National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units, 15510-15515 [2015-06152]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15510
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
merchants (FCMs) are subject. The revision
to this rule, known as the ‘‘residual-interest
requirement’’, clarified that one customer’s
funds could not be used by an FCM to cover
another customer’s margin deficit, but
phased in a deadline for stricter compliance
with this clarified standard. The change was
designed to reduce risks to those customer
funds placed in the care of FCMs, and were
among a host of regulatory enhancements
adopted by the Commission after two failures
of large, registered FCMs in 2011 and 2012—
MF Global and Peregrine Financial.
I supported those regulatory
enhancements—including the revision to
rule 1.22—because of the importance of the
matter addressed in each: The safekeeping of
customer money, which is the most
sacrosanct duty that any financial institution
owes to its customers. Today, the overall
framework of regulatory requirements that
registered FCMs must comply with is
substantially different today than in 2011.
For example, FCMs are no longer permitted
to use customer funds for in-house lending
through repurchase agreements; they are
subject to restrictions on the types of
securities that customer funds can be
invested in; they must pass on customer
initial margin on a gross basis to the
clearinghouse; through LSOC (legal
segregation with operational comingling)
they must legally segregate cleared swaps
customer collateral on an individual basis;
and they were required to significantly
enhance their supervision of and accounting
for customer funds. As a result, the risks
posed to customers funds stewarded by
FCMs have been significantly reduced.
The recent customer protection
rulemakings all were well intentioned, but
indisputably carried some additional costs
and burdens for both FCMs and their
customers. The analysis was made at the
time, however, that those burdens and costs
were outweighed by the benefits to FCM
customers, especially against the very recent
backdrop of hundreds of millions of dollars
of customer funds having been stolen, or tied
up in a bankruptcy proceeding, for at least a
period of time.
The release before us essentially re-weighs
the cost or burden on one hand, and the
benefit on the other, and comes up with a
slightly different, but well supported,
conclusion regarding the residual-interest
requirement. The costs or burdens revisited
in the release: (1) Uncertainty to the
marketplace invited by a time-of-settlement
compliance deadline that was subject to
future review by the Commission staff, which
suggested a change could come to the
requirements, but might not; and (2) the
anticipated costs to FCMs of having to
finance the funding to top up their
customers’ margin deficits, or the cost to
customers of pre-funding their margin
accounts with FCMs. And the benefit at issue
in the release: The value to an FCM customer
of ensuring that its funds will never be
borrowed by an FCM to cover another
customer’s deficit.
The inherent risk to this common practice
by FCMs is that should an FCM become
insolvent after it posts required margin to the
clearinghouse, but before it collects margin
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Mar 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
deficits from all of its customers, the
customers whose funds were used to cover a
deficit might not see those funds again, or
perhaps only after a protracted bankruptcy
proceeding. This practice also is not
technically compliant with how rule 1.22 is
written, which prohibits FCMs from ‘‘using,
or permitting the use of, the futures customer
funds of one futures customer to purchase,
margin, or settle the trades, contracts, or
commodity options of, or to secure or extend
the credit of, any person other than such
futures customer.’’
This final rule keeps the residual-interest
deadline at the close of business on the day
following the margin-deficit calculation and
eliminates the future deadline of the time of
settlement on the day following the margindeficit calculation. The Commission staff is
still required to perform a feasibility study to
determine whether future, more aggressive
residual-interest deadlines would be
desirable.
The comment file overwhelmingly
supported the change in today’s final rule—
in other words, commenters took the view
that the potential costs associated with the
2013 residual-interest rule appear to
outweigh the risk that some of their funds
could be lost in the event their FCM becomes
insolvent after the time of settlement, but
before an FCM collects margin deficits.
Indeed, the risk that an FCM becomes
insolvent during this precise timeframe
without some prior notice to its customers of
financial stress at the FCM is very low.
Notably, many comments supporting this
final rule were filed by FCM customers, the
constituency rule 1.22 is designed to protect,
and who appreciate the aforementioned risk.
The Commission must respect the comment
process and the FCM-customer viewpoint
that today’s rule better balances the cost and
benefits of rule 1.22.
Another relevant factor that supports the
change to rule 1.22 is the risk of
concentration within the FCM community as
a whole, and what that means for the costs
to customers of trading in derivatives and its
related impacts on liquidity in those markets.
The number of registered FCMs has
decreased in recent years, which may make
it more difficult for customers to manage
their risk by limiting their ability to access
the markets, or by making it more difficult for
them to allocate funds between multiple
FCMs to minimize concentration risk.
The results of the public comment process,
when considered in the context of the overall
stronger regulatory framework for FCMs and
the concentration in the FCM community
described above, give me the comfort needed
to support the changes to 1.22 contained in
today’s release.
On the other hand, without the five-year
phase-in period, we might see a reluctance by
the industry to move as swiftly to streamline
margin-collection practices and to take
advantage of any technological solutions that
may be developed. Some recent technology
advances hold the promise to reduce the very
sorts of risks addressed by rule 1.22 by
facilitating real-time margin collection and
settlement. To be sure, those advances would
have been more seriously and expeditiously
tested and—if they demonstrate merit—
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
embraced without the change to rule 1.22 we
are releasing today. In other words, just as in
2013 when the existing rule was finalized, I
continue to believe that the most costly
solutions for complying with rule 1.22 that
were anticipated by many commenters
should not be the ones ultimately embraced
by the marketplace. Moreover, given
regulatory requirements imposed by other
regulators, today members of the clearing
ecosystem are exploring a variety of solutions
to new compliance and capital burdens that
also would ease and enable stricter
compliance with rule 1.22, thus minimizing
further the likelihood that pre-funding
customer margin accounts with FCMs will
become the preferred solution to compliance.
