to our
proposed restructuring of the audit program to allow for independent
accredited audit sample providers. These alternatives included
maintaining the audit program as it currently stands in order to
maintain oversight/authority, charging for audit samples, or conducting
an EPA accreditation program for audit sample providers.
    Response: We retain oversight authority over all parties who
develop

information required by EPA to fully assess the proper implementation
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 114 of the Act gives EPA the
authority to require the production of information, test results and
answers to questions EPA may ask. We do not believe that it is
necessary for EPA to directly provide or approve specific audit samples
in order to ensure integrity in this program.
    We do not believe it is necessary to develop a program to certify
audit providers when there are already Voluntary Consensus Bodies in
existence that have the capabilities to develop such a program with the
input from a wide variety of stakeholders. Also, EPA is not legally
allowed to charge for the samples. It would be a violation of the
Miscellaneous Receipts Statute, 331 U.S.C. Section 3302(b), in addition
to being an unlawful augmentation of EPA's Congressional appropriation.

C. Test Method Bias With Respect to the Audit Program

    Comment: One commenter noted that by definition a performance audit
is intended to provide a measure of test data bias. The commenter
stated that this program is presumably intended as an audit of
emissions sampling and analysis that would include the sampling
technique, sample handling, sample preparation, and sample analysis
accounting for the measurement biases relative to all steps of the
process. However, this is not clear in the proposed rule. Please
clarify the intent of the performance audit.
    Response: Most of the current audit samples only evaluate the
analysis portion of the method; we believe that in the future
restructured program more audits will assess the effect of sampling and
handling because we defined blind audit sample as follows: ``A blind
audit sample is a sample whose value is known only to the sample
provider and is not revealed to the tested facility until after they
report the measured value of the audit sample. For pollutants that
exist in the gas phase at ambient temperature, the audit sample shall
consist of an appropriate concentration of the pollutant in air or
nitrogen that will be introduced into the sampling system of the test
method at or near the same entry point as a sample from the emission
source.''

D. Terms Need Defining or Clarifying

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the following terms be
defined in the final rule: Commercially available and true value.
    Response: We agree that ``commercially available'' and ``true
value'' need to be defined. The final rule has been revised to state
that an audit sample is ``commercially available'' when there are two
or more sources for obtaining the audit sample. ``True value'' is the
spiked/expected value of the audit.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the term ``performance
audit'' be revised to include the potential for field collection of
audit samples.
    Response: Our intent was to include field collection and analysis
in the definition of performance audit. We revised the definition in
the final rule to state that if gaseous audits are available then they
must be collected by the field sampling system during the compliance
test just as the compliance samples are collected.

E. Audit Sample Failure and Non-Compliance

    Comment: Seven commenters oppose the use of audit samples as
evidence of non-compliance and believe the audit sample results should
only be used as a tool to assess the quality of the compliance testing
results but not as the sole reason for finding a facility in non-
compliance when the emission test may demonstrate compliance.
    Response: We believe the audit sample results can and should be
used to assess the quality of test results for compliance purposes, but
those audit sample results can and should, as appropriate, also be used
to assist in establishing non-compliance. Sources may present whatever
credible evidence they have to compliance officials indicating whether
or not the audit sample results have a significant bearing on the
compliance test results.
    Comment: Three commenters recommended that the rule provide a means
to appeal or question a retest or compliance action as the result of a
failed audit. They believe that EPA should provide oversight authority
to referee such situations, while one commenter suggested a procedure
to require the audit sample be reanalyzed by the accredited audit
sample provider.
    Response: Audit samples are not the only criterion used to evaluate
the quality of the test data; therefore, we do not expect disputes to
be common. We believe that disputes involving failed audits can be
negotiated by the parties.

F. Reporting Period

    Comment: Three commenters requested that the final rule include
additional time to submit a final report if audit results must be
included in the report or delete the requirement to include the pass/
fail results in the final report.
    Response: Since the purpose of an audit sample is to support the
credibility of a particular test result, it is important that the pass/
fail result of the audit sample be included in the final test report.
By privatizing the audit program, facilities will be able to get audit
results directly from the AASPs which will be much quicker then
obtaining them from the compliance authorities as in the past. Since
the procedure for obtaining audit results will now be quicker, the
final rule does not include additional time to submit a final report.

G. Choosing Correct Concentration for an Audit Sample

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule did
not provide for compliance authority input into the supplied audit
concentration levels. This commenter pointed out that while the
proposal specifies that the source provide an estimate of the pollutant
concentration(s), there is no compliance authority confirmation, nor
the option for the compliance authority to make specific requests based
on the needs for the given test program.
    Response: We agree that the compliance authority should have the
opportunity for input into the supplied audit sample concentration
level. The final rule has been revised to require that an acceptable
criteria document must provide the opportunity for the compliance
authority to comment with the supplied audit sample concentration
levels.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Section 60.8(g)(1), ``When
ordering an audit sample, the source operator, or representative shall
give the sample provider an estimate for the concentration of each
pollutant that is emitted by the source and the name, address, and
phone number of the compliance authority'' will cause confusion because
a source may or may not know the concentration of the pollutant of
concern. Because EPA's interest is in ensuring that the emission
standards are being met, the commenter suggested that the requirement
should be to provide information on the standard the facility has to
meet and the concentration that would be expected if the emissions
equaled the permitted level.
    Response: We agree that the facility could provide information
based on the facility standard or permit level instead of exact
emissions. The rule has been revised to allow this option.

H. Cost Estimates

    Comment: Four commenters stated that the cost estimates for audit
samples

are low. The commenters also asserted that the cost will be more than
the EPA's estimate of approximately 1 percent of a source test. One
commenter cited an example where a NELAC Performance Test (PT) sample
initially cost $150 and quickly increased to over $900 for just a
standard SO2 gas audit sample.
    Response: The commenter did not present any evidence to support
this cost, and we were not able to substantiate the claim. According to
discussions with the Executive Director of The NELAC Institute, the
current cost range of SO2 PT samples is approximately $95 to
$108, and we expect the cost for the SO2 audit samples to be
about the same because they are made exactly the same and only used for
different purposes. The cost estimates discussed in the proposed
rulemaking are based on the last ten years that EPA has operated the
program.
    Comment: Seven commenters stated that EPA significantly
underestimated the cost of the audit program because EPA did not
include the analytical fees associated with the audit.
    Response: Analytical fees are not a new cost. Facilities have
always been required to pay for the analysis of the audit samples even
under the current program where we have provided the audit samples free
of charge. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to add
analytical fees to the estimated cost for the program.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the cost estimates
and the Information Collection Request (ICR) are woefully incomplete.
This commenter stated that EPA's estimate should include the total
costs and burdens imposed on sources by the proposed new SSAP such as
the cost to sources for purchasing audit samples, analyzing (and in
some cases reanalyzing) audit samples, reporting audit sample results
and other information, developing and implementing the other aspects of
the proposed ``external QA program,'' and participating initially and
every two years thereafter in the proposed VCSB ``public process'' to
ensure that criteria developed by those organizations are reasonable,
and not just the cost incurred by the AASP to report the true value of
the audit sample. This commenter believes that the burden estimate
should also include the cost to EPA of reviewing and approving proposed
``written technical criteria documents'' and otherwise participating in
the VCSB process. This commenter believes that EPA could limit the ICR
to the cost incurred by the AASP to report the true value of the audit
sample only if the other burdens already were covered under an approved
ICR for the period in question.
    Response: The ICR estimate of burden includes the estimated cost
for the AASP to report the results of the audit to the compliance
authority. In addition, the ICR has been revised to include the cost of
the audit sample since in the past the audit samples were free. The
cost of the requirement to analyze (and in some cases reanalyze) audit
samples and reporting audit sample results has already been taken into
account in past ICRs for each emission limit under the New Source
Performance Standards which contained a burden estimate for reporting
emission testing results to demonstrate compliance with emission
limits. We believe that not all compliance tests that should be audited
are being audited under the current program. We believe under the
restructured program the rate of compliance with the audit requirement
will be higher; therefore, we have revised the ICR to reflect the fact
that more audit samples will be purchased. The final rule does not
require anyone to participate in the VCSB ``public process'' and,
therefore, the cost of participating was not included in the ICR.

I. Requiring the Same Analyst and Analytical System for Sample Analysis

    Comment: Two commenters are concerned about the requirement that
the audit sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same
analytical reagents and analytical system as the compliance samples.
These commenters pointed out that there may be several gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometers in a particular lab, and all of these
instruments are calibrated and certified, so that it does not matter
which of these instruments are used to analyze an individual sample.
    Response: While EPA agrees that identical instruments calibrated by
the same reagents should give the same answer within repeatability
limits, EPA also believes that it is important to limit all sources of
imprecision and, therefore, the audits should be analyzed using the
same analyst and the same analytical system as the compliance test
samples.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement that the ``audit
sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same analytical
reagents and analytical system as the compliance samples'' should be
expanded to specify analyzing them in the same batch as the compliance
samples and, if they are collected in the field, to collect them with
the same person(s), using the same reagents and collection system. This
commenter suggested that if field testers use different sampling trains
to collect compliance samples during different test runs, from then the
tester should collect audit samples with all the trains and analyze the
samples from the different trains separately or as a composite.
    Response: We have revised the final rule to clarify how field
audits should be collected when the audit sample is designed to check
the sampling system. The final rule requires that field audits must be
collected using the same field testing person who collected the field
samples using one of the field sampling systems that was used to
collect the compliance samples. If multiple sampling systems were used,
the rule will not require that each sampling train used during the
field test be used to collect an audit sample. The revised rule also
requires that the audit samples must be analyzed at the same time as
the test samples unless the compliance authority waives this
requirement.

