Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63
OAR ID: [OAR-2004-0080, FRL-7851-9]
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AF00
NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES
ACTION: Air pollutants, hazardous; national emission standards:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Appendix A--Test Methods; Method 301 for the Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods From Various Waste Media
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2005.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing by January 11, 2005, a public hearing will be held on January 21, 2005.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend procedures for validating alternative emissions test methods, to rewrite the EPA's Method 301 in plain language, reorganize the method for clarity, correct technical errors, and revise the technical procedures. The revisions to the technical procedures include replacing quantitation limits with detection limits, revising the bias acceptance criteria and eliminating the correction factors, revising the precision acceptance criteria, and allowing analyte spiking as an option even when there is an existing test method.
SUMMARY: Test methods; Method 301 for field validation of pollutant measurement methods from various waste media,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Preamble Outline The information in this preamble is organized as follows. I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for the EPA?
C. Availability of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
III. What Changes Are We Proposing?
A. Use Plain Language
B. Reorganize Method 301
C. Correct Technical Errors
D. Make Technical Revisions
IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements?
A. Executive Order 12866Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks 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 of 1995 I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Method 301 affects/applies to you if you want to propose a test method to meet an EPA requirement in absence of a validated method. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (e.g., subject heading, Federal Register proposal publication date and reference page number(s)).
ii. Follow directions.The EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and provide substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the specified comment period deadline.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Roberto Morales,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Document Control Officer,
109 TW Alexander Drive, Room C40402, RTP, NC 27711. The EPA will
disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the
EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.
C. Availability of the Proposed Rule
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed changes to Method 301 is also
[[Page 76644]]
available on the Internet through the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). Following signature, a copy of Method 301 will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 5415384.
II. Introduction
Today's action proposes to amend EPA's Method 301; Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods from Various Waste Media. Method 301 can be found in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 (Test Methods). Method 301 was promulgated with 40 CFR part 63 subpart D (Regulations Governing Compliance Extensions for Early Reductions of Hazardous Air Pollutants) (58 FR 27338, June 13, 1991) pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990). You would use Method 301 whenever you propose to use a test method to meet an EPA requirement in absence of a validated method. The method specifies procedures for determining and documenting the precision and bias of measured concentrations from various media (e.g., sludge, exhaust gas, wastewater) at the level of an applicable standard for a source. Bias (or systemic error) is established by comparing your proposed method against a reference value. A correction factor is employed to eliminate/minimize bias. This correction factor is established from data obtained during your validation test. Methods that have bias correction factors outside a specified range are considered unacceptable. Method precision (or random error) at the level of the standard must be demonstrated to be as precise as the validated method for acceptance.
Today's action proposes to amend those provisions by correcting technical errors, and simplifying and clarifying procedures. Section II of this preamble discusses the proposed Method 301 rule, and section III presents the administrative requirements for this action. III. What Changes Are We Proposing?
A. Use Plain Language
In compliance with President Clinton's June 1, 1998, Executive Memorandum on Plain Language in government writing, Method 301 has been rewritten in plain language. The use of plain language clarifies the requirements of Method 301, thus, reducing the burden (time) associated with understanding the Method. When Method 301 refers to ``you,'' it means the owner or operator of the affected source.
B. Reorganize Method 301
We have reorganized the information in Method 301 to make it easier to follow the requirements and to understand the relationships among the various requirements. The reorganization did not create new requirements, but it does incorporate various corrections to technical errors and technical revisions. These corrections and revisions, as well as the rationale for the changes, are discussed in sections III C and D of this preamble.
Section 17.0 of today's rule (What detection limits must I use?) shall apply instead of section 9.0 (Practical Quantitation Limits) of the promulgated Method 301 rule. We have retained all other sections from the promulgated Method 301, but you will find them in new places. Where necessary for clarity, we have put the information from one section of Promulgated Method 301 into several new sections. Some information has been put into tables at the end of the Method. Section 2.0 presents new information. It has been added to explain when you must use Method 301 and to identify the requirement for receiving written approval from the Administrator before using the alternative test method. Table 1 of this preamble specifies where the sections in the promulgated Method 301 are found in the proposed Method 301 rule.
The equations of the promulgated Method 301 have also been amended.
