[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 4311-4377] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24ja08-32] [[Page 4311]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Environmental Protection Agency ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 Revisions to the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule for the Acid Rain Program, NOX Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule; Final Rule [[Page 4312]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132; FRL-8511-1] RIN 2060-AN16 Revisions to the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule for the Acid Rain Program, NOX Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing rule revisions that modify existing requirements for sources affected by the federally administered emission trading programs including the NOX Budget Trading Program, the Acid Rain Program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule. The revisions are prompted primarily by changes being implemented by EPA's Clean Air Markets Division in its data systems in order to utilize the latest modern technology for the submittal of data by affected sources. Other revisions address issues that have been raised during program implementation, fix specific inconsistencies in rule provisions, or update sources incorporated by reference. These revisions do not impose significant new requirements upon sources with regard to monitoring or quality assurance activities. DATES: This final rule is effective on January 24, 2008, for good cause found as explained in this rule. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 24, 2008, for good cause found as explained in this rule. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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 and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Boze, Clean Air Markets Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9211, e-mail at boze.matthew@epa.gov. Electronic copies of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by this action primarily are fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that serve generators that produce electricity, generate steam, or cogenerate electricity and steam. Some trading programs include process sources, such as process heaters or cement kilns. Although Part 75 primarily regulates the electric utility industry, certain State and Federal NOX mass emission trading programs rely on subpart H of Part 75, and those programs may include boilers, turbines, combined cycle, and certain process units from other industries. Regulated categories and entities include: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples of potentially regulated Category NAICS code industries ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Industry................................ 221112 and others.......... Electric service providers Process sources with large boilers, turbines, combined cycle units, process heaters, or cement kilns where emissions exhaust through a stack. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec. Sec. 72.6, 72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in 40 CFR Parts 96 and 97. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final rule is also available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on or before March 24, 2008. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only those objections to the final rule that were raised with specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by today's final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration if the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise an objection during the public comment period or if the grounds for such objection arose after the comment period (but within the time for judicial review) and if the objection is of central relevance to the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should submit a Petition for Reconsideration, clearly labeled as such, to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Outline I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions A. Rule Definitions B. General Monitoring Provisions C. Certification Requirements [[Page 4313]] D. Missing Data Substitution E. Recordkeeping and Reporting F. Subpart H (NOX Mass Emissions) G. Subpart I (Hg Mass Emissions) H. Appendix A I. Appendix B J. Appendix D K. Appendix E L. Appendix F M. Appendix G N. Appendix K O. Other Rule Revisions II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order: 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act L. Petition for Judicial Review M. Determination Under Section 307(d) I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions EPA is in the process of re-engineering the data systems associated with the collection and processing of emissions, monitoring plan, quality assurance, and certification data. The re-engineering project includes the creation of a client tool, provided by EPA that sources will use to evaluate and submit their Part 75 monitoring data. This process change will enable sources to assess the quality of their data prior to submitting the data using EPA established checking criteria. The process will also allow sources to report their data directly to a database. Having the data in a true database will allow the Agency to implement and assess the program more