Finally, I note that a study and roundtable
to review these advancements, and how they
might lower risks and related costs, still are
mandated by law, and I ask the Chairman to
direct staff to move swiftly to comply with
these regulatory requirements so that the
Commission may act appropriately when and
if it needs to. I look forward to continuing to
collaborate with staff and market participants
as we work towards enhancing the safety and
efficiency of our markets.
Appendix 4—Statement of
Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo
I support the Commission’s action to
change the residual interest deadline, if
necessary or appropriate, only upon a
Commission rulemaking following a public
comment period. This approach will allow
the Commission to better understand the
market impacts and operational challenges of
moving the residual interest deadline. This
approach is especially important given the
likely negative impacts on smaller futures
commission merchants who provide our
farmers, ranchers and rural producers with
critical risk management services.
I call on the Commission to take the same
deliberative approach to the de minimis
exception to the swap dealer definition so
that the de minimis level does not
automatically adjust from $8 billion to $3
billion, absent a rulemaking with proper
notice and comment. Like today’s proposal,
the Commission should only adjust the de
minimis threshold if necessary or appropriate
after it has considered the data and weighed
public comments.
[FR Doc. 2015–06548 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234; FRL–9923–98–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AS39
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating
Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
ACTION:
Final rule.
On November 19, 2014, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed amending certain reporting
requirements in the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam
Generating Units (Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS)) rule. This
final rule amends the reporting
requirements in the MATS rule by
temporarily requiring owners or
operators of affected sources to submit
certain required emissions and
compliance reports to the EPA through
the Emissions Collection and
Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client
Tool, and the rule temporarily suspends
the requirement for owners or operators
of affected sources to submit certain
reports using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI).
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 24, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
SUMMARY:
the Internet and will be publically
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. 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,
and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243–05), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–5635; fax
number: (919) 541–3207; and email
address: parker.barrett@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?
II. Does this final rule apply to me?
III. What are the amendments made by this
final rule?
IV. Public Comments and Responses
A. Support for the Proposed Approach
B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach
C. Other Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
NAICS Code1
Category
Industry .......................................................................................
Federal government 2 ..................................................................
221112
221122
State/local/tribal government 2 ....................................................
221122
921150
1 North
15511
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
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
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 (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?
The EPA is finalizing its proposed
rule with revisions, and this final rule
replaces the existing requirements that
became effective on January 5, 2015,
pursuant to a direct final rule published
on November 19, 2014. See 79 FR 68840
and 79 FR 68795. We also respond to
comments in this final rule. See 79 FR
68796.
II. Does this final rule apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this final rule include:
Examples of Regulated Entities
Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units.
Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by the
federal government.
Fossil fuel-fired electric steam generating units owned by
states, tribes or municipalities.
Fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian
country.
American Industry Classification System.
state or local government-owned and operated establishments are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2 Federal,
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this final rule. To
determine whether your facility would
be regulated by this final rule, you
should examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have
any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult either the air
permitting authority for the entity or
your EPA regional representative as
listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Mar 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
III. What are the amendments made by
this final rule?
This final rule amends the reporting
requirements in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) of
the MATS rule at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUUU. The final MATS rule
required affected sources to submit
certain MATS emissions and
compliance information electronically,
using either the CEDRI or the ECMPS
Client Tool. The EPA developed these
two systems prior to the MATS rule for
the electronic submittal of emissions
data from many source categories.
CEDRI is currently used by owners or
operators of sources regulated under 40
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63 to
submit performance test reports and
other air emissions reports. ECMPS is
used to report emissions data under the
Clean Air Act title IV Acid Rain
Program and other programs that are
required to continuously monitor and
report emissions according to 40 CFR
part 75. These two systems have
enhanced the way source owners and
operators report emissions data to the
EPA by providing a streamlined and
standardized electronic approach.
Subsequent to publication of the
MATS rule, stakeholders commented
that we could improve the reporting
efficiency of the MATS rule by requiring
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15512
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
all data to be reported to one system
instead of two. Stakeholders also
commented that one system could
benefit the EPA and the public in the
review of data submitted by setting one
consistent format for all data reported
through MATS. Further, because the
vast majority of sources covered under
the MATS rule have been using the
ECMPS Client Tool since 2009, the
stakeholders have encouraged the EPA
to consider consolidating the electronic
reporting under ECMPS.
We agree that requiring reporting to
one system will increase the efficiency
of reporting and facilitate review of
reported data. For these reasons, the
agency is beginning the process of
consolidating the submission of
electronic reports required under the
MATS rule to one system—the ECMPS
Client Tool. This final rule is the first
step in the process. The next step is for
the EPA to create a detailed set of
reporting instructions and design,
develop, beta-test and implement the
necessary modifications to the ECMPS
Client Tool; however, the EPA cannot
complete the second step prior to April
16, 2015, the compliance deadline for
the MATS rule. Therefore, we are
implementing a phased approach to
completing the change in the electronic
reporting requirements.