J. When are audit samples required?

    Comment: Two commenters believe it makes more sense for the source
and the compliance authority to discuss the need for an audit sample on
a case-by-case basis instead of EPA making it mandatory for each
individual test.
    Response: The requirement for an audit sample is nothing new.
Current regulations require audit samples if they are available and we
do not see a need to change the requirement. We believe that the
program should be administered consistently across the Nation and the
only way to do that is to require the tester to include an audit sample
with all compliance tests using methods for which audits are available.
The compliance authority can always waive the requirement to include an
audit sample for a specific compliance test if they believe the audit
sample is not necessary.
    Comment: Four commenters stated that the proposed rule was unclear
with respect to how many audit samples may be required during a given
performance test. They stated that if the same method is used and the
same pollutant is sampled, then only one audit sample should be
necessary for the entire set of samples collected during a test
program.
    Response: We agree that only one audit sample per method used
during a performance test is needed so long as all pollutants measured
using that method are covered by the audit sample. The final rule has
been revised to clarify this.

K. Audit Sample Availability

    Comment: Two commenters are concerned that the timing for checking
on availability of a specific pollutant audit sample does not mesh with
the 60-day requirement to submit a test protocol for approval by the
permitting authority. The commenters suggested that the cut-off date
for sources to locate and incorporate audit sample requirements into a
performance test plan must be at least three months prior to submitting
the test protocol to their permitting authority.
    Response: There is no requirement under the amended SSAP program to
submit a test protocol for approval by the compliance authority. If a
source chooses to voluntarily prepare and submit a test protocol, the
protocol could incorporate audit sample requirements that would have to
be met only if an audit sample became available 60 days prior to the
scheduled test date.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA presumes that there will be
Accredited Audit Sample Providers or Accredited Proficiency Test Sample
Providers willing to get in the business of supplying the necessary
audits for all applicable methods. The commenters suggested that EPA
should plan for a transition period if there is a delay in getting
providers accredited.
    Response: We anticipate that audit samples will be available for
most if not all the methods for which EPA currently provides audit
samples. We know that The NELAC Institute is currently developing
criteria documents and accreditation standards to produce audit
standards (http://www.nelac-institute.org/standards.php) so we know
there is interest in the private sector. We believe there will be an
accredited audit program in the future. Therefore, we do not believe
that there is a need for a transition period during which EPA would
continue to provide audit samples until an accredited audit sample
provider is approved. Again, if an audit sample is not available, there
is no requirement for use of an audit sample.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that PT samples should not be used
in place of audit samples, unless PT providers follow the provider
requirements and be accepted as an audit sample provider by a provider
accreditor, as set forth in the Standards defined by the VCSB they are
using.
    Response: We agree with this comment. The rule has been revised to
remove the option of using PT samples in place of audit samples if
audit samples are not available.
    Comment: One commenter believes EPA should not allow sources to
forgo using an audit sample if the EPA fails to identify a provider on
its Web site 60 days before a scheduled test. This commenter contends
that EPA should leave the job of identifying providers and which
samples are available to the sources that are required to demonstrate
compliance.
    Response: It takes time to plan and prepare for a source test. We
do not want a source to be cited for a violation because an audit
sample becomes available a short time before the compliance test. We
also do not want sources and testing firms to spend time every day
looking for available audit samples. Therefore, we believe the final
rule needs to provide a 60-day time frame so that sources can properly
plan a compliance test. In addition, listing the available audits on
our Web site not only benefits the sources but also the compliance
authorities. The list provides one location for them to see what is
available; otherwise they too would have to constantly contact
providers for information on available audits.

L. Setting Acceptance Limits

    Comment: Two commenters are concerned about allowing the VCSBs to
determine the audit acceptance criteria. The commenters contend that
EPA needs to define its minimum requirements to define the acceptable
level of performance for compliance purposes and not leave it up to
voluntary consensus organizations.
    Response: We agree that EPA needs to define minimum requirements
for how the acceptance criteria should be determined in the final rule.
The final rule has been revised to specify that acceptance criteria
must be based on results from the analysis of audit test samples
analyzed by qualified laboratories using the method that is being
audited. The final rule requires that acceptance limits must be set so
that 90 percent of qualified laboratories would produce results within
the acceptance limits for 95 percent of all future audits. This
acceptance criterion is consistent with the general goal that EPA
established for the program it operated in the past.

M. Audit Samples Should Not Apply to Instrumental Methods

    Comment: Three commenters expressed confusion and concern over how
audit samples would be applied to instrumental methods and other test
methods involving human observers (i.e., Method 9 and 22).
    Response: We agree that it is not necessary to require audit
samples for those test methods that use instruments to measure
pollutants in stack gas samples taken directly from an emission source.
These methods include Method 3C, 6C, 7E, 10, 20, 25A, 318, 320, and
321. These methods already have sufficient calibration and quality
assurance requirements that would make an additional audit sample
redundant. We believe that Method 18 also has sufficient quality
assurance measures that make an audit sample unnecessary. This method
requires that the tester perform a recovery study through the entire
sampling system to demonstrate that the combined sampling and
analytical system is capable of measuring the target pollutant within
specified limits. The measured results are then corrected to account
for the empirically determined recovery. We believe that for this
method an audit sample would not add significant additional information
about the quality of the measured results. We have revised the final
rule to specifically exempt Methods 3C, 6C, 7E, 9, 10, 18, 20, 22, 25A,
303, 318, 320, and 321 from the requirement to have an audit sample. We
also agree that Methods 9, 22, and 303 do not need audit samples. These
are all methods for determining visible emissions by observation and,
therefore, there is no practical way to audit them. The final rule has
been revised to exempt these methods from the audit sample requirement.

N. Notice and Comment Procedure

    Comment: One commenter believes this proposal turns the
requirements of the ``National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA)'' (Pub. L. 104-113) ``on its head'' because the NTTAA
requires EPA (and other Federal agencies) to use standards already
adopted by VCSBs, where appropriate, rather than developing their own
government-unique standards. In addition NTTAA requires EPA to
participate in the development of such standards to help ensure their
usefulness in government applications but does not authorize EPA to
adopt VCSB standards that do not currently exist, to adopt rules that
condition sources' compliance with Federal regulations on a VCSB's
adoption of standards, or to require regulated sources to participate
in future VCSB proceedings in order to protect their interests.
    The commenter also contends that EPA's own regulations do not allow
EPA to approve and incorporate by reference future VCSB standards

because it would be an unlawful circumvention of notice and comment
procedures, and of limitations on incorporation by reference.
    Response: The NTTAA only requires agencies to use VCS in regulatory
actions when VCSs are available. There are no current standards adopted
by VCSBs for audit samples. We are allowing VCSBs to develop standards
for audit samples and allowing these standards to be used for
government applications. These audit samples are not used to determine
compliance. They are quality assurance tools used during compliance
testing to assist in determining the accuracy of the compliance
testing. The final rule does not condition a sources's compliance with
Federal regulations on a VCSBs adoption of standards. If audit samples
do not exist for a particular compliance test, an audit sample is not
required. Although some may choose to participate, there is also no
requirement that sources participate in future VCSB proceedings.
    On the second point, we did not circumvent notice and comment
procedures. The final rule establishes minimum requirements for the
audit samples, the accredited audit sample providers and the audit
sample provider accreditor. We have proposed these criteria for notice
and comment. Although audit samples may be produced in the future, the
only audit samples that we will accept are those that meet the
substantive requirements of this rule. Accordingly, all commenters have
had a full opportunity to discuss their concerns with the requirements
set for audit samples by this rule.

O. Field Analysis of Audit Samples

    Comment: Five commenters requested that the final rule be revised
to allow the owner/operator to obtain a waiver from the requirement to
have the compliance authority present at the testing site on a case-by-
case basis when the method being audited is a method that allows the
samples to be analyzed in the field and tester plans to analyze the
samples in the field because it may not be practical for a
representative from the compliance authority to be on-site for every
one of these audit analyses.
    Response: We agree that it may not be practical in all cases for a
representative of the compliance authority to be present when an audit
sample is analyzed in the field, so we revised the final rule to allow
the owner/operator to obtain a waiver from the compliance authority for
the requirement to have the compliance authority present at the testing
site.