Some of the promulgated equations have been modified; some have been
replaced by other equations, and some have simply been renumbered or
reordered. The technical reasons for the changes to the equations are
discussed in section III. D of this preamble. Table 2 indicates whether
each equation in the proposed amended rule has changed from the
promulgated rule. Equations 3015 and 30110 (correction factors when
using isotopic spiking and paired sampling systems with a validated
test method comparison) of promulgated Method 301 rule have been
removed for the reasons discussed in section III D of this preamble.
Table 1.Comparison of Sections in Proposed Method 301 to Those in Promulgated Method 301
Proposed new section Promulgated method section Using Method 301
1.0 What is the purpose of Method 1.1 Applicability.
301?.
2.0 When must I use Method 301?.... None.
3.0 What does Method 301 include?.. 1.1.2.
4.0 How do I perform Method 301?... 1.2 Principle.
Reference Materials and Performance Audits
5.0 What reference materials must I 3.0 Reference Materials. use?.
6.0 How do I conduct the 4.0 EPA Performance Audit performance audit?. Materials.
Sampling Procedures
7.0 What sampling procedures must 5.0 Procedure for Determination of
I use?. Bias and Precision in the Field.
8.0 How do I ensure sample 8 Procedure for Sample Stability in
stability?. Bias and Precision Evaluations. Bias and Precision
9.0 What are the requirements for 1.2.1 Bias.
bias?.
10.0 What are the requirements for 1.2.2 Precision.
precision?.
11.0 What calculations must I 6.1 Isotopic Sampling. perform for isotopic sampling?
[[Page 76645]]
12.0 What calculations must I 6.2.1 Comparison with a validated
perform for comparison with a method: Paired Sampling Systems. validated method if I am using
paired sampling systems?
13.0 What calculations must I 6.2.2 Comparison with a validated
perform for comparison with a method: Quadruplet Replicate validated method if I am using Sampling Systems.
quadruplet replicate sampling
systems?
14.0 What calculations must I 6.3 Analyte Spiking.
perform for analyte spiking?
15.0 How do I conduct followup 11 Followup Testing.
tests?.
Optional Requirements
16.0 How do I use and conduct 7 Ruggedness Testing.
ruggedness testing?
17.0 What detection limits must I 9 Practical Limit of Quantitation. use?
Other Requirements and Information
18.0 How do I apply for approval to 10 Field Validation Report use an alternative method? Requirements.
19.0 How do I request a waiver?.... 1.1.1 and 12 Procedure for Obtaining a Waiver.
20.0 What definitions apply to this 12 Definitions.
method?.
21.0 Where can I find additional 13 Bibliography.
information?.
TABLE 2.EQUATIONS IN PROPOSED METHOD 301
The following
The following equation in equation in
proposed method 301 . . . is . . . promulgated
method 301 . . . 3011 Difference in Sample New...............
Results.
3017 Relative Magnitude of Bias. New...............
3019 Relative Magnitude of Bias New...............
for Comparing Against Validated
Methods Using Paired Sampling
Systems.
Equations When Using Isotopic Spiking
3014 Numerical Value of Bias.... A revision of..... 3011.
3015 Standard Deviation......... The same as....... 3012.
3016 t Test..................... A replacement for. 3013 and 3014.
3018 Relative Standard Deviation A revision of..... 3016.
Equations When Comparing Against Validated Method Using Paired Sampling Systems
3012 Standard Deviation......... For paired 3012. sampling systems,
a replacement for.
3013 t Test..................... The same as....... 3019.
30110 Variance.................. A replacement for. 3017. 30111 Pooled Variance........... New...............
30112 Alternative Test Method A replacement for. 3019a. Variance.
30113 F test.................... The same as....... 3018.
Equations When Comparing Against Validated Method Using Quadruplet Replicate Sampling Systems
30114 Bias...................... The same as....... 30112.
30115 Alternative Test Method The same as....... 30111. Variance.
Equations When Using Analyte Spiking
30116 Bias...................... The same as....... 30114.
30117 t Test.................... A replacement for. 3014.
30118 Standard Deviation for A revision of..... 30113 Spiked Samples.
30119 Standard Deviation for A replacement for. 30113 and 3016. Unspiked Samples.
30120 F test.................... New...............
30121 Pooled Standard Deviation. A replacement for. 30115. C. Correct Technical Errors
Some of the equations in promulgated Method 301 are incorrect. We are proposing to correct these equations with today's action. For a discussion of new equations due to technical revisions, see section III D of this preamble. We revised several equations to clarify their intent. Under the new numbering system, the revised equations are 3014 (numerical value of bias), 3016 (t Test), 3018 (relative standard deviation), 30118 (standard deviation for spiked samples), and 30119 (standard deviation for unspiked samples). These changes were editorial/defining changes and not technical changes. For example, we added or changed subscripts or redefined a variable.