This final rulemaking completes the
first step in the agency’s plan by
removing the requirement to submit
MATS compliance reports to CEDRI and
requiring source owners or operators to
use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit
Portable Document Format (PDF)
versions of the reports that the current
MATS rule requires to be submitted
using CEDRI. As stated above, this
interim step is necessary because the
ECMPS Client Tool is not currently
programmed to accept the reports that
the MATS rule required sources to
submit to CEDRI. The specific reports
that must be submitted in PDF format
include: Quarterly and annual
performance stack test reports; 30- (or
90-) boiler operating day mercury (Hg)
Low Emitting EGU (Electric Generating
Unit) (LEE) test reports; Relative
Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) reports
for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen fluoride, and Hg monitors;
Relative Calibration Audit (RCA) and
Relative Response Audit (RRA) reports
for particulate matter (PM) continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS);
30-boiler operating day rolling average
reports for PM CEMS, PM continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS),
and approved hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) metals CEMS; and semiannual
compliance reports. Reports for the
performance stack tests, Hg LEE tests,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Mar 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
RATAs, RRAs and RCAs typically
include a description of the source, the
test date(s), a list of attendees, a test
protocol, a summary of results, raw field
data, and example calculations, and,
depending on the method(s) used, may
also include the results of sample
analyses, quality-assurance information
(e.g., leak, bias and drift checks), and
instrument calibrations and calibration
gas certificates. This final rule does not
alter the due dates for any report
submittals contained in the final MATS
rule. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart
UUUUU.
The EPA recognized that submitting
electronic PDF reports is not as
desirable as reporting the data in
extensible markup language (XML)
format, because the information in a
PDF report cannot easily be extracted
and put in a database format. In view of
this, we plan to promulgate an
additional data reporting revision to the
MATS rule in the second part of our
phased approach. In this second part,
we plan to develop another rulemaking
that requires affected source owners or
operators to submit the data elements
required in the rule in a structured XML
format using the ECMPS Client Tool,
which is already in use. The second part
of our phased approach will complete
the process of conversion of the
electronic reporting of data using the
ECMPS Client Tool, and the MATS rule
will be revised to specify all of the
required XML data elements for each
type of report. We also plan to develop
a detailed set of reporting instructions
for each report and to modify ECMPS
accordingly, in order to be able to
receive and process the data submitted.
In the event we are unable to finalize
the rulemaking for the second part of
our phased approach for electronic
reporting conversion by April 16, 2017,
the reporting requirements established
in this final rule will revert
automatically to the original
requirements set forth in the final
MATS rulemaking published on
February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9303). This
trigger is necessary to ensure that the
data submitted in the future is
consistent with the database
accessibility that is associated with
information reported in structured XML
formats even if the second rulemaking
cannot be finalized. Accordingly, this
rulemaking includes a date of April 16,
2017, to complete the second part of our
phased approach for electronic
reporting conversion to the ECMPS
Client Tool. The EPA intends to revoke
this requirement once the final
conversion to the ECMPS Client Tool is
complete.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
IV. Public Comments and Responses
The direct final and parallel proposed
rules received comments from nine
persons—two members of the public,
one state government representative,
four EGU owners or operators and two
EGU industry representatives.
A. Support for the Proposed Approach
Most commenters expressed support
for the planned two phased approach
for merging the electronic reporting
systems, as well as the revisions to
allow temporary submission of MATS
rule emissions and compliance reports
through the ECMPS Client Tool and
suspension of mandatory submission of
certain reports using the CEDRI.
Commenters recognized the benefits
afforded by the proposed approach,
noting that through the use of the
transition period, the agency will be
able to obtain the necessary information
to assure compliance while
simultaneously developing final
reporting formats and infrastructure for
XML reporting. Commenters agree that
consolidating all reporting requirements
through one system will streamline and
simplify requirements, making reporting
more efficient and user-friendly,
improve the quality of reported
emissions data and enable the agency to
track compliance effectively. We
reviewed and considered these
comments and are finalizing the
proposed rule, with minor revisions, to
implement the first part of our phased
approach to merge all MATS rule
electronic reporting into the ECMPS
Client Tool.
B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach
One commenter, a state government
representative, opposed the provisions
of the proposed rule on two grounds: (1)
The commenter alleges the rule did not
contain a requirement for EGU owners
or operators to submit full stack test
reports; and (2) the commenter indicates
that it is improper to include a
temporary suspension of the
requirement to use the electronic
reporting tool (ERT) in preparing and
submitting stack test reports
electronically.
With regard to the first item, the EPA
maintains that the proposed rule did
include a requirement to submit
complete performance test reports
during the interim period. In the
proposed rule, the EPA stated that stack
test reports were required to be
submitted during the transition period:
‘‘. . . (t)he specific reports that must be
submitted in PDF format include:
Quarterly and annual performance stack
test reports . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . (r)eports for
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the performance stack tests . . .
typically include a description of the
source, the test date(s), a list of
attendees, a test protocol, a summary of
results, raw field data, and example
calculations, and, depending on the
method(s) used, may also include the
results of sample analyses, qualityassurance information (e.g., bias and
drift checks), instrument calibrations,
and calibration gas certificates . . .’’ (79
FR 68797). Other commenters agreed
with the EPA’s view of the requirements
while some believed that the
requirement to submit the test reports
was only triggered upon request by the
permitting authority. To address any
ambiguity on this issue, we are revising
the proposed rule and expressly
requiring submission of emissions test
reports in the final rule.
With regard to the second item, we
agree with the state representative who
commented that ‘‘. . . (s)ubmittal of
stack test reports using ERT will allow
(regulatory agencies) to independently
verify emissions calculations without
having to re-enter data into separate
spreadsheets for re-calculation. ERT
does the calculations and can include
all raw field and laboratory data as
attachments . . . .’’ These are among the
reasons we mandated use of the ERT in
both the Information Collection Request
and the MATS rule. Moreover, we agree
with the state representative that the
‘‘. . . ERT can generate a full PDF report
that could be submitted to ECMPS with
minimal effort . . . .’’ Indeed, we
maintain that using the ‘‘one-touch’’
ERT feature to create PDF versions of
ERT-developed reports is the easiest
way to meet the interim electronic
reporting requirements. However, at the
present time, the ERT does not support
every MATS rule-related test method,
quality assurance approach or
performance specification (PS), e.g.,
RCA or RRA for PM CEMS and PS–11
for PM CEMS. Moreover, despite the
efficiency and ease of using the ‘‘onetouch’’ capability of the ERT for the
majority of MATS rule related test
methods, quality assurance approaches
or PS, the ERT is not the sole means of
developing PDF versions of required
reports. We considered requiring EGU
owners or operators to use the ERT’s
PDF creation feature for those reports
that can be developed through the
current version of the ERT, but decided
against it for concerns that mandated
use of two separate systems during the
interim period could be inefficient.