P. Audit Sample Matrix

    Comment: Three commenters discussed the issue of the audit sample
matrix. One commenter felt we needed to be clear about what
interferents can and cannot be added to the samples to ensure
consistency among the audit providers. Another commenter stated that
EPA must specifically require that audit samples include realistic
interferents while the third commenter found the use of interferents
troubling since the audit providers would not necessarily know what to
mimic.
    Response: The term sample matrix was not intended to imply that the
audit samples were to be prepared in a manner that would duplicate an
emission gas stream. The term matrix is only used in conjunction with
those samples that do not consist of the pollutant in the gas phase in
air or nitrogen. The term matrix was used to indicate that if a method
collected the pollutant in a similar aqueous solution, then the audit
sample should consist of the pollutant in an aqueous solution. The EPA
believes that preparing audit samples in a matrix that would include
interferents that might or might not be present in the stack is too
complex to be workable. EPA is not requiring that interferents be
included in the audit samples.

Q. Audit Results Reporting and Availability

    Comment: One commenter believes the compliance authority should be
provided a copy of the audit results at the time of shipment from the
sample provider because having the results prior to sample analysis
helps generate more accurate data and minimizes problems.
    Response: We believe that this would be beneficial but should not
be mandatory. Since we did not provide the compliance authorities with
the actual concentrations under the current audit program, it is hard
to justify making it mandatory.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that if the audit is conducted in
the field and the results of the audit are available prior to
conducting the emission tests, the facility should be provided with
information on the pass/fail status of the audit test results prior to
carrying out the source test. The commenter points out that this would
avoid unnecessary testing and waste of resources when the ability of
the source tester is in question because of failure to produce
acceptable results for the audit sample.
    Response: We agree with the commenter, and there is nothing in the
final rule to prevent this scenario.
    Comment: One commenter stated that audit sample providers should
report only pass or fail for the audit sample result and not the true
value of the audit sample because audit samples are to be unknowns.
This commenter was concerned that if the audit samples are supplied in
a limited number of concentrations, then over time this might reveal
the true values and would compromise the unknown status of the audit
sample.
    Response: We agree that the sample's true value needs to remain
blind to the sources and laboratories at least until the values are
reported. The final rule has been revised to state that only pass or
fail results shall be reported unless the accredited audit sample
provider ensures that no laboratory will receive the same sample twice.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the audit sample provider would
be under no compliance (or contractual) obligation to provide a quick
turnaround on the audit results, so significant delay could occur
during this step, depending on the audit sample provider's
availability. This commenter asked EPA to add a regulatory provision
requiring the audit sample provider to send out the results of the
audit within 7 calendar days.
    Response: We agree that it is important that the AASPs provide a
quick turnaround of the audit results. The final rule includes a
requirement that AASPs submit the results in a timely manner. The AASPs
and the sources may decide a more specific time frame.

R. External QA Program

    Comment: One commenter expressed confusion and concern about the
proposed rule's use of the terminology ``External QA program'' and that
an additional requirement might be added to the external QA program.
    Response: The only mandatory requirement under the restructured
audit program would be to include an audit sample with each compliance
test. EPA has revised the final rule to make this clear.

S. No Justification for the Program

    Comment: Five commenters believe that EPA did not provide a
justification for continuing the current program or expanding the
program. Three commenters felt that the emergence of private providers
is an insufficient rationale for the rulemaking.
    Response: We disagree. The emergence of private providers is one
reason for changing the audit program. We discussed other reasons for
privatizing the audit program in the

Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Also, we believe allowing private
companies to provide audit samples will: (1) Ensure a wider range of
audit sample concentrations that will better match the working range of
the methods, (2) provide a more efficient and responsive system for
supplying the required samples, (3) ensure greater transparency in the
operation of the audit program, (4) produce higher quality audit
samples, and (5) ensure a more stable supply of samples.

T. Consistency

    Comment: One commenter noted that there was an inconsistency in the
proposed rules between the language in Part 51 and that in Part 60.
According to this commenter, the language in Part 51 could be
interpreted to mean that the results for an audit sample could be
reported to the AASP or Accredited PT Sample Providers (APTSP) at some
later time after reporting to the compliance authority, whereas the
language in Part 60 could be interpreted to mean that the audit sample
results should be reported to the compliance authority and to the AASP
or APTSP at the same time. The commenter suggested that the statement
in Part 51 should be amended to correspond with the statement in Part
60.
    Response: We agree that the two statements should be consistent.
The final rule has been revised so all parts require that the audit
sample results be reported to the compliance authority and the audit
sample provider at the same time.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) General
Provisions for consistency with the proposed audit restructuring
program. The commenter pointed out that provisions in 63.7(4)(i) state
that ``audit materials may be obtained by contacting the appropriate
EPA Regional Office or responsible enforcement authority,'' and this
language conflicts with the proposed rule.
    Response: We agree and the final rule has been revised to correct
the inconsistency.

U. Ordering Audit Samples

    Comment: Two commenters stated that it is not clear who is
responsible for obtaining the audit samples because the proposed rule
allows the source or an agent for the source to request the audit
sample for a source test. The commenters requested that EPA clarify the
type of documentation that would be needed by the agent to demonstrate
to the AASP that it is indeed an agent for the source.
    Response: This provision was intended to allow the source owner or
someone designated by the owner such as a member of a source testing
firm to request the audit sample. The agent would need to work with the
AASP to provide any documentation necessary to satisfy the AASP that
they were an agent acting for the source.
    Comment: One commenter believes there should be a time-frame for
the source to order audit samples and the compliance authority should
be notified when an audit sample was ordered.
    Response: The final rule has been revised to provide the compliance
authority input into the audit sample concentration range which in
itself provides the compliance authority notification of an audit
sample order. We believe the time frame for ordering audit samples is
an issue that should be considered by the source owner, compliance
authority and the AASP. It is not an issue that is covered by this
rule.

V. EPA Maintained List of Audit Providers

    Comment: One commenter is concerned that if source owners seek the
lowest cost AASPs, then there could be audit sample shortages,
unforeseeable variations in costs, audit quality issues, and last
minute failures in AASPs supplying audit samples. The commenter also
asked that EPA flag or remove any AASP that fails to deliver audit
material as offered or promised.
    Response: We intend to monitor the progress of this new system of
supplying audit samples to ensure that it works as anticipated. We
anticipate that most AASPs will deliver on their contracts, as most
businesses want repeat customers.

W. 2003 Study on Quality Gas Cylinder Samples

    Comment: One commenter believes reliance on voluntary consensus
requirements for accreditation of audit samples does little to improve
the reliability of compliance testing, and may threaten the quality of
the testing itself without additional procedures for qualifying and
auditing private entities. The commenter believes this makes the EPA
proposal arbitrary and unreasonable. As proof of this contention, the
commenter points to a 2003 study where EPA performed an audit of 42
source-level, tri-blend, EPA Protocol calibration gas cylinders from a
total of 14 major gas vendors nationwide. The commenter points out that
the overall failure rate from this study was 11 percent on a gas
component basis, and 57 percent on a vendor basis, and that no
additional evidence of the availability or the quality or calibration
of private vendor audit samples has been offered to refute EPA's own
study.
    Response: This study is not relevant to the restructuring of the
audit program. The gas vendors surveyed in this study were not
accredited to produce EPA Protocol calibration gases because the
protocol gas program does not require accreditation and were not
subject to any third party verification. The restructured audit program
requires that providers be accredited and provide recurring third party
verification of the quality of the audit samples being produced.

X. Proposal Is Premature

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that there were no
existing third party accrediting bodies for audit sample providers and,
therefore, there are no AASPs from which to obtain audit samples under
this proposed rule. This commenter contends that it is not sufficient
for EPA to simply propose a framework and then to develop the details
of the program after the opportunity for notice and comment has passed.
    Response: As stated previously, an audit sample is required with
compliance testing only when a sample is available, except where
exempted in the regulations. EPA is permitted to develop regulatory
criteria for approval of criteria documents from audit sample providers
and did this in the proposed rule which provided an opportunity for
notice and comment. These are not ``details of the program'' to be
determined at a later date. If an audit sample provider's criteria
document meets the regulatory criteria, it will be approved and the
sample provider may provide samples for sources conducting compliance
tests.

Y. Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) Standard Does Not Meet
EPA's Needs

    Comment: One commenter believes the entire proposal is short on
detail and hopes this will be addressed through EPA's approval of
accrediting bodies, where EPA would specify additional details. The
commenter also expressed concern the VCSB may be able to agree to
standards, but those standards might not serve the needs of EPA or
other compliance authorities.
    Response: We believe that any program that meets the minimum
criteria specified in the final rule will meet the needs of the EPA and
other

compliance agencies. The criteria in the final rule ensure that any
program that is developed by the private sector and approved by EPA
will be equivalent to EPA's current audit program.