[[Page 76646]]
We added Equations 3011, 3017, and 3019. Equation 3011 is used to calculate the difference in minimum and maximum storage times under the new sample stability procedures. Equation 3017 is used to calculate relative magnitude of bias for isotopic spiking. This new equation was needed when we dropped the use of correction factors. Likewise, Equation 3019 was needed for calculating relative magnitude of bias when comparing against a validated method using paired sampling systems.
We also added Equation 30111 and changed Equations 30112, 30117, 30118, and 30119 to correct technical errors in promulgated Method 301. Equations 30111 (Pooled Variance) and 30112 (Alternative Test Method Variance) are being proposed to correct a technical error in the promulgated method. Addition and subtraction can only be performed on the variance. It cannot be performed on the standard deviation. The proposed Equation 30111 is a new equation that calculates the pooled variance of both methods when comparing against validated methods using paired sampling systems. The proposed Equation 30112 replaces the standard deviation with the variance.
Equations 30117 (calculation of the test ``tstatistic'') and 301 21 (calculation of the pooled standard deviation) were changed because the divisor was wrong. Equation 30120 (F test) was added so that the tester could determine if the spiked and unspiked samples had the same precision, thereby allowing them to be pooled to calculate the overall precision.
The proposed Equation 3012 (Standard Deviation) replaces the
promulgated Equation 3012 when comparing against validated methods
using paired sampling systems. The text in promulgated 6.2.1.4 directs
the analyst to determine the mean of the paired sample differences by
substituting d
D. Make Technical Revisions
We are proposing five major technical changes to Method 301. These technical changes include the following:
(1) Replacing the Practical Limit of Quantitation (PLQ) with a procedure to determine the Limit of Detection,
(2) Revising the bias acceptance criteria and eliminating correction factors,
(3) Revising precision acceptance criteria when using analyte spiking,
(4) Allowing analyte spiking even when there is an existing test method, and
(5) Establishing new procedures for ensuring sample stability.
1. Practical Limit of Quantitation. We are proposing to replace the determination of the PLQ with a procedure to determine the Limit of detection (LOD). The purpose of establishing a measurement limit is to ensure that a test method is appropriate for its intended use. The LOD is a better parameter for this purpose.
The PLQ is defined as the level or concentration at which the precision of a test method reaches an acceptable value. There are several problems with this concept. The first is the idea that there is an absolute value for acceptable precision. To a certain extent, a tester can compensate for imprecision by collecting additional data so there is no absolute level at which the imprecision of a test method becomes so great that the method is no longer useful. This concept works best when the precision of the test method is independent of the concentration of the analyte being measured. As the concentration of the analyte increases, the imprecision of the method as a percentage of the measured quantity decreases. In this case, the relative imprecision will actually decrease as the quantity measured increases.
However, for most environmental measurements, it appears that the precision is a function of the concentration of the analyte being measured. Thus, the relative imprecision will not decrease as the quantity measured increases. In this case, the PLQ has no meaning.
The LOD is the minimum level or concentration of an analyte that produces a signal or response that is distinguishable from the signal or response produced when no analyte is present. This is a measurable quantity that can be determined regardless of the method's precision or whether that precision varies with the level of the analyte. For all of these reasons, we believe that the LOD is a more useful parameter to characterize a test method's performance.
2. Bias Acceptance Criteria. We are also proposing to change the
acceptance criteria for the bias in a proposed alternative method from
3. Precision Acceptance Criteria. We are proposing to change the
acceptance criteria for method precision when using analyte spiking
from
4. Analyte Spiking. We are also proposing to allow the tester to use analyte spiking to evaluate an alternative test method even when there is an existing compliance test method. If the NESHAP specifies a test method, promulgated Method 301 requires the tester to evaluate an alternative method by direct comparison. We believe that this is too restrictive in some cases. For example, a change in process technology may cause a previously unbiased test method to develop an interference that biases its results. If the tester is required to compare the alternative test method to the existing test method, the alternative method could never demonstrate acceptable performance if it were unbiased. We believe that it is sufficient for an alternative method to demonstrate acceptable performance by using the analyte spiking procedure and that this is a reasonable alternative to direct comparison.