While we believe many EGU owners or
operators will choose to use the ERT’s
cost-effective PDF creation approach
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Mar 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
when possible, the rule does not require
its use.
C. Other Comments
Even though comments on the
proposed rule were to be limited to
issues directly associated with the
electronic reporting changes covered in
40 CFR 63.10031, commenters provided
other comments. One industry
representative sought assurance that
under the interim rule, EGU owners or
operators could use self-generated forms
that included relevant information per
the aforementioned preamble language
(79 CFR 68797), going on to assert that
the only formatting specification is that
the reports be submitted in PDF format.
The industry representative expressed
support for the proposed rule if those
assertions were correct. Commenters are
correct, provided the necessary
information is included in a reasonable
manner to allow review in the electronic
PDF versions of the reports.
Industry commenters also opposed
the proposed rule to the extent it
required EGU owners or operators to use
the ERT or CEDRI forms to create the
reports that will be submitted in PDF
format, believing that the rule revision
would not provide any relief if their
understanding were correct. While we
disagree with the commenters’ views
that using the ERT or CEDRI to create
PDF versions of reports or forms would
not provide relief, the rule neither
requires nor prohibits during the
interim period preparation or
submission of PDF reports or forms
using the ERT or CEDRI. We also note
that the current versions of the ERT or
CEDRI do support notice of compliance
(NOC) status reporting and the majority
of MATS rule-related test methods,
quality assurance approaches and PS,
including all associated requisite
calculations and validations. For this
reason, the commenters’ concerns are
misplaced.
Industry commenters also commented
that some in the regulated community
might be confused over the reporting
requirements and misinterpret the
provisions such that only PDF versions
of ERT or CEDRI generated reports or
forms would be allowed for submission
during the interim period. Both
commenters suggested we provide
guidance, or, if necessary, additional
rule language after the first sentence of
40 CFR 63.10031(f)(6), to clarify the role
of the ERT and CEDRI for data submittal
during the interim reporting phase. We
considered these comments and decided
that such guidance or rule language is
unnecessary, as the ERT is not required
to be used during the interim period.
With regard to reporting requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15513
during the transition period, as
mentioned earlier, the use of the CEDRI
to submit reports to our WebFIRE
database will be suspended, the
information that would have been
reported through the CEDRI must be
submitted to the ECMPS in PDF format
and the deadline for submitting reports
remains unchanged. We will make the
necessary adjustments to the ECMPS to
enable the PDF reports to be submitted.
Note that submission of a PDF version
of a test report during this interim
period is sufficient, provided that the
test report contains sufficient
information to assess compliance and to
determine whether the testing has been
done properly.
One commenter expressed concern
with using the ERT and CEDRI in the
interim period because, in his view,
those platforms are not capable of
accepting certain MATS reports, such as
NOC status reports and 30-boiler
operating day averages from PM CEMS.
Moreover, the commenter believes using
the ERT would be inefficient because, in
his view, it was not designed to handle
MATS rule data, such as those from PS–
11, RCAs and RRAs. Finally, the
commenter believes the usefulness of
ERT collected data is limited because, in
his view, the ERT neither performs the
requisite calculations for quality
assurance tests nor validates test results
in accordance with method acceptance
criteria. As stated above, the rule neither
requires nor prohibits during the
interim period preparation or
submission of PDF reports or forms
using the ERT or CEDRI. We also note
that the current versions of the ERT or
CEDRI do support NOC status reporting
and the majority of MATS rule related
test methods, quality assurance
approaches and PS, including all
associated requisite calculations and
validations. While not a part of this
rulemaking, we soon expect the ERT
will be able to handle all of the
remaining MATS rule related test
methods, quality assurance approaches
and PS, which will be important if the
agency does not complete the revisions
to the ECMPS. In addition, we expect
the ECMPS Client Tool to be revised to
accept all MATS rule related electronic
reporting during the second part of our
phased approach such that the ECMPS
will be the sole means for providing
MATS reports electronically.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
15514
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0567. The agency believes this
action does not impose an information
collection burden because it does not
change the information collection
requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. This amendment does not
create any new requirements or
burdens, and no costs are associated
with this amendment. See 79 FR 68795
at 68798 (November 19, 2014).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local or tribal governments or
the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying to those regulatory
actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. This action does not affect
the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment. The
final amendments are either
clarifications or alternate, temporary
reporting instructions which will
neither increase nor decrease
environmental protection.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. The final amendments
impose no requirements on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 9, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:15 Mar 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONS
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart UUUUU-National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric
Steam Generating Units
2. Section 63.10031 is amended by:
a. Revising the first sentence in each
of the following paragraphs: (f)
introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4); and
■ b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6).
The revisions read as follows:
■
■
§ 63.10031
when?
What reports must I submit and
*
*
*
*
*
(f) On or after April 16, 2017, within
60 days after the date of completing
each performance test, you must submit
the performance test reports required by
this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database
by using the Compliance and Emissions
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is
accessed through EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx).