efficiently and will streamline access to the data. Also, this database structure will enable EPA to implement process changes that will reduce the redundant reporting of certain types of data. The re-engineered systems will be supported by a new extensible markup language (XML) data format that will replace the record type/column format currently used by EPA to collect electronic data. EPA intends to transition existing sources to the new XML electronic data report (XML-EDR) format during the 2008 reporting year. For sources reporting in 2008 for the first time, the new XML-EDR format should be used. All sources will be required to use the new process beginning in 2009. Therefore, EPA finds good cause to determine that the final rule is effective on January 24, 2008. EPA normally issues final regulations with at least a 30-day effective date after Federal Register publication. However, this provision of the rule which pertains to the re-engineering of the Clean Air Markets Division's data systems and to implementation of the Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR), must be effective by January 1, 2008. Today's rule allows sources the option of reporting emissions data in the new XML data reporting format in 2008, one year before the use of XML becomes mandatory. The final rule provides the necessary record keeping and reporting requirements to support the XML format. Second, sources subject to CAMR are required to install and certify continuous mercury (Hg) monitoring systems by January 1, 2009. To meet this deadline, companies with multiple CAMR- affected units will begin monitor certification testing in the first quarter of 2008. As described in Sections I.C.3 and I.O.3., today's rule adds two recently-published Hg test methods, i.e., Methods 30A and 30B, to Part 75 as alternatives to the Ontario Hydro Method. For many sources, 30A and 30B will be the test methods of choice. Third, as discussed in Section I.A., today's rule defers until January 1, 2010 the requirement for the calibration standards used to certify Hg continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) under CAMR to be traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Fourth, for CAMR units that seek to qualify as low mass emitting units under Sec. 75.81, Hg emission testing is required in 2008. As discussed in Section G.2., today's rule adds considerable flexibility to the way in which this testing is conducted, particularly for common stack configurations and groups of identical units. The use of Methods 30A and 30B for this testing is also desirable. Absent this determination of good cause, sources would not be able to begin scheduled monitoring certification activities until the necessary provisions of this rule became effective. A thirty day delay would significantly decrease the overall amount of time available for industry to comply with the certification deadline of January 1, 2009. Such a delay could result in sources not being able to meet the certification deadline, since industry would lose some of its ability to spread utilization of various certification resources (i.e., test teams, equipment, and vendor support) over the entire course of 2008. For these reasons, EPA believes it has good cause to expedite the effective date of this final rule. A. Rule Definitions Background EPA proposed to add several new definitions to Part 72, including definitions for: ``Long-term cold storage'' (to mean the complete shutdown of a unit intended to last for at least two calendar years); ``EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program'' (to support the proposed calibration gas audit program); ``Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)'' and ``Qualified Individual'' (to support the proposed stack tester accreditation program). EPA also proposed to modify the definitions of ``Capacity factor'', ``EPA protocol gas,'' and ``Excepted monitoring system'', and to remove the definition of ``Calibration gas'' and related definitions describing the various types of gas standards that are classified as calibration gas. Summary of Rule Changes All of the proposed new and modified definitions have been finalized without substantive changes. However, one commenter cautioned that removing the definitions of the calibration gas standards from Part 72 might have consequences that could necessitate further rule revisions. In view of this, the Agency reconsidered these proposed changes and the final rule retains all but one of the definitions. The definition of ``Research gas material'' was found to be identical to the definition of ``Research gas mixture'' and has been removed from the rule. Further, for consistency with Method 30A, the new instrumental reference method for mercury (Hg) (which, as noted in sections I.C.3 and I.O.3 of this preamble has been added to the list of acceptable Hg reference methods in Sec. 75.22), and in light of other changes in today's rule related to the certification of Hg monitoring systems, EPA is adding definitions of ``NIST traceable elemental Hg standards'' and ``NIST traceable source of oxidized Hg'' to Sec. 72.2. These definitions pertain to Hg calibration gas standards and are deemed necessary for implementation of the continuous monitoring requirements of the Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR). Affected