Z. Gas Audit Samples Entry Point

    Comment: One commenter recommended changing Section 60.8(g) to read
as follows: ``For pollutants that exist in the gas phase at ambient
temperature, the audit sample shall consist of an appropriate
concentration of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that can be
introduced into the sampling system of the test method at or near the
same entry point as a sample from the emission source.'' The commenter
points out that in source gas sampling, calibration gases as well as
audit gases are introduced in the probe such that they pass through
most of the probe tube and all filters and other components of the
sampling system, but it is not always practical to introduce the
calibration gas at the same entry point as the source gas.
    Response: We agree that it may not always be practical to introduce
the calibration gas at the same entry point as the source gas. EPA has
revised the rule to allow introduction of the audit sample ``at or
near'' the entry point for the sample from the emission source.

V. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
rule is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by November 12, 2010.
Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final
rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this
action may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

VI. 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 (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is, therefore, not subject to review under the E.O.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this 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 requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    A regulated emission source conducting a compliance test would
purchase an audit sample from an AASP. The AASP would report the true
value of the audit sample to the compliance authority (State, local or
EPA Regional Office). This is a new reporting requirement. The AASP
would in most cases make the report by electronic mail. A report would
be made for each audit sample that the AASP sold to a regulated
emission source that was conducting an emissions test to determine
compliance with an emission limit.
    Based on historic data, EPA estimates that there will be about
1,000 audit samples sold each year generating the need for about 1,000
reports which corresponds to 80 hours burden or 0.08 hour per response
for reporting and recordkeeping. The estimated cost burden is $5.05 per
response or an annual burden of $5,050. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are small businesses. We
have determined that annually as many as 70 or 0.001 percent of small
businesses will experience an impact of 0.013 to 0.2 percent of
revenues.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The incremental costs associated with purchasing the audit samples
(expected to be less than $1,000 per test) do not impose a significant
burden on sources. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In fact, this rule
removes the responsibility of acquiring the audit samples to the
regulated facility from the government agency.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action adds language to the
general provisions to

allow accredited providers to supply stationary source audit samples
and to require sources to obtain and use these samples from the
accredited providers instead of from EPA, as is the current practice.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action adds
language to the general provisions to allow accredited providers to
supply stationary source audit samples and to require sources to obtain
and use these samples from the accredited providers instead of from
EPA, as is the current practice. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potential applicable voluntary consensus
standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none were
brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to
establish minimum requirements for the audit samples, the accredited
audit sample providers and the audit sample provider accreditor.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 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 final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The amendments would add language to the general
provisions to allow accredited providers to supply stationary source
audit samples and to require sources to obtain and use these samples
from the accredited providers instead of from EPA, as is the current
practice.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective October 13, 2010.
Restructuring of the Stationary Source Audit Program

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur compounds, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitors.

40 CFR Part 61

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and Procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
2. Amend Appendix M to part 51 as follows:
0
a. Designate the three introductory paragraphs as Sections 1.0 through
3.0.
0
b. Add new Section 4.0.
0
c. In Method 204A by removing Sections 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, and 7.2.3.
0
d. In Method 204B by removing Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
0
e. In Method 204C by removing Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
0
f. In Method 204D by removing Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
0
g. In Method 204E by removing Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3.
0
h. In Method 204F by removing Sections 6.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3.

Appendix M to Part 51--Recommended Test Methods for State
Implementation Plans

* * * * *
    4.0 Quality Assurance Procedures. The performance testing shall
include a test method performance audit (PA) during the performance
test. The PAs consist of blind audit samples supplied by an
accredited audit sample provider and analyzed during the performance
test in order to provide a measure of test data bias. Gaseous audit
samples are designed to audit the performance of the sampling system
as well as the analytical system and must be collected by the
sampling system during the compliance test just as the compliance
samples are collected. If a liquid or solid audit sample is designed
to audit the sampling system, it must also be collected by the
sampling system during the compliance test. If multiple sampling
systems or sampling trains are used during the compliance test for
any of the test methods, the tester is only required to use one of
the sampling systems per method to collect the audit sample. The
audit sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same
analytical reagents and analytical system and at the same time as
the compliance samples. Retests are required when there is a failure
to produce acceptable results for an audit sample. However, if the
audit results do not affect the compliance or noncompliance status
of the affected facility, the compliance authority may waive the
reanalysis requirement, further audits, or retests and accept the
results of the compliance test. Acceptance of the test results shall
constitute a waiver of the reanalysis requirement, further audits,
or retests. The compliance authority may also use the audit sample
failure and the compliance test results as evidence to determine the
compliance or noncompliance status of the affected facility. A blind
audit sample is a sample whose value is known only to the sample
provider and is not revealed to the tested facility until after it
reports the measured value of the audit sample. For pollutants that
exist in the gas phase at ambient temperature, the audit sample
shall consist of an appropriate concentration of the pollutant in
air or nitrogen that will be introduced into the sampling system of
the test method at or near the same entry point as a sample from the
emission source. If no gas phase audit samples are available, an
acceptable alternative is a sample of the pollutant in the same
matrix that would be produced when the sample is recovered from the
sampling system as required by the test method. For samples that
exist only in a liquid or solid form at ambient temperature, the
audit sample shall consist of an appropriate concentration of the
pollutant in the same matrix that would be produced when the sample
is recovered from the sampling system as required by the test
method. An accredited audit sample provider (AASP) is an
organization that has been accredited to prepare audit samples by an
independent, third party accrediting body.
    a. The source owner, operator, or representative of the tested
facility shall obtain an audit sample, if commercially available,
from an AASP for each test method used for regulatory compliance
purposes. No audit samples are required for the following test
methods: Methods 3C of Appendix A-3 of Part 60, Methods, 6C, 7E, 9,
and 10 of Appendix A-4 of Part 60, Method 18 of Appendix A-6 of Part
60, Methods 20, 22, and 25A of Appendix A-7 of Part 60, and Methods
303, 318, 320, and 321 of Appendix A of Part 63. If multiple sources
at a single facility are tested during a compliance test event, only
one audit sample is required for each method used during a
compliance test. The compliance authority responsible for the
compliance test may waive the requirement to include an audit sample
if they believe that an audit sample is not necessary.
``Commercially available'' means that two or more independent AASPs
have blind audit samples available for purchase. If the source
owner, operator, or representative cannot find an audit sample for a
specific method, the owner, operator, or representative shall
consult the EPA Web site at the following URL, http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/emc, to confirm whether there is a source that can supply an
audit sample for that method. If the EPA Web site does not list an
available audit sample at least 60 days prior to the beginning of
the compliance test, the source owner, operator, or representative
shall not be required to include an audit sample as part of the
quality assurance program for the compliance test. When ordering an
audit sample, the source owner, operator, or representative shall
give the sample provider an estimate for the concentration of each
pollutant that is emitted by the source or the estimated
concentration of each pollutant based on the permitted level and the
name, address, and phone number of the compliance authority. The
source owner, operator, or representative shall report the results
for the audit sample along with a summary of the emission test
results for the audited pollutant to the compliance authority and
shall report the results of the audit sample to the AASP. The source
owner, operator, or representative shall make both reports at the
same time and in the same manner or shall report to the compliance
authority first and report to the AASP. If the method being audited
is a method that allows the samples to be analyzed in the field and
the tester plans to analyze the samples in the field, the tester may
analyze the audit samples prior to collecting the emission samples
provided a representative of the compliance authority is present at
the testing site. The tester may request and the compliance
authority may grant a waiver to the requirement that a
representative of the compliance authority must be present at the
testing site during the field analysis of an audit sample. The
source owner, operator, or representative may report the results of
the audit sample to the compliance authority and then report the
results of the audit sample to the AASP prior to collecting any
emission samples. The test protocol and final test report shall
document whether an audit sample was ordered and utilized and the
pass/fail results as applicable.
    b. An AASP shall have and shall prepare, analyze, and report the
true value of audit samples in accordance with a written technical
criteria document that describes how audit samples will be prepared
and distributed in a manner that will ensure the integrity of the
audit sample program. An acceptable technical criteria document
shall contain standard operating procedures for all of the following
operations:
    1. Preparing the sample;
    2. Confirming the true concentration of the sample;
    3. Defining the acceptance limits for the results from a well
qualified tester. This procedure must use well established
statistical methods to analyze historical results from well
qualified testers. The acceptance limits shall be set so that there
is 95 percent confidence that 90 percent of well qualified labs will
produce future results that are within the acceptance limit range;
    4. Providing the opportunity for the compliance authority to
comment on the selected concentration level for an audit sample;
    5. Distributing the sample to the user in a manner that
guarantees that the true value of the sample is unknown to the user;
    6. Recording the measured concentration reported by the user and
determining if the measured value is within acceptable limits;
    7. Report the results from each audit sample in a timely manner
to the compliance authority and to the source owner, operator, or
representative by the AASP. The AASP shall make both reports at the
same time and in the same manner or shall report to the compliance
authority first and then report to the source owner, operator, or
representative. The results shall include the name of the facility
tested, the date on which the compliance test was conducted, the
name of the company performing the sample collection, the name of
the company that analyzed the compliance samples including the audit
sample, the measured result for the audit sample, and whether the
testing company passed or failed the audit. The AASP shall report
the true value of the audit sample to the compliance authority. The
AASP may report the true value to the source owner, operator, or
representative if the AASP's operating plan ensures that no
laboratory will receive the same audit sample twice.
    8. Evaluating the acceptance limits of samples at least once
every two years to determine in consultation with the voluntary
consensus standard body if they should be changed;
    9. Maintaining a database, accessible to the compliance
authorities, of results from the audit that shall include the name
of the facility tested, the date on which the compliance test was
conducted, the name of the company performing the sample collection,
the name of the company that analyzed the compliance samples
including the audit sample, the measured result for the audit
sample, the true value of the audit sample, the acceptance range for
the measured value, and whether the testing company passed or failed
the audit.
    c. The accrediting body shall have a written technical criteria
document that describes how it will ensure that the AASP is
operating in accordance with the AASP