* * *
(1) On or after April 16, 2017, within
60 days after the date of completing
each CEMS (SO2, PM, HCl, HF, and Hg)
performance evaluation test, as defined
in § 63.2 and required by this subpart,
you must submit the relative accuracy
test audit (RATA) data (or, for PM
CEMS, RCA and RRA data) required by
this subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database
by using CEDRI that is accessed through
EPA’s CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
(2) On or after April 16, 2017, for a
PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved
alternative monitoring using a HAP
metals CEMS, within 60 days after the
reporting periods ending on March 31st,
June 30th, September 30th, and
December 31st, you must submit
quarterly reports to EPA’s WebFIRE
database by using the CEDRI that is
accessed through EPA’s CDX
(www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(4) On or after April 16, 2017, submit
the compliance reports required under
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section
and the notification of compliance
status required under § 63.10030(e) to
EPA’s WebFIRE database by using the
CEDRI that is accessed through EPA’s
CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
(5) All reports required by this
subpart not subject to the requirements
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
in paragraphs (f) introductory text and
(f)(1) through (4) of this section must be
sent to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator
and the owner or operator of an EGU,
these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator
retains the right to require submittal of
reports subject to paragraphs (f)
introductory text and (f)(1) through (4)
of this section in paper format.
(6) Prior to April 16, 2017, all reports
subject to electronic submittal in
paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1),
(2), and (4) shall be submitted to the
EPA at the frequency specified in those
paragraphs in electronic portable
document format (PDF) using the
ECMPS Client Tool. Each PDF version
of a submitted report must include
sufficient information to assess
compliance and to demonstrate that the
testing was done properly. The
following data elements must be entered
into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time
of submission of each PDF file:
(i) The facility name, physical
address, mailing address (if different
from the physical address), and county;
(ii) The ORIS code (or equivalent ID
number assigned by EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD)) and the
Facility Registry System (FRS) ID;
(iii) The EGU (or EGUs) to which the
report applies. Report the EGU IDs as
they appear in the CAMD Business
System;
(iv) If any of the EGUs in paragraph
(f)(6)(iii) of this section share a common
stack, indicate which EGUs share the
stack. If emissions data are monitored
and reported at the common stack
according to part 75 of this chapter,
report the ID number of the common
stack as it is represented in the
electronic monitoring plan required
under § 75.53 of this chapter;
(v) If any of the EGUs described in
paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section are in
an averaging plan under § 63.10009,
indicate which EGUs are in the plan and
whether it is a 30- or 90-day averaging
plan;
(vi) The identification of each
emission point to which the report
applies. An ‘‘emission point’’ is a point
at which source effluent is released to
the atmosphere, and is either a
dedicated stack that serves one of the
EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(6)(iii)
of this section or a common stack that
serves two or more of those EGUs. To
identify an emission point, associate it
with the EGU or stack ID in the CAMD
Business system or the electronic
monitoring plan (e.g., ‘‘Unit 2 stack,’’
‘‘common stack CS001,’’ or ‘‘multiple
stack MS001’’);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:04 Mar 23, 2015
Jkt 235001
(vii) The rule citation (e.g.,
§ 63.10031(f)(1), § 63.10031(f)(2), etc.)
for which the report is showing
compliance;
(viii) The pollutant(s) being addressed
in the report;
(ix) The reporting period being
covered by the report (if applicable);
(x) The relevant test method that was
performed for a performance test (if
applicable);
(xi) The date the performance test was
conducted (if applicable); and
(xii) The responsible official’s name,
title, and phone number.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–06152 Filed 3–23–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0702; FRL–9924–09]
RIN 2070–AB27
Revocation of Significant New Uses of
Metal Salts of Complex Inorganic
Oxyacids
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is revoking the
significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
for two chemical substances that were
identified generically as metal salts of
complex inorganic oxyacids, which
were the subject of premanufacture
notices (PMNs) P–89–576 and P–89–
577. EPA issued a SNUR based on a
TSCA section 5(e) consent order
designating certain activities as
significant new uses. EPA has received
test data for the chemical substances
and is revoking the SNUR.
DATES: This final rule is effective May
26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0702, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket),
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. 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,
and the telephone number for the OPPT
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15515
Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: 202 564–8974; email address:
alwood.jim@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture
(including import), process, or use the
chemical substances contained in this
rule. Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
• Manufacturers or processors of the
chemical substances (NAICS codes 325
and 324110), e.g., chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
§ 721.5. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
This action may also affect certain
entities through pre-existing import
certification and export notification
rules under TSCA. Chemical importers
are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15
U.S.C. 2612) import certification
requirements promulgated at 19 CFR
12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR
127.28. Chemical importers must certify
that the shipment of the chemical
substance complies with all applicable
rules and orders under TSCA. Importers
of chemicals subject to a SNUR must
certify their compliance with the SNUR
requirements. The EPA policy in
support of import certification appears
at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Importers
E:\FR\FM\24MRR1.SGM
24MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15510-15515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06152]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234; FRL-9923-98-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS39
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal-
and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 15511]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 19, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed amending certain reporting requirements in the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Steam Generating Units (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS)) rule. This final rule amends the reporting requirements in the
MATS rule by temporarily requiring owners or operators of affected
sources to submit certain required emissions and compliance reports to
the EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System
(ECMPS) Client Tool, and the rule temporarily suspends the requirement
for owners or operators of affected sources to submit certain reports
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 24, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (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 publically
available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA WJC West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; fax number: (919)
541-3207; and email address: parker.barrett@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?