[[Page 76647]]
5. Sample Stability. Finally, we are proposing procedures for
sample stability. Method 301 previously lacked specific procedures for
ensuring that samples collected under proposed alternative methods were
analyzed within an appropriate time. New Section 8.4 includes a
requirement to calculate the difference in the sampling results at the
minimum and maximum storage times, determine the standard deviation of
the differences, and test the difference in the results for statistical
significance by calculating the tstatistic and determining if the mean
of the differences between the initial results and the results after
storage is significant at the 95 percent confidence level. We have also
added Table 1 to compare the calculated tstatistic with the critical
value of the tstatistic. These procedures are necessary to ensure
sample stability and should have been included in promulgated Method 301.
IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements?
A. Executive Order 12866Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this proposed regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose or change the information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 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 collection of 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The 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 the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definitions for small business based on the Small Business Association (SBA) size standards which, for this proposed action, are operations that have fewer than 1,000 employees; (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 notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities,'' (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule establishes procedures for using alternative methods. As such, small entities and other sources are not required to comply with this proposed rule, but may elect to use Method 301. The proposed rule offers additional flexibility to all sources, including small entities that may be subject to requirements under the CAA. Additionally, this proposed amended rule clarifies and simplifies the procedures for using alternative methods. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 1044, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including costbenefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
[[Page 76648]]
official of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
We have determined that today's proposed amended rule does not contain Federal mandates for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed amended rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
Today's proposed amended rule will not have federalism
implications. They 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.
Today's proposed amended rule clarifies and simplifies the procedures
for using alternative methods. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.
F. Executive Order 13175Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The proposed amended rule
does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order
13175. The proposed action serves to clarify and simplify procedures
for using alternative methods. Therefore, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed amended rule.
G. Executive Order 13045Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines is: (1) ``Economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonable alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amended rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because this proposed amended rule is not based on health or safety risks. Thus, Executive Order 13045 does not apply to this proposed amended rule. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104113, section 12(d) 915 U.S.C. 272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards instead of government unique standards in their 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, etc.) that are developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations, generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies, include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to provide Congress through OMB with explanations when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed amended rule clarifies and simplifies, already promulgated, procedures for use of alternative standards. The intent of the Method 301 is to allow owners and operators of sources regulated by Part 63 standards the flexibility and option to use alternative standards. Today's proposed amended rule is intended to simplify and clarify the procedures for using alternative standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards with today's proposed action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Alternative test method, Air pollution control, Field validation, Hazardous air pollutants.
Dated: December 16, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 63[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Appendix A is amended by revising Method 301 to read as follows: [[Page 76649]]
Appendix A to Part 63Test Methods
Method 301Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods From Various Waste Media
Sec.
Using Method 301
1.0 What Is the Purpose of Method 301?
2.0 When Must I Use Method 301?
3.0 What Does Method 301 Include?
4.0 How Do I Perform Method 301?
Reference Materials and Performance Audits
5.0 What Reference Materials Must I Use?
6.0 How do I conduct the performance audit?
Sampling Procedures
7.0 What Sampling Procedures Must I Use?
8.0 How Do I Ensure Sample Stability?
Bias and Precision
9.0 What Are the Requirements for Bias?
10.0 What Are the Requirements for Precision?
11.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Isotopic Spiking?
12.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Comparison With a Validated Method If I Am Using Paired Sampling Systems?
13.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Comparison With a
Validated Method If I Am Using Quadruplet Replicate Sampling Systems?
14.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Analyte Spiking?
15.0 How Do I Conduct Tests at Similar Sources?
Optional Requirements
16.0 How Do I Use and Conduct Ruggedness Testing?
17.0 What Detection Limits Must I Use?
Other Requirements and Information
18.0 How Do I Apply for Approval To Use an Alternative Test Method? 19.0 How Do I Request a Waiver?
20.0 What Definitions Apply to This Method?
21.0 Where Can I Find Additional Information?
Using Method 301
1.0 What Is the Purpose of Method 301?
This method describes the minimum procedures that you, the owner or operator of an affected source subject to requirements under 40 CFR part 63, must use to validate an alternative test method to a test method required in 40 CFR part 63.
2.0 When Must I Use Method 301?
If you want to request to use an alternative test method to meet requirements in a subpart of 40 CFR part 63, you must use Method 301 to validate the alternative test method. You must request approval to use the alternative test method according to the procedures in section 18 and Sec. 63.7(f). You must receive the Administrator's written approval to use the alternative test method before you use the alternative test method to meet requirements under 40 CFR part 63. In some cases, the Administrator may decide to waive the requirement to use Method 301. Section 19 describes the requirements for obtaining a waiver.