technical criteria document that describes how audit samples are to
be prepared and distributed. This document shall contain standard
operating procedures for all of the following operations:
    1. Checking audit samples to confirm their true value as
reported by the AASP;
    2. Performing technical systems audits of the AASP's facilities
and operating procedures at least once every 2 years.
    3. Providing standards for use by the voluntary consensus
standard body to approve the accrediting body that will accredit the
audit sample providers.
    d. The technical criteria documents for the accredited sample
providers and the accrediting body shall be developed through a
public process guided by a voluntary consensus standards body
(VCSB). The VCSB shall operate in accordance with the procedures and
requirements in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119.
A copy of Circular A-119 is available upon request by writing the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, by calling
(202) 395-6880 or by downloading online at http://standards.gov/
standards_gov/a119.cfm. The VCSB shall approve all accrediting
bodies. The Administrator will review all technical criteria
documents. If the technical criteria documents do not meet the
minimum technical requirements in this Appendix M, paragraphs b.
through d., the technical criteria documents are not acceptable and
the proposed audit sample program is not capable of producing audit
samples of sufficient quality to be used in a compliance test. All
acceptable technical criteria documents shall be posted on the EPA
Web site at the following URL, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
* * * * *

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
3. The authority citation for Part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410, 7414, 7421, 7470-7479, 7491, 7492,
7601 and 7602.

0
4. Section 60.8 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.8  Performance tests.

* * * * *
    (g) The performance testing shall include a test method performance
audit (PA) during the performance test. The PAs consist of blind audit
samples supplied by an accredited audit sample provider and analyzed
during the performance test in order to provide a measure of test data
bias. Gaseous audit samples are designed to audit the performance of
the sampling system as well as the analytical system and must be
collected by the sampling system during the compliance test just as the
compliance samples are collected. If a liquid or solid audit sample is
designed to audit the sampling system, it must also be collected by the
sampling system during the compliance test. If multiple sampling
systems or sampling trains are used during the compliance test for any
of the test methods, the tester is only required to use one of the
sampling systems per method to collect the audit sample. The audit
sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same analytical
reagents and analytical system and at the same time as the compliance
samples. Retests are required when there is a failure to produce
acceptable results for an audit sample. However, if the audit results
do not affect the compliance or noncompliance status of the affected
facility, the compliance authority may waive the reanalysis
requirement, further audits, or retests and accept the results of the
compliance test. Acceptance of the test results shall constitute a
waiver of the reanalysis requirement, further audits, or retests. The
compliance authority may also use the audit sample failure and the
compliance test results as evidence to determine the compliance or
noncompliance status of the affected facility. A blind audit sample is
a sample whose value is known only to the sample provider and is not
revealed to the tested facility until after they report the measured
value of the audit sample. For pollutants that exist in the gas phase
at ambient temperature, the audit sample shall consist of an
appropriate concentration of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that can
be introduced into the sampling system of the test method at or near
the same entry point as a sample from the emission source. If no gas
phase audit samples are available, an acceptable alternative is a
sample of the pollutant in the same matrix that would be produced when
the sample is recovered from the sampling system as required by the
test method. For samples that exist only in a liquid or solid form at
ambient temperature, the audit sample shall consist of an appropriate
concentration of the pollutant in the same matrix that would be
produced when the sample is recovered from the sampling system as
required by the test method. An accredited audit sample provider (AASP)
is an organization that has been accredited to prepare audit samples by
an independent, third party accrediting body.
    (1) The source owner, operator, or representative of the tested
facility shall obtain an audit sample, if commercially available, from
an AASP for each test method used for regulatory compliance purposes.
No audit samples are required for the following test methods: Methods
3C of Appendix A-3 of Part 60, Methods 6C, 7E, 9, and 10 of Appendix A-
4 of Part 60, Method 18 of Appendix A-6 of Part 60, Methods 20, 22, and
25A of Appendix A-7 of Part 60, and Methods 303, 318, 320, and 321 of
Appendix A of Part 63. If multiple sources at a single facility are
tested during a compliance test event, only one audit sample is
required for each method used during a compliance test. The compliance
authority responsible for the compliance test may waive the requirement
to include an audit sample if they believe that an audit sample is not
necessary. ``Commercially available'' means that two or more
independent AASPs have blind audit samples available for purchase. If
the source owner, operator, or representative cannot find an audit
sample for a specific method, the owner, operator, or representative
shall consult the EPA Web site at the following URL, http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/emc, to confirm whether there is a source that can
supply an audit sample for that method. If the EPA Web site does not
list an available audit sample at least 60 days prior to the beginning
of the compliance test, the source owner, operator, or representative
shall not be required to include an audit sample as part of the quality
assurance program for the compliance test. When ordering an audit
sample, the source, operator, or representative shall give the sample
provider an estimate for the concentration of each pollutant that is
emitted by the source or the estimated concentration of each pollutant
based on the permitted level and the name, address, and phone number of
the compliance authority. The source owner, operator, or representative
shall report the results for the audit sample along with a summary of
the emission test results for the audited pollutant to the compliance
authority and shall report the results of the audit sample to the AASP.
The source owner, operator, or representative shall make both reports
at the same time and in the same manner or shall report to the
compliance authority first and then report to the AASP. If the method
being audited is a method that allows the samples to be analyzed in the
field and the tester plans to analyze the samples in the field, the
tester may analyze the audit samples prior to collecting the emission
samples provided a representative of the compliance authority is
present at the testing site. The tester may request and the compliance
authority may grant a waiver to the requirement that a representative
of the compliance

authority must be present at the testing site during the field analysis
of an audit sample. The source owner, operator, or representative may
report the results of the audit sample to the compliance authority and
report the results of the audit sample to the AASP prior to collecting
any emission samples. The test protocol and final test report shall
document whether an audit sample was ordered and utilized and the pass/
fail results as applicable.
    (2) An AASP shall have and shall prepare, analyze, and report the
true value of audit samples in accordance with a written technical
criteria document that describes how audit samples will be prepared and
distributed in a manner that will ensure the integrity of the audit
sample program. An acceptable technical criteria document shall contain
standard operating procedures for all of the following operations:
    (i) Preparing the sample;
    (ii) Confirming the true concentration of the sample;
    (iii) Defining the acceptance limits for the results from a well
qualified tester. This procedure must use well established statistical
methods to analyze historical results from well qualified testers. The
acceptance limits shall be set so that there is 95 percent confidence
that 90 percent of well qualified labs will produce future results that
are within the acceptance limit range.
    (iv) Providing the opportunity for the compliance authority to
comment on the selected concentration level for an audit sample;
    (v) Distributing the sample to the user in a manner that guarantees
that the true value of the sample is unknown to the user;
    (vi) Recording the measured concentration reported by the user and
determining if the measured value is within acceptable limits;
    (vii) The AASP shall report the results from each audit sample in a
timely manner to the compliance authority and then to the source owner,
operator, or representative. The AASP shall make both reports at the
same time and in the same manner or shall report to the compliance
authority first and then report to the source owner, operator, or
representative. The results shall include the name of the facility
tested, the date on which the compliance test was conducted, the name
of the company performing the sample collection, the name of the
company that analyzed the compliance samples including the audit
sample, the measured result for the audit sample, and whether the
testing company passed or failed the audit. The AASP shall report the
true value of the audit sample to the compliance authority. The AASP
may report the true value to the source owner, operator, or
representative if the AASP's operating plan ensures that no laboratory
will receive the same audit sample twice.
    (viii) Evaluating the acceptance limits of samples at least once
every two years to determine in cooperation with the voluntary
consensus standard body if they should be changed;
    (ix) Maintaining a database, accessible to the compliance
authorities, of results from the audit that shall include the name of
the facility tested, the date on which the compliance test was
conducted, the name of the company performing the sample collection,
the name of the company that analyzed the compliance samples including
the audit sample, the measured result for the audit sample, the true
value of the audit sample, the acceptance range for the measured value,
and whether the testing company passed or failed the audit.
    (3) The accrediting body shall have a written technical criteria
document that describes how it will ensure that the AASP is operating
in accordance with the AASP technical criteria document that describes
how audit samples are to be prepared and distributed. This document
shall contain standard operating procedures for all of the following
operations:
    (i) Checking audit samples to confirm their true value as reported
by the AASP;
    (ii) Performing technical systems audits of the AASP's facilities
and operating procedures at least once every two years;
    (iii) Providing standards for use by the voluntary consensus
standard body to approve the accrediting body that will accredit the
audit sample providers.
    (4) The technical criteria documents for the accredited sample
providers and the accrediting body shall be developed through a public
process guided by a voluntary consensus standards body (VCSB). The VCSB
shall operate in accordance with the procedures and requirements in the
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119. A copy of Circular A-
119 is available upon request by writing the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or downloading
online at http://standards.gov/standards_gov/a119.cfm. The VCSB shall
approve all accrediting bodies. The Administrator will review all
technical criteria documents. If the technical criteria documents do
not meet the minimum technical requirements in paragraphs (g)(2)
through (4)of this section, the technical criteria documents are not
acceptable and the proposed audit sample program is not capable of
producing audit samples of sufficient quality to be used in a
compliance test. All acceptable technical criteria documents shall be
posted on the EPA Web site at the following URL, http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/emc.