II. Does this final rule apply to me?
III. What are the amendments made by this final rule?
IV. Public Comments and Responses
A. Support for the Proposed Approach
B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach
C. Other Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
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 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 (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. Why is the EPA issuing a final rule?
The EPA is finalizing its proposed rule with revisions, and this
final rule replaces the existing requirements that became effective on
January 5, 2015, pursuant to a direct final rule published on November
19, 2014. See 79 FR 68840 and 79 FR 68795. We also respond to comments
in this final rule. See 79 FR 68796.
II. Does this final rule apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Regulated
Category NAICS Code\1\ Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... 221112 Fossil fuel-fired
electric steam
generating units.
Federal government \2\......... 221122 Fossil fuel-fired
electric steam
generating units owned
by the federal
government.
State/local/tribal government 221122 Fossil fuel-fired
\2\. electric steam
generating units owned
by states, tribes or
municipalities.
921150 Fossil fuel-fired
electric utility steam
generating units in
Indian country.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Federal, state or local government-owned and operated establishments
are classified according to the activity in which they are engaged.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
this final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 63.13.
III. What are the amendments made by this final rule?
This final rule amends the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
63.10031(f) of the MATS rule at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU. The
final MATS rule required affected sources to submit certain MATS
emissions and compliance information electronically, using either the
CEDRI or the ECMPS Client Tool. The EPA developed these two systems
prior to the MATS rule for the electronic submittal of emissions data
from many source categories. CEDRI is currently used by owners or
operators of sources regulated under 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 63
to submit performance test reports and other air emissions reports.
ECMPS is used to report emissions data under the Clean Air Act title IV
Acid Rain Program and other programs that are required to continuously
monitor and report emissions according to 40 CFR part 75. These two
systems have enhanced the way source owners and operators report
emissions data to the EPA by providing a streamlined and standardized
electronic approach.
Subsequent to publication of the MATS rule, stakeholders commented
that we could improve the reporting efficiency of the MATS rule by
requiring
[[Page 15512]]
all data to be reported to one system instead of two. Stakeholders also
commented that one system could benefit the EPA and the public in the
review of data submitted by setting one consistent format for all data
reported through MATS. Further, because the vast majority of sources
covered under the MATS rule have been using the ECMPS Client Tool since
2009, the stakeholders have encouraged the EPA to consider
consolidating the electronic reporting under ECMPS.
We agree that requiring reporting to one system will increase the
efficiency of reporting and facilitate review of reported data. For
these reasons, the agency is beginning the process of consolidating the
submission of electronic reports required under the MATS rule to one
system--the ECMPS Client Tool. This final rule is the first step in the
process. The next step is for the EPA to create a detailed set of
reporting instructions and design, develop, beta-test and implement the
necessary modifications to the ECMPS Client Tool; however, the EPA
cannot complete the second step prior to April 16, 2015, the compliance
deadline for the MATS rule. Therefore, we are implementing a phased
approach to completing the change in the electronic reporting
requirements.
This final rulemaking completes the first step in the agency's plan
by removing the requirement to submit MATS compliance reports to CEDRI
and requiring source owners or operators to use the ECMPS Client Tool
to submit Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of the reports that
the current MATS rule requires to be submitted using CEDRI. As stated
above, this interim step is necessary because the ECMPS Client Tool is
not currently programmed to accept the reports that the MATS rule
required sources to submit to CEDRI. The specific reports that must be
submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack
test reports; 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day mercury (Hg) Low
Emitting EGU (Electric Generating Unit) (LEE) test reports; Relative
Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) reports for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen
chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and Hg monitors; Relative Calibration
Audit (RCA) and Relative Response Audit (RRA) reports for particulate
matter (PM) continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS); 30-boiler
operating day rolling average reports for PM CEMS, PM continuous
parameter monitoring system (CPMS), and approved hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) metals CEMS; and semiannual compliance reports.
Reports for the performance stack tests, Hg LEE tests, RATAs, RRAs and
RCAs typically include a description of the source, the test date(s), a
list of attendees, a test protocol, a summary of results, raw field
data, and example calculations, and, depending on the method(s) used,
may also include the results of sample analyses, quality-assurance
information (e.g., leak, bias and drift checks), and instrument
calibrations and calibration gas certificates. This final rule does not
alter the due dates for any report submittals contained in the final
MATS rule. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU.
The EPA recognized that submitting electronic PDF reports is not as
desirable as reporting the data in extensible markup language (XML)
format, because the information in a PDF report cannot easily be
extracted and put in a database format. In view of this, we plan to
promulgate an additional data reporting revision to the MATS rule in
the second part of our phased approach. In this second part, we plan to
develop another rulemaking that requires affected source owners or
operators to submit the data elements required in the rule in a
structured XML format using the ECMPS Client Tool, which is already in
use. The second part of our phased approach will complete the process
of conversion of the electronic reporting of data using the ECMPS
Client Tool, and the MATS rule will be revised to specify all of the
required XML data elements for each type of report. We also plan to
develop a detailed set of reporting instructions for each report and to
modify ECMPS accordingly, in order to be able to receive and process
the data submitted.
In the event we are unable to finalize the rulemaking for the
second part of our phased approach for electronic reporting conversion
by April 16, 2017, the reporting requirements established in this final
rule will revert automatically to the original requirements set forth
in the final MATS rulemaking published on February 16, 2012 (77 FR
9303). This trigger is necessary to ensure that the data submitted in
the future is consistent with the database accessibility that is
associated with information reported in structured XML formats even if
the second rulemaking cannot be finalized. Accordingly, this rulemaking
includes a date of April 16, 2017, to complete the second part of our
phased approach for electronic reporting conversion to the ECMPS Client
Tool. The EPA intends to revoke this requirement once the final
conversion to the ECMPS Client Tool is complete.