3.0 What Does Method 301 Include?
This method includes minimum procedures to determine and document systematic error (bias) and random error (precision) of measured concentrations from exhaust gases, wastewater, sludge, and other media. It contains procedures for ensuring sample stability if such procedures are not included in the test method. This method also includes optional procedures for ruggedness and detection limits.
4.0 How Do I Perform Method 301?
First, you introduce a known concentration of an analyte or
compare the alternative test method against a validated test method
to determine the alternative test method's bias. Then, you collect
multiple, collocated simultaneous samples to determine the
alternative test method's precision. Sections 5.0 through 17.0 describe these procedures in detail.
Reference Materials and Performance Audits
5.0 What Reference Materials Must I Use?
You must use reference materials (that is, analytes) at the level of the applicable emission limitation or standard that the subpart in 40 CFR part 63 requires. If you want to expand the applicable range of the method, you must conduct additional runs with higher and lower analyte concentrations. The additional runs must be conducted according to the ruggedness procedures in 16.0. You must use the analytes according to the procedures in 5.1 through 5.4.
5.1 Exhaust Gas Tests. You must get a known concentration of each analyte from an independent source such as a speciality gas manufacturer, specialty chemical company, or chemical laboratory. You must also get the manufacturer's stability data for the analyte concentration and recommendations for recertification.
5.2 Tests for Other Waste Media. You must get the pure liquid components of each analyte from an independent manufacturer. The manufacturer must certify the purity and shelf life of the pure liquid components. You must dilute the pure liquid components in the same type medium as the waste from the affected source. You must verify the accuracy of the concentration of each diluted analyte by comparing its response to the pure liquid components.
5.3 Surrogate Analytes. If you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that a surrogate compound behaves as the analyte does, then you may use surrogate compounds for highly toxic or reactive compounds. A surrogate may be an isotope or one that contains a unique element (for example, chlorine) that is not present in the source or a derivation of the toxic or reactive compound, if the derivative formation is part of the method's procedure. You may use laboratory experiments or literature data to show behavioral acceptability.
5.4 Isotopically Labeled Materials. Isotope mixtures may contain the isotope and the natural analyte. The isotope labeled analyte concentration must be more than five times the natural concentration of the analyte.
6.0 How Do I Conduct the Performance Audit?
6.1 Getting Performance Audit Material. If EPA has performance audit material for the analytes that you are testing, you must use it to assess method bias. You can get a list of performance audit materials at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/email.html#audit or by contacting EMC at (919) 5415545. You must request the performance audit material at least 30 days before the validation test.
6.2 Sampling and Analyzing Performance Audit Material. You must
sample and analyze the performance audit material three times
according to the instructions provided with the audit sample. You
must submit the three results with the field validation report.
Although there are no acceptance criteria for these performance
audit results, you and the Administrator may use them to assess the
relative error of sample recovery, sample preparation, and
analytical procedures and then consider the relative error in evaluating the measured emissions.
Sampling Procedures
7.0 What Sampling Procedures Must I Use?
You may determine bias and precision by comparing against a validated test method, using isotopic sampling, or using analyte spiking. Isotopic sampling can only be used for procedures requiring mass spectrometry. You must collect samples according to the requirements in Table 1. You must perform the sampling according to the procedures in sections 7.1 through 7.5.
7.1 Comparison Against a Validated Test Method. If you are comparing the results from the validated test method, it is recommended that you conduct a performance audit according to the procedures in section 6.
7.2 Isotopic Spiking. Spike all 12 samples with the analyte at the concentration in the applicable emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63. If there is no applicable emission limitation or standard, spike at the expected level of the samples. Follow the appropriate spiking procedures in 7.4.1 through 7.4.2 for the applicable waste medium.
7.3 Analyte Spiking. In each quadruplet set, spike half of the
samples (two out of the four) with the analyte according to the applicable procedure in Section 7.4.
7.4 Spiking Procedure.
7.4.1 Gaseous Analyte with Sorbent or Impinger Sampling Trains.
Sample the analyte (in the laboratory or in the field) at a
concentration that is close to the concentration in the applicable
emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63 (or
the expected sample concentration where there is no standard) for
the time required by the method, and then sample the gas stream for
an equal amount of time. The time for sampling both the analyte and
gas stream should be equal; however, the time should be adjusted to
avoid sorbent breakthrough. The stack gas and the gaseous analyte may be sampled at the same time. The analyte must be
[[Page 76650]]
introduced as close to the tip of the sampling train as possible.