units under CAMR are required to install and certify Part 75-compliant Hg monitoring systems by January 1, 2009. To meet this requirement, the vast majority of the [[Page 4314]] certification testing will be performed in 2008. When CAMR was first proposed, only one reference test method (the Ontario Hydro (OH) Method) was prescribed for the relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of the required Hg monitoring systems. However, the OH method is wet chemistry-based, and is both difficult and expensive to perform. Also, the laboratory analysis required to obtain the test results can take a week or more, making the OH method incompatible with the Hg emissions trading program described in the CAMR model rule. In a cap and trade program, the RATA results must be known while the test team is still on-site, so that any necessary corrective actions can be taken and retesting performed without delay. With the OH method, if the results of the lab analysis indicate a RATA failure, a retest must be rescheduled and the Hg monitoring system is considered out-of-control until a subsequent RATA is passed. This can result in an extended missing data period and loss of Hg allowances. Thus, it became apparent during the CAMR rulemaking that an alternative to the OH method was needed. An instrumental Hg reference method was put forth as the logical choice, because it would provide real-time Hg concentration data, allowing the RATA results to be known on the day of the test. When CAMR was published on May 18, 2005, EPA stated its intention to ``propose and promulgate'' an instrumental Hg reference method (see 70 FR 28636). In support of the final CAMR rule, Hg monitoring provisions were added to Part 75. Among these was an amendment to Sec. 75.22, allowing the use of either the OH method or an ``instrumental reference method * * * subject to the approval of the Administrator'' for the certification testing of Hg continuous monitoring systems. Method 30A was published on September 7, 2007 in a direct-final rulemaking, and became effective on November 6, 2007 (see 72 FR 51494). Method 30A represents the fulfillment of the Agency's commitment to publish an instrumental reference method for Hg. One of the most important Part 75 requirements for the certification of Hg continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) is that the concentrations of the elemental and oxidized Hg calibration gas standards used for the 7-day calibration error tests, linearity checks, and system integrity checks of the CEMS must be traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (see Part 75, Appendix A, Section 5.1.9). This NIST traceability requirement for Hg standards is modeled after the NIST traceability requirements in Section 5 of Appendix A for SO2, NOX, and diluent gas (CO2 and O2) calibration gas standards. For the SO2, NOX, CO2, and O2 compressed gas standards used in Part 75 applications, ``NIST traceability'' means that the calibration gases have been prepared according to the EPA-approved protocol cited in Section 5.1.4 of Appendix A. Further, Sec. 75.22(c)(1) requires NIST-traceable gas standards to be used to calibrate the instrumental reference methods used for relative accuracy testing of SO2, NOX, CO2, and O2 CEMS (i.e., Methods 6C, 7E and 3A). Prior to today's rulemaking, no NIST traceability protocols for Hg calibration standards were referenced in Part 75. The new definitions of ``NIST traceable elemental Hg standards'' and ``NIST traceable source of oxidized Hg'' address this deficiency and cite the EPA protocols that must be followed to ensure that the elemental and oxidized Hg standards are traceable to NIST. However, these protocols, which are referenced in Section 16.0 of Method 30A, are not yet fully developed, and are not expected to be ready for use until the latter part of 2008. A cooperative field demonstration program that will include representatives from EPA, NIST, industry, equipment vendors, and other key personnel is planned for the coming months, to gather the data necessary to refine and finalize the traceability protocols. Once these traceability protocols are finalized, they will be posted on the Agency's Technology Transfer Network Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/) and on the Agency's Clean Air Markets Division Web site (http:// http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/). In view of this, EPA is temporarily deferring (until January 1, 2010) the requirement for elemental and oxidized Hg standards to be NIST traceable. The deferral affects both initial certifications of the CEMS and routine quality-assurance tests of the CEMS performed prior to January 1, 2010. Note that only the NIST traceability requirement for the Hg calibration standards is being waived, not the requirement to perform the calibration error tests, linearity checks, and system integrity checks of the Hg monitoring systems by January 1, 2009. Beginning on January 1, 2010, all daily calibration error tests, linearity checks, and system integrity checks of Hg CEMS must be performed using NIST traceable elemental and oxidized Hg calibration standards, as defined in Sec. 72.2. Section 5.1.9 of Appendix A to Part 75 has been revised to reflect this. In view of this, EPA strongly recommends that in 2009, all CAMR-affected sources should