IV. Public Comments and Responses
The direct final and parallel proposed rules received comments from
nine persons--two members of the public, one state government
representative, four EGU owners or operators and two EGU industry
representatives.
A. Support for the Proposed Approach
Most commenters expressed support for the planned two phased
approach for merging the electronic reporting systems, as well as the
revisions to allow temporary submission of MATS rule emissions and
compliance reports through the ECMPS Client Tool and suspension of
mandatory submission of certain reports using the CEDRI. Commenters
recognized the benefits afforded by the proposed approach, noting that
through the use of the transition period, the agency will be able to
obtain the necessary information to assure compliance while
simultaneously developing final reporting formats and infrastructure
for XML reporting. Commenters agree that consolidating all reporting
requirements through one system will streamline and simplify
requirements, making reporting more efficient and user-friendly,
improve the quality of reported emissions data and enable the agency to
track compliance effectively. We reviewed and considered these comments
and are finalizing the proposed rule, with minor revisions, to
implement the first part of our phased approach to merge all MATS rule
electronic reporting into the ECMPS Client Tool.
B. Opposition to the Proposed Approach
One commenter, a state government representative, opposed the
provisions of the proposed rule on two grounds: (1) The commenter
alleges the rule did not contain a requirement for EGU owners or
operators to submit full stack test reports; and (2) the commenter
indicates that it is improper to include a temporary suspension of the
requirement to use the electronic reporting tool (ERT) in preparing and
submitting stack test reports electronically.
With regard to the first item, the EPA maintains that the proposed
rule did include a requirement to submit complete performance test
reports during the interim period. In the proposed rule, the EPA stated
that stack test reports were required to be submitted during the
transition period: ``. . . (t)he specific reports that must be
submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack
test reports . . .'' and ``. . . (r)eports for
[[Page 15513]]
the performance stack tests . . . typically include a description of
the source, the test date(s), a list of attendees, a test protocol, a
summary of results, raw field data, and example calculations, and,
depending on the method(s) used, may also include the results of sample
analyses, quality-assurance information (e.g., bias and drift checks),
instrument calibrations, and calibration gas certificates . . .'' (79
FR 68797). Other commenters agreed with the EPA's view of the
requirements while some believed that the requirement to submit the
test reports was only triggered upon request by the permitting
authority. To address any ambiguity on this issue, we are revising the
proposed rule and expressly requiring submission of emissions test
reports in the final rule.
With regard to the second item, we agree with the state
representative who commented that ``. . . (s)ubmittal of stack test
reports using ERT will allow (regulatory agencies) to independently
verify emissions calculations without having to re-enter data into
separate spreadsheets for re-calculation. ERT does the calculations and
can include all raw field and laboratory data as attachments . . . .''
These are among the reasons we mandated use of the ERT in both the
Information Collection Request and the MATS rule. Moreover, we agree
with the state representative that the ``. . . ERT can generate a full
PDF report that could be submitted to ECMPS with minimal effort . . .
.'' Indeed, we maintain that using the ``one-touch'' ERT feature to
create PDF versions of ERT-developed reports is the easiest way to meet
the interim electronic reporting requirements. However, at the present
time, the ERT does not support every MATS rule-related test method,
quality assurance approach or performance specification (PS), e.g., RCA
or RRA for PM CEMS and PS-11 for PM CEMS. Moreover, despite the
efficiency and ease of using the ``one-touch'' capability of the ERT
for the majority of MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance
approaches or PS, the ERT is not the sole means of developing PDF
versions of required reports. We considered requiring EGU owners or
operators to use the ERT's PDF creation feature for those reports that
can be developed through the current version of the ERT, but decided
against it for concerns that mandated use of two separate systems
during the interim period could be inefficient. While we believe many
EGU owners or operators will choose to use the ERT's cost-effective PDF
creation approach when possible, the rule does not require its use.
C. Other Comments
Even though comments on the proposed rule were to be limited to
issues directly associated with the electronic reporting changes
covered in 40 CFR 63.10031, commenters provided other comments. One
industry representative sought assurance that under the interim rule,
EGU owners or operators could use self-generated forms that included
relevant information per the aforementioned preamble language (79 CFR
68797), going on to assert that the only formatting specification is
that the reports be submitted in PDF format. The industry
representative expressed support for the proposed rule if those
assertions were correct. Commenters are correct, provided the necessary
information is included in a reasonable manner to allow review in the
electronic PDF versions of the reports.
Industry commenters also opposed the proposed rule to the extent it
required EGU owners or operators to use the ERT or CEDRI forms to
create the reports that will be submitted in PDF format, believing that
the rule revision would not provide any relief if their understanding
were correct. While we disagree with the commenters' views that using
the ERT or CEDRI to create PDF versions of reports or forms would not
provide relief, the rule neither requires nor prohibits during the
interim period preparation or submission of PDF reports or forms using
the ERT or CEDRI. We also note that the current versions of the ERT or
CEDRI do support notice of compliance (NOC) status reporting and the
majority of MATS rule-related test methods, quality assurance
approaches and PS, including all associated requisite calculations and
validations. For this reason, the commenters' concerns are misplaced.