7.4.2 Gaseous Analyte with Sample Container (Bag or Canister). Spike the sample containers after completion of each test run with an amount equal to the concentration in the applicable emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63 (or the expected sample concentration where there is no standard). The final concentration of the analyte shall approximate the level of the emission concentration in the stack. The volume amount of analyte shall be less than 10 percent of the sample volume.
7.4.3 Liquid and Solid Analyte with Sorbent or Impinger Trains. Spike the trains with an amount equal to the concentration in the applicable emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63 (or the expected sample concentration where there is no standard) before sampling the stack gas. If possible, do the spiking in the field. If it is not possible to do the spiking in the field, you can do it in the laboratory.
7.4.4 Liquid and Solid Analyte with Sample Container (Bag or Canister). Spike the containers at the completion of each test run with an amount equal to the concentration in the applicable emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63 (or the expected sample concentration where there is no standard).
7.5 Probe Placement and Arrangement for Stationary Source Stack or Duct Sampling. To sample a stationary source as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, you must place the probe according to the procedures in 7.5. You must place the probes in the same horizontal plane.
7.5.1 For Paired Sample Probes, the sample probe tip should be 2.5 cm from the outside edge of the other sample probe, with a pitot tube on the outside of each probe. The Administrator may approve a validation request where other paired arrangements for the pitot tube are used.
7.5.2 For Quadruplet Sampling Probes, the tips should be in a
6.0 cm x 6.0 cm square area measured from the center line of the
opening of the probe tip with a single pitot tube in the center or
two pitot tubes with their location on either side of the probe tip
configuration. You must propose an alternative arrangement whenever the crosssectional area of the probe tip configuration is
approximately 5 percent or more of the stack or duct crosssectional area.
8.0 How Do I Ensure Sample Stability?
8.1 Developing Storage and Analysis Procedures. If the alternative test method includes wellestablished procedures supported by experimental data for sample storage and the time within which the collected samples must be analyzed, you must store the samples according to the procedures in the alternative test method. You are not required to conduct the procedures in section 8.2 or 8.3. If the alternative test method does not include such procedures, you must propose procedures for storing and analyzing samples to ensure sample stability. At a minimum, your proposed procedures must meet the requirements in section 8.2 or 8.3. The minimum storage time should be as soon as possible, but no longer than 24 hours after collection of the sample. The maximum storage time should be four weeks or less.
8.2 Storage and Sampling Procedures for Stack Test Emissions. You must store and analyze samples of stack test emissions according to Table 3. If you are using analyte spiking procedures, you must include equal numbers of spiked and unspiked samples.
8.3 Storage and Sampling Procedures for Testing Other Waste Media. You must analyze half of the replicate samples at the proposed minimum storage time and the other half at the proposed maximum storage time to identify the effect of storage times on analyte samples. The minimum storage time should be as soon as possible, but no longer than 24 hours after collection of the sample. The maximum storage time should be two weeks or less.
8.4 Sample Stability. After you have conducted sampling and
analysis according to 8.2 or 8.3, compare the results at the minimum
and maximum storage times. Calculate the difference in the results using Equation 3011.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.000
Where:
di = difference between the results of the ith sample.
R
R
8.4.1 Standard Deviation. Determine the standard deviation,
SD
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.001
Where:
V
P
d
d
n = total number of paired samples.
8.4.2 t Test. Test the difference in the results for statistical
significance by calculating the tstatistic and determining if the
mean of the differences between the initial results and the results
after storage is significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Calculate the value of the tstatistic using Equation 3013.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.002
Where:
n is the total number of paired samples.
Compare the calculated tstatistic with the critical value of
the tstatistic from Table 2. If the calculated tvalue is less than
the critical value, the difference is not statistically significant,
thus, the sampling and analysis procedure ensures stability, and you
may submit a request for validation of the proposed alternative test
method. If the calculated tvalue is greater than the critical
value, the difference is statistically significant and you must
repeat the procedures in 8.2 or 8.3 with new samples using shorter proposed maximum storage times.
Bias and Precision
9.0 What Are the Requirements for Bias?
You must establish bias by comparing the results of the sampling using the alternative test method against a reference value. The bias must be no more than +/10% for the alternative test method to be acceptable.