take the necessary steps to ensure that the NIST traceability requirement is met. In most cases, this will involve the certification of elemental and oxidized Hg generators, according to the traceability protocols. If a source elects to perform daily calibrations and/or linearity checks using compressed gas cylinders instead of an elemental Hg generator, the owner or operator will have to obtain cylinder gases that conform to the EPA traceability protocol for gaseous calibration standards. Finally, note that EPA is conditionally allowing Method 30A to be used for Part 75 Hg emission testing and RATA applications prior to finalization of the traceability protocols in section 16.0 of the method. The condition is that interim traceability protocols are developed and posted on the Agency's Technology Transfer Network Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/), as ``broadly applicable alternative test method approvals'' that will expire when the final protocols are issued. EPA's authority to approve such test method alternatives is described in 72 FR 4257, January 30, 2007. EPA believes that a phased-in approach to NIST traceability is appropriate and necessary, in light of the additional time needed to finalize the traceability protocols and the time required for the affected sources and equipment vendors to set up the necessary infrastructure to implement the protocols. The Agency also believes that this approach will not compromise the quality of the data for the emissions trading program under CAMR, since in 2010, the first year in which Hg emissions count against allowances held, NIST traceability of the Hg calibration standards is mandatory. B. General Monitoring Provisions 1. Update of Incorporation by Reference (Sec. 75.6) Background Section 75.6 identifies a number of methods and other standards that are incorporated by reference into Part 75. This section includes standards published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Gas Processors Association (GPA), and the American Petroleum Institute (API). EPA proposed changes to Sec. 75.6 that would reflect the need to incorporate [[Page 4315]] recent updates for many of the referenced standards. The proposed revisions would recognize or adhere to these newer standards by updating references for the standards listed in Sec. Sec. 75.6(a) through 75.6(f). Additionally, new Sec. Sec. 75.6(a)(45) through 75.6(a)(48) and 75.6(f)(4) would incorporate by reference additional ASTM and API standards that are relevant to Part 75 implementation. Summary of Rule Changes The updates and additions to Sec. 75.6 have been finalized as proposed. One commenter requested that an additional ASTM method for analyzing the sulfur content of low-sulfur fuel oil, i.e., ASTM D5453- 06, ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence'', be added to the list of acceptable methods in Sec. 75.6. This method has been incorporated by reference as Sec. 75.6(a)(49) and has been added to section 2.2.5 of Appendix D. 2. Default Emission Rates for Low Mass Emissions (LME) Units Background EPA proposed to allow LME units to use site-specific default SO2 emission rates for fuel oil combustion, in lieu of using the ``generic'' default SO2 emission rates specified in Table LM-1 of Sec. 75.19. To use this option, a federally enforceable permit condition would have to be in place for the unit, limiting the sulfur content of the oil. This revision, if made, would allow more representative, yet still conservatively high, SO2 emissions data to be reported from oil-burning LME units. As proposed, the site- specific default SO2 emission rate would be calculated using an equation from EPA publication AP-42. The sulfur content used in the calculations would be the maximum weight percent sulfur allowed by the federally-enforceable permit. Sources choosing to implement this option would be required to perform periodic oil sampling using one of the four methodologies described in Section 2.2 of Appendix D to Part 75, and would be required to keep records documenting the sulfur content of the fuel. The Agency also proposed to revise Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(G) to clarify that fuel-and-unit-specific default NOX emission rates for LME units may be determined using data from a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) that has been quality-assured according to either Appendix B of Part 75 or Appendix F of Part 60, or comparably quality-assured under a State CEMS program. Lastly, the Agency proposed technical revisions to the Equations LM-5 and LM-6 changing the units of rate to units of measure to make the equations correct as units of rate cannot technically be summed. Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed revisions to Sec. 75.19, and they have been finalized with only one substantive change. EPA has incorporated one commenter's suggestion not to restrict the allowable fuel oil sampling options to those described in Appendix D. The final rule allows the use of other consensus standard fuel sampling methods (e.g., ASTM, API, etc.) specified in applicable State or Federal regulations or in the unit's operating permit, to determine the sulfur content of the oil. Another commenter requested that EPA go beyond its proposal for SO2 and consider providing a similar, more reasonable site- specific alternative to reporting the generic NOX emission rates in Table LM-2. Specifically, the commenter suggested that for units with very low annual capacity factors, the Agency should waive the testing requirements of Sec. Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv) and allow emission test data that was generated more than 5 years ago (e.g., from a Part 60 performance test) to be used to determine fuel-specific default NOX emission rates. The commenter asserted that the cost of additional testing could impose a financial burden on smaller affected sources. After careful consideration, EPA decided against allowing infrequently-operated units to use emission test data older than 5 years for Part 75 reporting. However, Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(I) has been amended to provide reduced emission testing requirements for very low capacity factor LME units. The final rule allows single-load testing, between 75 and 100 percent of maximum load, to be performed (both for the initial Appendix E testing and for retests) if, for the 3 years prior to the year of the test, the unit's average capacity factor was 2.5 percent or less and did not exceed 4.0 percent in any of those three years. Alternatively, for combustion turbines, the emission test may be done at the maximum attainable load corresponding to the season of the year in which the test is performed. For a group of identical units, the single-load testing option may be used for any unit(s) in the group that meet the very low capacity factor requirements. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, refer to section 2.3.2 of the Response to Comments (RTC) document. 3. Default Moisture Value for Natural Gas Background EPA proposed to allow gas-fired boilers equipped with CEMS to use default moisture values in lieu of continuously monitoring the stack gas moisture content. Two conservative default values were proposed: 14.0% H2O under Sec. 75.11(b), and 18.0% H2O under Sec. 75.12(b). The Agency also proposed that the higher default value would apply only when Equation 19-3, 19-4, or 19-8 (from Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter) is used to determine the NOX emission rate. The proposed default values represent the 10th and 90th percentile values from two sets of supplemental moisture data provided to the Agency, which is consistent with the approach that the Agency has used in responding to past petitions under Sec. 75.66 for site-specific default moisture values. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized. 4. Expanded Use of Equation F-23 Background EPA proposed to revise Sec. 75.11(e)(1) to remove the current restrictions on the use of Equation F-23 to determine the SO2 mass emission rate, by allowing Equation F-23 to be used whether or not the unit has an SO2 monitor and to expand its use to fuels other than natural gas. The proposal would allow Equation F-23 to be used for any gaseous fuel that qualifies for a default SO2 emission rate under Section 2.3.6(b) of Appendix D. Further, Equation F-23 could be used for the combustion of liquid and solid fuels that meet the definition of ``very low sulfur fuel'' in Sec. 72.2, if a petition for a fuel-specific default SO2 emission rate is submitted to the Administrator under Sec. 75.66 and the Administrator approves the petition. Under the proposed rule, petitions would also be accepted for the combustion of mixtures of these fuels and for the co-firing of these fuels with gaseous fuel. Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were supportive of the expanded use of Equation F-23 and the revisions to Sec. 75.11(e) and corresponding changes to section 7 of Appendix F have been finalized as proposed. [[Page 4316]] 5. Calculation of NOX Emission Rate--LME Units Background EPA proposed to re-title Sec. 75.19(c)(4)(ii) as ``NOX mass emissions and NOX emission rate'' and to add a new subparagraph (D) to Sec. 75.19 (c)(4)(ii), providing instructions for determining quarterly and cumulative NOX emission rates for a LME unit. The NOX emission rate for each hour (lb/mmBtu) would simply be the appropriate generic or unit-specific default NOX emission rate defined in the monitoring plan for the type of fuel being combusted and (if applicable) the NOX emission control status. Then, the Agency proposed that the quarterly NOX emission rate would be determined by averaging all of the hourly NOX emission rates and the cumulative (year-to- date) NOX emission rate would be the arithmetic average of the quarterly values. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and the revisions to Sec. 75.19(c)(4)(ii) have been finalized as proposed. 6. LME Units--Scope of Applicability Background EPA proposed to revise Sec. 75.19(a)(1) to clarify that the low mass emissions (LME) methodology is a stand-alone alternative to a CEMS and/or the ``excepted'' monitoring methodologies in Appendices D, E, and G. In other words, if a unit qualifies for LME status, the owner or operator is required either to use the LME methodology for all parameters or not to use the method at all. No mixing-and-matching of other monitoring methodologies with LME is permitted. Parallel revisions to Sec. Sec. 75.11(d)(3), 75.12(e)(3), and 75.13(d)(3), consistent with the changes to Sec. 75.19(a)(1), were also proposed to clarify the Agency's intent. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on the proposed changes and they have been finalized. 7. Use of Maximum Controlled NOX Emission Rate When Using Bypass Stacks Background Revisions to Sec. 75.17(d)(2) were proposed that would allow a maximum controlled NOX emission rate (MCR) to be reported instead of the maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER) whenever an unmonitored bypass stack is used, provided that the add-on controls are not bypassed and are documented to be operating properly. For example, for a coal-fired unit equipped with FGD and SCR add-on emission controls, if the SCR is documented to be working during an FGD malfunction and the effluent gases are routed through an unmonitored bypass stack after passing through the SCR, then the MCR, rather than the MER, would be the more appropriate NOX emission rate to report for the bypass hour(s). Documentation of proper add-on control operation for such hours of operation would be required as described in Sec. 75.34(d). The MCR would be calculated in a manner similar to the calculation of the MER, except that the maximum expected NOX concentration (MEC) would be used instead of the maximum potential NOX concentration (MPC). Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed rule changes and they have been finalized. One commenter recommended that parallel language be added to Sec. 75.72(c)(3), to cover non-Acid Rain Program units that are subject to the NOX mass emissions monitoring provisions of Subpart H. EPA agrees with this comment and has added the necessary language to Sec. 75.72(c)(3). C. Certification Requirements 1. Alternative Monitoring System Certification Background EPA proposed to delete Sec. Sec. 75.20(f)(1) and (2) from the rule, thereby removing the requirement for the Administrator to publish each request for certification of an alternative monitoring system in the Federal Register, with an associated 60-day public comment period. This rule provision is considered unnecessary, in view of the Agency's authority under Subpart E to approve alternative monitoring systems and the rigorous requirements in Sec. Sec. 75.40 through 75.48 that alternative monitoring systems must meet in order to be certified. Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were supportive of the proposed amendments to Sec. 75.20(f), and they have been finalized. 2. Part 60 Reference Test Methods Background On May 15, 2006, EPA promulgated final revisions to EPA reference test methods 6C, 7E, and 3A, which are found in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60. (See 71 FR 28082, May 15, 2006). These test methods are prescribed for Part 75 emission testing and RATAs. Three new testing options that were added to the methods were deemed unacceptable for use under Part 75. These include: (1) Section 7.1 of revised EPA Method 7E, allowing for custom calibration gas concentrations to be produced by diluting EPA protocol gases, in accordance with Method 205 in Appendix M of 40 CFR Part 51. (2) Section 8.4 of revised EPA Method 7E, allowing the use of a multi-hole ``rake'' probe to satisfy the multipoint traverse requirement of the method. (3) Section 8.6 of revised EPA Method 7E, allowing for the use of ``dynamic spiking'' as an alternative to the interference and system bias checks of the method. Although revised Method 7E states that for use under Part 75 the three options above require approval by the Administrator, EPA proposed to add similar language to Sec. 75.22(a)(5) to reinforce its position regarding these testing alternatives. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on the proposed amendments to Sec. 75.22(a)(5) and they have been finalized. However, one commenter brought to EPA's attention another revision to the Part 60 reference methods that impacts Part 75. EPA Method 20 was also revised on May 15, 2006. Method 20 has been the NOX emission test method prescribed for combustion turbines (CTs) in section 2.1.2.2 of Appendix E. Method 20 has also been used to determine fuel-specific NOX emission rates for combustion turbines that qualify as low mass emissions (LME) units under Sec. 75.19. The original Method 20 required testing at 8 sampling points per run, with typical run times averaging about 15 to 20 minutes. However, the revised Method 20 no longer specifies the minimum number of test points per run, but rather requires sampling point selection to be done according to Method 7E. Revised Method 7E requires 12 traverse points for an emission test run (which would suffice for Appendix E testing), but the method also allows the results of stratification testing to be used to justify using three or, in some cases, one sample point instead. This raises questions about the required length of an Appendix E test run. For instance, if testing were required at only one point, each Appendix E test run would be reduced from 15-20 minutes to as little as 2 minutes (depending on the system response time). The commenter stated that such short sampling runs seem inadequate to [[Page 4317]] develop a substantial correlation curve for emission reporting. The commenter recommended that EPA modify Appendix E or Method 20 and either set a minimum run time of 20 minutes (providing an hour of data at each load) or specify a minimum number of sampling points for an Appendix E test of a CT. EPA has incorporated the commenter's recommendations into Part 75. First, Sec. 75.22(a)(5) has been amended to prohibit the use of Method 7E to determine the required number of sample points for the emission testing of a combustion turbine. Section 75.22(a)(5)(ii) requires the sample points to be determined according to section 2.1.2.2 of Appendix E, instead. Second, for the emission test of a CT, section 2.1.2.2 of Appendix E has been revised to require a minimum of 12 test points per run, located according to EPA Method 1. Third, amendments have been made to Sec. 75.22(a)(6), Sec. 