Industry commenters also commented that some in the regulated
community might be confused over the reporting requirements and
misinterpret the provisions such that only PDF versions of ERT or CEDRI
generated reports or forms would be allowed for submission during the
interim period. Both commenters suggested we provide guidance, or, if
necessary, additional rule language after the first sentence of 40 CFR
63.10031(f)(6), to clarify the role of the ERT and CEDRI for data
submittal during the interim reporting phase. We considered these
comments and decided that such guidance or rule language is
unnecessary, as the ERT is not required to be used during the interim
period. With regard to reporting requirements during the transition
period, as mentioned earlier, the use of the CEDRI to submit reports to
our WebFIRE database will be suspended, the information that would have
been reported through the CEDRI must be submitted to the ECMPS in PDF
format and the deadline for submitting reports remains unchanged. We
will make the necessary adjustments to the ECMPS to enable the PDF
reports to be submitted. Note that submission of a PDF version of a
test report during this interim period is sufficient, provided that the
test report contains sufficient information to assess compliance and to
determine whether the testing has been done properly.
One commenter expressed concern with using the ERT and CEDRI in the
interim period because, in his view, those platforms are not capable of
accepting certain MATS reports, such as NOC status reports and 30-
boiler operating day averages from PM CEMS. Moreover, the commenter
believes using the ERT would be inefficient because, in his view, it
was not designed to handle MATS rule data, such as those from PS-11,
RCAs and RRAs. Finally, the commenter believes the usefulness of ERT
collected data is limited because, in his view, the ERT neither
performs the requisite calculations for quality assurance tests nor
validates test results in accordance with method acceptance criteria.
As stated above, the rule neither requires nor prohibits during the
interim period preparation or submission of PDF reports or forms using
the ERT or CEDRI. We also note that the current versions of the ERT or
CEDRI do support NOC status reporting and the majority of MATS rule
related test methods, quality assurance approaches and PS, including
all associated requisite calculations and validations. While not a part
of this rulemaking, we soon expect the ERT will be able to handle all
of the remaining MATS rule related test methods, quality assurance
approaches and PS, which will be important if the agency does not
complete the revisions to the ECMPS. In addition, we expect the ECMPS
Client Tool to be revised to accept all MATS rule related electronic
reporting during the second part of our phased approach such that the
ECMPS will be the sole means for providing MATS reports electronically.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
[[Page 15514]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0567. The agency believes this action does not
impose an information collection burden because it does not change the
information collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
amendment does not create any new requirements or burdens, and no costs
are associated with this amendment. See 79 FR 68795 at 68798 (November
19, 2014).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.
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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The final amendments impose no requirements on
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. The final
amendments are either clarifications or alternate, temporary reporting
instructions which will neither increase nor decrease environmental
protection.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 9, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart UUUUU-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units
0
2. Section 63.10031 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence in each of the following paragraphs: (f)
introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.10031 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(f) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, you must submit the performance test
reports required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is
accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). *
* *
(1) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of
completing each CEMS (SO2, PM, HCl, HF, and Hg) performance
evaluation test, as defined in Sec. 63.2 and required by this subpart,
you must submit the relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data (or, for
PM CEMS, RCA and RRA data) required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE
database by using CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX
(www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
(2) On or after April 16, 2017, for a PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved
alternative monitoring using a HAP metals CEMS, within 60 days after
the reporting periods ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th,
and December 31st, you must submit quarterly reports to EPA's WebFIRE
database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX
(www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
* * * * *
(4) On or after April 16, 2017, submit the compliance reports
required under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and the
notification of compliance status required under Sec. 63.10030(e) to
EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through
EPA's CDX (www.epa.gov/cdx). * * *
(5) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements
[[Page 15515]]
in paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) of this
section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address
listed in Sec. 63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the
owner or operator of an EGU, these reports may be submitted on
electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require
submittal of reports subject to paragraphs (f) introductory text and
(f)(1) through (4) of this section in paper format.
(6) Prior to April 16, 2017, all reports subject to electronic
submittal in paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (2), and (4)
shall be submitted to the EPA at the frequency specified in those
paragraphs in electronic portable document format (PDF) using the ECMPS
Client Tool. Each PDF version of a submitted report must include
sufficient information to assess compliance and to demonstrate that the
testing was done properly. The following data elements must be entered
into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time of submission of each PDF file:
(i) The facility name, physical address, mailing address (if
different from the physical address), and county;
(ii) The ORIS code (or equivalent ID number assigned by EPA's Clean
Air Markets Division (CAMD)) and the Facility Registry System (FRS) ID;
(iii) The EGU (or EGUs) to which the report applies. Report the EGU
IDs as they appear in the CAMD Business System;
(iv) If any of the EGUs in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section
share a common stack, indicate which EGUs share the stack. If emissions
data are monitored and reported at the common stack according to part
75 of this chapter, report the ID number of the common stack as it is
represented in the electronic monitoring plan required under Sec.
75.53 of this chapter;
(v) If any of the EGUs described in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this
section are in an averaging plan under Sec. 63.10009, indicate which
EGUs are in the plan and whether it is a 30- or 90-day averaging plan;
(vi) The identification of each emission point to which the report
applies. An ``emission point'' is a point at which source effluent is
released to the atmosphere, and is either a dedicated stack that serves
one of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section or
a common stack that serves two or more of those EGUs. To identify an
emission point, associate it with the EGU or stack ID in the CAMD
Business system or the electronic monitoring plan (e.g., ``Unit 2
stack,'' ``common stack CS001,'' or ``multiple stack MS001'');
(vii) The rule citation (e.g., Sec. 63.10031(f)(1), Sec.
63.10031(f)(2), etc.) for which the report is showing compliance;
(viii) The pollutant(s) being addressed in the report;
(ix) The reporting period being covered by the report (if
applicable);
(x) The relevant test method that was performed for a performance
test (if applicable);
(xi) The date the performance test was conducted (if applicable);
and
(xii) The responsible official's name, title, and phone number.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-06152 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