10.0 What Are the Requirements for Precision?
At a minimum, you must use paired sampling systems to establish
precision. If you are using analyte spiking, including isotopic
samples, the precision expressed as the relative standard deviation
(RSD), of the alternative test method at the level of the applicable
emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63
must be less than or equal to 20 percent. If you are comparing to a
validated test method, the alternative test method must be at least
as precise as the validated method at the level of the applicable
emission limitation or standard in the subpart of 40 CFR part 63 as determined by an F test.
11.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Isotopic Spiking?
You must analyze the bias, precision, relative standard deviation, and data acceptance for isotopic spiking tests according to the provisions in sections 11.1 through 11.3.
11.1 Numerical Bias. Calculate the numerical value of the bias
using the results from the analysis of the isotopically spiked field
samples and the calculated value of the isotopically labeled spike according to Equation 3014.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.003
Where:
B = Bias at the spike level.
S
CS = Calculated value of the isotopically labeled spike.
11.2 Standard Deviation. Calculate the standard deviation of the S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.004
Where:
S
n = Number of isotopically spiked samples, 12.
11.3 t Test. Test the bias for statistical significance by
calculating the tstatistic using Equation 3016. Use the standard
deviation determined in section 11.2 and the numerical bias determined in section 11.1.
[[Page 76651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.005
Compare the calculated tvalue with the critical value of the
twosided tdistribution at the 95 percent confidence level and n1
degrees of freedom. When spiking is conducted according to the
procedures specified in Sections 7.2 and 7.4 as required, this
critical value is 2.201 for the eleven degrees of freedom. If the
calculated tvalue is less than the critical value, the bias is not
statistically significant and the data are acceptable. If the
calculated tvalue is greater than the critical value, the bias is
statistically significant and you must evaluate the relative magnitude of the bias using Equation 3017.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.006
Where:
B
If the relative bias is less than or equal to 10 percent, then the data are acceptable. You may proceed to evaluate the precision. If not the candidate method will not meet the requirements of Method 301.
11.4 Relative Standard Deviation. Calculate the RSD according to Equation 3018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.007
where S
unacceptable if the RSD is greater than 20 percent.
12.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Comparison With a Validated Method If I Am Using Paired Sampling Systems?
You must analyze the data for comparison with a validated method
according to Section 12. Conduct these procedures to determine if an
alternative test method produces results equivalent to a validated
method. If the data from the alternative test method fail either the
bias or precision test, the data and the alternative test method are unacceptable.
12.1 Bias Analysis.
12.1.1 Standard Deviation. Determine the standard deviation,
SD
12.1.2 t Test. Test the bias for statistical significance by calculating the tstatistic and determine if the mean of the differences between the alternative test method and the validated method is significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Calculate the value of the tstatistic using Equation 3013. For the spiking procedure for paired sampling systems, according to section 7.1 and Table 1, n equals nine.
Compare the calculated tstatistic with the critical value of
the tstatistic. When nine runs are conducted, as specified in
Section 7.1 and Table 1, the critical value of the tstatistic is
1.397 for eight degrees of freedom. If the calculated tvalue is
less than the critical value, the bias is not statistically
significant and the data are acceptable. If the calculated tvalue
is greater than the critical value, the bias is statistically
significant and you must evaluate the relative magnitude of the bias
using Equation 3019. If the relative bias is less than or equal to
10 percent, then the data are acceptable. Proceed to evaluate precision.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.008
Where:
B = Bias = mean of the d
VS = mean measured by the validated method.
12.2. Precision. Compare the variance of the alternative test
method to that of the validated method. If a significant difference
is determined using the F test, the alternative test method and the
results are rejected. If the F test does not show a significant
difference, then the alternative test method has acceptable
precision. This procedure requires that you know the standard
deviation of the validated method, SD
12.2.1 Variance. Calculate the variance of the validated method, S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.009
Where:
SD
12.2.2 Pooled Variance. Calculate the pooled variance of both
methods, S2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.010
Where:
d
n = The number of pairs of samples.
12.2.3 Alternative Test Method Variance. Calculate the variance
of the alternative test method, S2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.011
(If S2
12.2.4 The F Test. Determine if the variance of the alternative test method is significantly different from that of the validated method by performing the F test. Calculate the experimental Fvalue using Equation 30113.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.012
Compare the experimental F value with the critical range of F at
a 95 percent confidence level. When the procedure specified in
Section 7.1 and Table 1 for paired trains is followed as required,
the critical range is 0.291 to 3.44. If the calculated F is outside
the critical range, the difference in precision is significant and the data and alternative test method are unacceptable.