0
5. In Appendix A-3 to part 60 amend Method 5I by revising Section 7.2
to read as follows:

Appendix A-3 to Part 60--Test Methods 4 through 5I

* * * * *

Method 5I--Determination of Low Level Particulate Matter Emissions From
Stationary Sources

* * * * *
    7.2 Standards. There are no applicable standards commercially
available for Method 5I analyses.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Appendix A-4 to part 60 as follows:
0
a. In Method 6 as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.3.6., including the note that follows.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1 through 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1 through
11.4.4, and 12.4.
0
iv. Revise Section 12.1.
0
b. In Method 6A as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 11.2.
0
ii. Revise Section 16.5.
0
c. In Method 6B by removing Section 11.2.
0
d. In Method 6C by revising Section 16.1.
0
e. In Method 7 as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.3.10., including the note that follows.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.4, 11.4.1 through 11.4.3, 11.5, 11.5.1 through
11.5.4, and 12.6.
0
iv. Revise Section 12.1.
0
f. In Method 7A as follows:
0
i. Revise Section 6.3.
0
ii. Remove Section 7.3.5.
0
iii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
iv. Remove Section 11.3.
0
g. In Method 7B as follows:
0
i. Revise Section 9.0.
0
ii. Remove Section 11.4.
0
h. In Method 7C as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.2.15.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
iii. Remove Section 11.6.
0
i. In Method 7D as follows:
0
i. Remove Sections 7.2.6 and 11.3.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
j. In Method 8 as follows:

0
i. Remove Section 7.3.1., including the note that follows.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.1.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1,
11.4.2, 11.4.3, 11.4.4, and 12.9.
0
iiv. Revise Section 12.1.

Appendix A-4 to Part 60--Test Methods 6 Through 10B

* * * * *

Method 6--Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.2.......................  Isopropanol check...  Ensure acceptable
                                                     level of peroxide
                                                     impurities in
                                                     isopropanol.
8.2, 10.1-10.4..............  Sampling equipment    Ensure accurate
                               leak-check and        measurement of
                               calibration.          stack gas flow
                                                     rate, sample
                                                     volume.
10.5........................  Barium standard       Ensure precision of
                               solution              normality
                               standardization.      determination
11.2.3......................  Replicate titrations  Ensure precision of
                                                     titration
                                                     determinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

12.1 Nomenclature

CSO2 = Concentration of SO2, dry basis,
corrected to standard conditions, mg/dscm (lb/dscf).
N = Normality of barium standard titrant, meq/ml.
Pbar = Barometric pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in.
Hg).
Tm = Average DGM absolute temperature, [deg]K ([deg]R).
Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 [deg]K (528
[deg]R).
Va = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml.
Vm = Dry gas volume as measured by the DGM, dcm (dcf).
Vm(std) = Dry gas volume measured by the DGM, corrected
to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).
Vsoln = Total volume of solution in which the
SO2 sample is contained, 100 ml.
Vt = Volume of barium standard titrant used for the
sample (average of replicate titration), ml.
Vtb = Volume of barium standard titrant used for the
blank, ml.
Y = DGM calibration factor.
* * * * *

Method 6A--Determination of Sulfur Dioxide, Moisture and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions From Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources

* * * * *
    16.5 Sample Analysis. Analysis of the peroxide solution is the
same as that described in Section 11.1.
* * * * *

Method 6C--Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

* * * * *
    16.1 Alternative Interference Check. You may perform an
alternative interference check consisting of at least three
comparison runs between Method 6C and Method 6. This check validates
the Method 6C results at each particular source category (type of
facility) where the check is performed. When testing under
conditions of low concentrations (<15 ppm), this alternative
interference check is not allowed.

    Note: The procedure described below applies to non-dilution
sampling systems only. If this alternative interference check is
used for a dilution sampling system, use a standard Method 6
sampling train and extract the sample directly from the exhaust
stream at points collocated with the Method 6C sample probe.

    a. Build the modified Method 6 sampling train (flow control
valve, two midget impingers containing 3 percent hydrogen peroxide,
and dry gas meter) shown in Figure 6C-1. Connect the sampling train
to the sample bypass discharge vent. Record the dry gas meter
reading before you begin sampling. Simultaneously collect modified
Method 6 and Method 6C samples. Open the flow control valve in the
modified Method 6 train as you begin to sample with Method 6C.
Adjust the Method 6 sampling rate to 1 liter per minute (.10
percent). The sampling time per run must be the same as for Method 6
plus twice the average measurement system response time. If your
modified Method 6 train does not include a pump, you risk biasing
the results high if you over-pressurize the midget impingers and
cause a leak. You can reduce this risk by cautiously increasing the
flow rate as sampling begins.
    b. After completing a run, record the final dry gas meter
reading, meter temperature, and barometric pressure. Recover and
analyze the contents of the midget impingers using the procedures in
Method 6. Determine the average gas concentration reported by Method
6C for the run.
* * * * *

Method 7--Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.1........................  Spectrophotometer     Ensure linearity of
                               calibration.          spectrophotometer
                                                     response to
                                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

12.1 Nomenclature

A = Absorbance of sample.
A1 = Absorbance of the 100-[mu]g NO2 standard.
A2 = Absorbance of the 200-[mu]g NO2 standard.
A3 = Absorbance of the 300-[mu]g NO2 standard.
A4 = Absorbance of the 400-[mu]g NO2 standard.
C = Concentration of NOX as NO2, dry basis,
corrected to standard conditions, mg/dsm\3\ (lb/dscf).
F = Dilution factor (i.e., 25/5, 25/10, etc., required only if
sample dilution was needed to reduce the absorbance into the range
of the calibration).
Kc = Spectrophotometer calibration factor.
M = Mass of NOX as NO2 in gas sample, [mu]g.
Pf = Final absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Pi = Initial absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in.
Hg).
Tf = Final absolute temperature of flask, [deg]K
([deg]R).
Ti = Initial absolute temperature of flask, [deg]K
([deg]R).
Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293 [deg]K
(528[deg]R).
Vsc = Sample volume at standard conditions (dry basis),
ml.
Vf = Volume of flask and valve, ml.
Va = Volume of absorbing solution, 25 ml.
* * * * *

Method 7A--Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources (Ion Chromatographic Method)

* * * * *
     6.3 Analysis. For the analysis, the following equipment and
supplies are required. Alternative instrumentation and procedures
will be allowed provided the calibration precision requirement in
Section 10.1.2 can be met.
* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.1........................  Ion chromatographn    Ensure linearity of
                               calibration.          ion chromatograph
                                                     response to
                                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Method 7B--Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources (Ultraviolet Spectrophotometric Method)

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.1........................  Spectrophotometer     Ensures linearity of
                               calibration.          spectrophotometer
                                                     response to
                                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Method 7C--Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources (Alkaline Permanganate/Colorimetric Method)

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.2, 10.1-10.3..............  Sampling equipment    Ensure accurate
                               leak-check and        measurement of
                               calibration.          sample volume.
10.4........................  Spectrophotometer     Ensure linearity of
                               calibration.          spectrophotometer
                                                     response to
                                                     standards
11.3........................  Spiked sample         Ensure reduction
                               analysis..            efficiency of
                                                     column.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Method 7D--Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources--Alkaline-Permanganate/Ion Chromatographic Method

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.2, 10.1-10.3..............  Sampling equipment    Ensure accurate
                               leak-check and        measurement of
                               calibration.          sample volume.
10.4........................  Spectrophotometer     Ensure linearity of
                               calibration.          spectrophotometer
                                                     response to
                                                     standards.
11.3........................  Spiked sample         Ensure reduction
                               analysis.             efficiency of
                                                     column.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Method 8--Determination of Sulfuric Acid and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions
From Stationary Sources

* * * * *

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control Measures

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.1.3.......................  Isopropanol check...  Ensure acceptable
                                                     level of peroxide
                                                     impurities in
                                                     isopropanol.
8.4, 8.5, 10.1..............  Sampling equipment    Ensure accurate
                               leak-check and        measurement of
                               calibration.          stack gas flow
                                                     rate, sample
                                                     volume.
10.2........................  Barium standard       Ensure normality
                               solution              determination.
                               standardization.
11.2........................  Replicate titrations  Ensure precision of
                                                     titration
                                                     determinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    12.1 Nomenclature. Same as Method 5, Section 12.1, with the
following additions and exceptions:

CH2SO4 = Sulfuric acid (including
SO3) concentration, g/dscm (lb/dscf).
CSO2 = Sulfur dioxide concentration, g/dscm (lb/dscf).
N = Normality of barium perchlorate titrant, meq/ml.
Va = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, 100 ml for
H2SO4 and 10 ml for SO2.

Vsoln = Total volume of solution in which the sample is
contained, 250 ml for the SO2 sample and 1000 ml for the
H2SO4 sample.
Vt = Volume of barium standard solution titrant used for
the sample, ml.
Vtb = Volume of barium standard solution titrant used for
the blank, ml.
* * * * *

0
7. In Appendix A-5 to part 60 amend Method 15A as follows:
0
a. Revise Section 9.0.
0
b. Remove Section 11.2.

Appendix A-5 to Part 60--Test Methods 11 Through 15A

* * * * *

Method 15A--Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Sulfur
Recovery Plants in Petroleum Refineries

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.5.........................  System performance    Ensures validity of
                               check.                sampling train
                                                     components and
                                                     analytical
                                                     procedure.
8.2, 10.0...................  Sampling equipment    Ensures accurate
                               leak-check and        measurement of
                               calibration.          stack gas flow
                                                     rate, sample
                                                     volume.
10.0........................  Barium standard       Ensures precision of
                               solution              normality
                               standardization.      determination.
11.1........................  Replicate titrations  Ensures precision of
                                                     titration
                                                     determinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
8. Amend Appendix A-6 to part 60 as follows:
0
a. Revise Method 16A as follows:
0
i. Revise Section 9.0.
0
ii. Remove Section 11.2.
0
b. Revise Method 18 as follows:
0
i. Remove Sections 7.2, including the note that follows, <IP_ADDRESS>.2.2,
and <IP_ADDRESS>.
0
ii. Revise Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
0
iii. Remove Sections <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>.3.
0
iv. Revise Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2.
0
v. Remove Sections 9.2 and 13.1(b).
0
vi. Revise ``Gaseous Organic Sampling and Analysis Checklist'' at the
end of the appendix.

Appendix A-6 to Part 60--Test Methods 16 Through 18

* * * * *

Method 16A--Determination of Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From
Stationary Sources (Impinger Technique)

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.5.........................  System performance    Ensure validity of
                               check.                sampling train
                                                     components and
                                                     analytical
                                                     procedure.
8.2, 10.0...................  Sampling equipment    Ensure accurate
                               leak-check and        measurement of
                               calibration.          stack gas flow
                                                     rate, sample
                                                     volume.
10.0........................  Barium standard       Ensure precision of
                               solution              normality
                               standardization.      determination.
11.1........................  Replicate titrations  Ensure precision of
                                                     titration
                                                     determinations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Method 18--Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas
Chromatography

* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> Procedure. Calibrate the GC using the procedures in
Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2.1. To obtain a stack gas sample, assemble the
sampling system as shown in Figure 18-12. Make sure all connections
are tight. Turn on the probe and sample line heaters. As the
temperature of the probe and heated line approaches the target
temperature as indicated on the thermocouple readout device, control
the heating to maintain a temperature greater than 110 [deg]C.
Conduct a 3-point calibration of the GC by analyzing each gas
mixture in triplicate. Generate a calibration curve. Place the inlet
of the probe at the centroid of the duct, or at a point no closer to
the walls than 1 m, and draw source gas into the probe, heated line,
and sample loop. After thorough flushing, analyze the stack gas
sample using the same conditions as for the calibration gas mixture.
For each run, sample, analyze, and record five consecutive samples.
A test consists of three runs (five samples per run times three
runs, for a total of fifteen samples). After all samples have been
analyzed, repeat the analysis of the mid-level calibration gas for
each compound. For each calibration standard, compare the pre- and
post-test average response factors (RF) for each compound. If the
two calibration RF values (pre- and post-analysis) differ by more
than 5 percent from their mean value, then analyze the other
calibration gas levels for that compound and determine the stack gas
sample concentrations by comparison to both calibration curves (this
is done by preparing a calibration curve using all the pre- and
post-test calibration gas mixture values.) If the two calibration RF
values differ by less than 5 percent from their mean value, the
tester has the option of using only the pre-test calibration curve
to generate the concentration values. Record this calibration data
and the other required data on the data sheet shown in Figure 18-11,
deleting the dilution gas information.

    Note: Take care to draw all samples and calibration mixtures
through the sample loop at the same pressure.

* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS>.2 Use a sample probe, if required, to obtain the sample
at the centroid of the duct or at a point no closer to the walls
than 1 m. Minimize the length of flexible tubing between the probe
and adsorption tubes. Several adsorption tubes can be connected in
series, if the extra adsorptive capacity is needed. Adsorption tubes
should be maintained vertically during the test in order to prevent
channeling. Provide the gas sample to the sample system at a
pressure sufficient for the limiting orifice to function as a sonic
orifice. Record the total time and sample flow rate (or the number
of pump strokes), the barometric pressure, and ambient temperature.
Obtain a total sample volume commensurate with the expected
concentration(s) of the volatile organic(s) present and recommended
sample loading factors (weight sample per weight adsorption media).
Laboratory tests prior to actual sampling may be necessary to
predetermine this volume. If water vapor is present in the sample at
concentrations above 2 to 3 percent, the adsorptive capacity may be
severely reduced. Operate the gas chromatograph according to the
manufacturer's instructions. After establishing optimum conditions,
verify and document these conditions during all operations.
Calibrate the instrument and then analyze the emission samples.
* * * * *

 Gaseous Organic Sampling and Analysis Check List (Respond With Initials
                        or Number as Appropriate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pre-survey data...........................  Date
    A. Grab sample collected.................  [ballot] --------
    B. Grab sample analyzed for composition..  [ballot] --------
        Method GC............................  [ballot] --------
        GC/MS................................  [ballot] --------
        Other------------------------........  [ballot] --------
    C. GC-FID analysis performed.............  [ballot] --------
2. Laboratory calibration curves prepared....  [ballot] --------
    A. Number of components..................  [ballot] --------
    B. Number of concentrations per component  [ballot] --------
     (3 required).
    C. OK obtained for field work............  [ballot] --------
3. Sampling procedures.......................
    A. Method................................
        Bag sample...........................  [ballot] --------
        Direct interface.....................  [ballot] --------
        Dilution interface...................  [ballot] --------
    B. Number of samples collected...........  [ballot] --------
4. Field Analysis............................
    A. Total hydrocarbon analysis performed..  [ballot] --------
    B. Calibration curve prepared............  [ballot] --------
        Number of components.................  [ballot] --------
        Number of concentrations per           [ballot] --------
         component (3 required).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
9. Amend Appendix A-7 to part 60 as follows:
0
a. Revise Method 23 by removing Sections 8., 8.1., 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4.
0
b. Revise Method 25 as follows:
0
i. Remove Sections 7.5, 7.5.1, and 7.5.2., including the note that
follows.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1,
11.4.2, 11.4.3, and 11.4.4.
0
c. Revise Method 25C as follows:
0
i. Remove Sections 7.3, 7.3.1, and 7.3.2.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.1.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.2, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2,
11.3.3, and 11.3.4.
0
d. Revise Method 25D by removing Sections 7.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, including
the note that follows, 11.3, 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, 11.4, 11.4.1,
11.4.2.

Appendix A-7 to Part 60--Test Methods 19 Through 25E

* * * * *

Method 25--Determination of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions
as Carbon

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.1.1......................  Initial performance   Ensure acceptable
                               check of condensate   condensate recovery
                               recovery apparatus.   efficiency.
10.1.2, 10.2................  NMO analyzer initial  Ensure precision of
                               and daily             analytical results.
                               performance checks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Method 25C--Determination of Nonmethane Organic Compounds (NMOC) in
Landfill Gases

* * * * *

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control Measures

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Quality control
           Section                   measure               Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.4.1.......................  Verify that landfill  Ensures that ambient
                               gas sample contains   air was not drawn
                               less than 20          into the landfill
                               percent N2 or 5       gas sample.
                               percent O2.
10.1, 10.2..................  NMOC analyzer         Ensures precision of
                               initial and daily     analytical results.
                               performance checks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
10. Amend Appendix A-8 to part 60 as follows:
0
a. Revise Method 26 as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.3., including the note that follows.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.2, 11.2.1, 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.3, 11.3.1,
11.3.2, 11.3.3, and 11.3.4.
0
b. Revise Method 26A as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.3., including the note that follows.
0
ii. Revise the first Section 9.1.
0
iii. Redesignate the second Section 9.1 as 9.2.
0
iv. Remove Sections 11.4, 11.4.1, 11.4.2, 11.4.3, 11.5, 11.5.1, 11.5.2,
11.5.3, and 11.5.4.