13.0 What Calculations Must I Perform for Comparison With a
Validated Method If I Am Using Quadruplet Replicate Sampling Systems?
If you are using quadruplet replicate sampling systems to compare an alternative test method to a validated method, then you must analyze the data according to the provisions in 13.0. If the data from the alternative test method fail either the bias or precision test, the data and the alternative test method are unacceptable. If the Administrator determines that the affected source has highly variable emission rates, the Administrator may require additional precision checks.
13.1 Bias Analysis. Test the bias for statistical significance at the 95 percent confidence level by calculating the tstatistic.
13.1.1 Bias. Determine the bias, which is defined as the mean of
the differences between the alternative test method and the
validated method (d
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.013
Where:
V
V
P
P
13.1.2 Standard Deviation of the Differences. Calculate the
standard deviation of the differences, SD
13.1.3 T Test. Calculate the tstatistic using Equation 3013, where n is the total number of test sample differences
(d
13.2 Precision. Compare the variance of the alternative test
method to that of the validated method. If a significant difference
is determined using the F test, the alternative test method and the results are rejected. If the
[[Page 76652]]
F test does not show a significant difference, then the alternative
test method has acceptable precision. This procedure requires the
standard deviation of the validated method, SD
13.2.1 Alternative Test Method Variance. Calculate the variance
of the alternative test method, S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.014
Where:
d
13.2.2 The F Test. Determine if the variance of the alternative
test method is greater than that of the validated method by calculating the Fvalue using Equation 30113. Compare the
experimental F value with the critical range of F. The critical
range is 0.264 to 3.79 for the 95 percent confidence level when the
procedure specified in section 7.1 and Table 1 for quadruplet trains
is followed. If the calculated F is outside the critical range, the
difference in precision is significant, and the data and the alternative test method are unacceptable.
14.0 What calculations must I perform for analyte spiking?
You must analyze the data for analyte spike testing according to section 14.
14.1 Bias Analysis.
14.1.1 Bias. Calculate the numerical value of the bias using the
results from the analysis of the spiked field samples, the unspiked
field samples, and the calculated value of the spike using Equation 30116.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.020
Where:
B = Bias at the spike level.
S
M
CS = Calculated value of the spiked level.
14.1.2 T Test. Test the bias for statistical significance by
calculating the tstatistic using Equation 30117 and comparing it
with the critical value of the twosided tdistribution at the 95
percent confidence level and n2 degrees of freedom. This critical value is 2.228 for the ten degrees of freedom.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.015
Where:
S
S
If the calculated tvalue is less than the critical value, the bias is not statistically significant and the data are acceptable. If the calculated tvalue is greater than the critical value, the bias is statistically significant and you must evaluate the relative magnitude of the bias using Equation 3017. If the relative bias is less than or equal to 10 percent, then the data are acceptable. You may proceed to evaluate precision.
14.2 Precision. Calculate the standard deviation and the RSD of the alternative test method.
14.2.1 Spiked Samples. Calculate the difference, d
Where:
d
14.2.2 Unspiked Samples. Calculate the standard deviation of the unspiked values using Equation 30119.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.017
Where:
d
n = Number of paired samples.
14.2.3 Pooled Standard Deviation. Calculate the pooled standard
deviation of the spiked and unspiked samples if the standard
deviations are not significantly different. Test for this difference using Equation 30120.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.018
Where S
For the case where n = 6 and a 95 percent confidence level, the
standard deviations may be pooled if the calculated F lies between 0.139 and 7.146. Calculate the pooled standard deviation
(SD
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22DE04.019
If the variances are significantly different and cannot be pooled, use the standard deviation of the spiked samples for the bias analysis in section 14.1.2.
14.2.4 Relative Standard Deviation. Calculate the RSD of the
alternative test method using Equation 3018 and the pooled standard
deviation determined from Section 14.2.3. If the pooled standard
deviation or the standard deviation from the unspiked samples is
used, S
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For information concerning the proposed standards, contact Mr. Gary McAlister, Source Measurement Technology Group, Emission Measurement Center (D24302), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 5411062, electronic mail address: mcalister.gary@epa.gov.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 50 CFR Part 17 33 CFR Part 117 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 50 CFR Part 229 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522