Appendix A-8 to Part 60--Test Methods 26 through 29

* * * * *

Method 26--Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions From
Stationary Sources Non-Isokinetic Method

* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control [Reserved]

* * * * *

Method 26A--Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions From
Stationary Sources Isokinetic Method

* * * * *

9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control Measures

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

* * * * *

PART 61--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

0
11. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601, and
7602.

0
12. Section 61.13 is amended by adding paragraph (e)(1) and adding and
reserving paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  61.13  Emission tests and waiver of emission tests.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) The performance testing shall include a test method performance
audit (PA) during the performance test. The PAs consist of blind audit
samples supplied by an accredited audit sample provider and analyzed
during the performance test in order to provide a measure of test data
bias. Gaseous audit samples are designed to audit the performance of
the sampling system as well as the analytical system and must be
collected by the sampling system during the compliance test just as the
compliance samples are collected. If a liquid or solid audit sample is
designed to audit the sampling system, it must also be collected by the
sampling system during the compliance test. If multiple sampling
systems or sampling trains are used during the compliance test for any
of the test methods, the tester is only required to use one of the
sampling systems per method to collect the audit sample. The audit
sample must be analyzed by the same analyst using the same analytical
reagents and analytical system and at the same time as the compliance
samples. Retests are required when there is a failure to produce
acceptable results for an audit sample. However, if the audit results
do not affect the compliance or noncompliance status of the affected
facility, the compliance authority may waive the reanalysis
requirement, further audits, or retests and accept the results of the
compliance test. Acceptance of the test results shall constitute a
waiver of the reanalysis requirement, further audits, or retests. The
compliance authority may also use the audit sample failure and the
compliance test results as evidence to determine the compliance or
noncompliance status of the affected facility. A blind audit sample is
a sample whose value is known only to the sample provider and is not
revealed to the tested facility until after they report the measured
value of the audit sample. For pollutants that exist in the gas phase
at ambient temperature, the audit sample shall consist of an
appropriate concentration of the pollutant in air or nitrogen that can
be introduced into the sampling system of the test method at or near
the same entry point as a sample from the emission source. If no gas
phase audit samples are available, an acceptable alternative is a
sample of the pollutant in the same matrix that would be produced when
the sample is recovered from the sampling system as required by the
test method. For samples that exist only in a liquid or solid form at
ambient temperature, the audit sample shall consist of an appropriate
concentration of the pollutant in the same matrix that would be
produced when the sample is recovered from the sampling system as
required by the test method. An accredited audit sample provider (AASP)
is an organization that has been accredited to prepare audit samples by
an independent, third party accrediting body.
    (i) The source owner, operator, or representative of the tested
facility shall obtain an audit sample, if commercially available, from
an AASP for each test method used for regulatory compliance purposes.
No audit samples are required for the following test methods: Methods
3C of Appendix A-3 of Part 60, Methods 6C, 7E, 9, and 10 of Appendix A-
4 of Part 60, Method 18 of Appendix A-6 of Part 60, Methods 20, 22, and
25A of Appendix A-7 of Part 60, and Methods 303, 318, 320, and 321 of
Appendix A of Part 63. If multiple sources at a single facility are
tested during a compliance test event, only one audit sample is
required for each method used during a compliance test. The compliance
authority responsible for the compliance test may waive the requirement
to include an audit sample if they believe that an audit sample is not
necessary. ``Commercially available'' means that two or more
independent AASPs have blind audit samples available for purchase. If
the source owner, operator, or representative cannot find an audit
sample for a specific method, the owner, operator, or representative
shall consult the EPA Web site at the following URL, www.epa.gov/ttn/
emc, to confirm whether there is a source that can supply an audit
sample for that method. If the EPA Web site does not list an available
audit sample at least 60 days prior to the beginning of the compliance
test, the source owner, operator, or representative shall not be
required to include an audit sample as part of the quality assurance
program for the compliance test. When ordering an audit sample, the
source owner, operator, or representative shall give the sample
provider an estimate for the concentration of each pollutant that is
emitted by the source or the estimated concentration of each pollutant
based on the permitted level and the name, address, and phone number of
the compliance authority. The source owner, operator, or representative
shall report the results for the audit sample along with a summary of
the emission test results for the audited pollutant to the compliance
authority and shall report the results of the audit sample to the AASP.
The source owner, operator, or representative shall make both reports
at the same time and in the same manner or shall report to the
compliance authority first and report to the AASP. If the method being
audited is a method that allows the samples to be analyzed in the field
and the tester plans to analyze the samples in the field, the tester
may analyze the audit samples prior to collecting the emission samples
provided a representative of the compliance authority is present at the
testing site. The tester may request and the compliance authority may
grant a waiver to the requirement that a representative of the
compliance authority must be present at the testing site during the
field analysis of an audit sample. The source owner, operator, or
representative may report the results of the audit sample to the
compliance

authority and then report the results of the audit sample to the AASP
prior to collecting any emission samples. The test protocol and final
test report shall document whether an audit sample was ordered and
utilized and the pass/fail results as applicable.
    (ii) An AASP shall have and shall prepare, analyze, and report the
true value of audit samples in accordance with a written technical
criteria document that describes how audit samples will be prepared and
distributed in a manner that will ensure the integrity of the audit
sample program. An acceptable technical criteria document shall contain
standard operating procedures for all of the following operations:
    (A) Preparing the sample;
    (B) Confirming the true concentration of the sample;
    (C) Defining the acceptance limits for the results from a well
qualified tester. This procedure must use well established statistical
methods to analyze historical results from well qualified testers. The
acceptance limits shall be set so that there is 95 percent confidence
that 90 percent of well qualified labs will produce future results that
are within the acceptance limit range;
    (D) Providing the opportunity for the compliance authority to
comment on the selected concentration level for an audit sample;
    (E) Distributing the sample to the user in a manner that guarantees
that the true value of the sample is unknown to the user;
    (F) Recording the measured concentration reported by the user and
determining if the measured value is within acceptable limits;
    (G) Reporting the results from each audit sample in a timely manner
to the compliance authority and to the source owner, operator, or
representative by the AASP. The AASP shall make both reports at the
same time and in the same manner or shall report to the compliance
authority first and then report to the source owner, operator, or
representative. The results shall include the name of the facility
tested, the date on which the compliance test was conducted, the name
of the company performing the sample collection, the name of the
company that analyzed the compliance samples including the audit
sample, the measured result for the audit sample, and whether the
testing company passed or failed the audit. The AASP shall report the
true value of the audit sample to the compliance authority. The AASP
may report the true value to the source owner, operator, or
representative if the AASP's operating plan ensures that no laboratory
will receive the same audit sample twice.
    (H) Evaluating the acceptance limits of samples at least once every
two years to determine in consultation with the voluntary consensus
standard body if they should be changed;
    (I) Maintaining a database, accessible to the compliance
authorities, of results from the audit that shall include the name of
the facility tested, the date on which the compliance test was
conducted, the name of the company performing the sample collection,
the name of the company that analyzed the compliance samples including
the audit sample, the measured result for the audit sample, the true
value of the audit sample, the acceptance range for the measured value,
and whether the testing company passed or failed the audit.
    (iii) The accrediting body shall have a written technical criteria
document that describes how it will ensure that the AASP is operating
in accordance with the AASP technical criteria document that describes
how audit or samples are to be prepared and distributed. This document
shall contain standard operating procedures for all of the following
operations:
    (A) Checking audit samples to confirm their true value as reported
by the AASP.
    (B) Performing technical systems audits of the AASP's facilities
and operating procedures at least once every two years.
    (C) Providing standards for use by the voluntary consensus standard
body to approve the accrediting body that will accredit the audit
sample providers.
    (iv) The technical criteria documents for the accredited sample
providers and the accrediting body shall be developed through a public
process guided by a voluntary consensus standards body (VCSB). The VCSB
shall operate in accordance with the procedures and requirements in the
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119. A copy of Circular A-
119 is available upon request by writing the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or downloading
online at http://standards.gov/standards_gov/a119.cfm. The VCSB shall
approve all accrediting bodies. The Administrator will review all
technical criteria documents. If the technical criteria documents do
not meet the minimum technical requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)
through (iv) of this section, the technical criteria documents are not
acceptable and the proposed audit sample program is not capable of
producing audit samples of sufficient quality to be used in a
compliance test. All acceptable technical criteria documents shall be
posted on the EPA Web site at the following URL, http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/emc.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
13. Amend Appendix B to part 61 as follows:
0
a. In Method 104 revise Section 9.
0
b. In Method 106 as follows:
0
i. Remove Sections 7.2.4, <IP_ADDRESS>, including the note that follows, and
<IP_ADDRESS>.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0
iii. Remove Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 11.1.
0
c. In Method 108 as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.3.16., including the note that follows.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.1.
0
iii. Remove Sections 11.6, 11.6.1, 11.6.2, including the note that
follows, 11.6.3, 11.7, 11.7.1, 11.7.2, 11.7.3, and 11.7.4.
0
iv. Revise Section 12.1.
    d. In Method 108A as follows:
0
i. Remove Section 7.2.1.
0
ii. Revise Section 9.0.
0