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(A), section 6.5.10 of Appendix A, and sections 2.1.2.2 and 2.1.2.3 of Appendix E, to remove all references to EPA Method 20 from Part 75. Fourth, for the testing of an Appendix E boiler, the text of section 2.1.2.1 of Appendix E has been revised to require 12 traverse points per run, making it consistent with revised section 2.1.2.2 (note that this is not a new requirement--section 2.1.2.1 has always required 12 test points, located according to section 8.3.1 of Method 3, and that section refers back to Method 1). Finally, in section 2.1.2.3 of Appendix E, the references to the measurement system response time in section 5.5 of Method 20 (which section no longer exists) have been replaced with references to the response time provisions in sections 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 of Method 7E. Appendix E tests performed on CTs prior to the effective date of these amendments are grandfathered from the revised test point location requirements. 3. Mercury Reference Methods Background EPA proposed to add an alternative relative deviation (RD) specification for the results of mercury (Hg) emission data collected with paired Ontario Hydro (OH) reference method sampling trains. The principal RD specification in Sec. 75.22(a)(7) is 10 percent. However, this acceptance criterion may be too stringent for sources with low Hg emissions. Therefore, for average Hg concentrations of 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\ or less, EPA proposed an alternative RD specification of 20 percent. This is consistent with the acceptance criteria for data from paired OH trains, as specified in Performance Specification 12A in Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. EPA also proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 75.22(a)(7), 75.59(a)(7), 75.81(c)(1), and to sections 6.5.10 and 7.6.1 of Appendix A, allowing EPA Method 29 (back-half impinger catch, only) to be used as an alternative to the OH method, both for RATA testing and for periodic emission testing of units with low Hg mass emissions (< =29 lb/ yr). Two caveats on the use of Method 29 were proposed. First, sources electing to use Method 29 (which is similar to the OH method, but somewhat simpler and more familiar to stack testers) would be required to use paired sampling trains (i.e., two trains sampling the source effluent simultaneously), and the RD specifications in Sec. 75.22(a)(7) would have to be met for each run. Second, certain analytical and quality assurance (QA) procedures in the OH method (ASTM D6784-02) would have to be followed instead of the corresponding procedures in Method 29 (because the analytical and quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) requirements of the OH method are more detailed and rigorous than those in Method 29), and testers could opt to follow several of the sample recovery and preparation procedures in the OH method instead of the Method 29 procedures. Finally, the Agency solicited comment on the use of sorbent traps for reference method testing. Members of the regulated community had expressed an interest in using portable sorbent trap monitoring systems for Hg reference method testing, as an alternative to the OH method. EPA proposed to accommodate a possible future sorbent-based reference method by adding language to Sec. 75.22(a)(7) that would allow an ``other suitable'' reference method approved by the Administrator to be used for Hg emission testing and RATAs. Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed amendments that would add Method 29 as an alternative Hg reference method, and those provisions have been finalized without substantive change. One commenter objected to the requirement to use paired sampling trains for OH and Method 29 tests, asserting that this adds to the cost of testing and may result in significant numbers of test runs being discarded. However, EPA does not agree with the commenter. The Agency believes rather that paired sampling trains provide added assurance of data quality when these test methods are used. The decision to require paired trains for the OH method was made during the rulemaking that led to publication of the Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) (see 70 FR 28636-28639, May 18, 2005). Two commenters supported the proposed 20 percent alternative RD specification for low emitters, and that provision has been finalized. However, one of the commenters noted that even a 20 percent RD specification may be too stringent for extremely low Hg concentrations. EPA agrees that when Hg concentrations are exceptionally low (0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ or less), the 20 percent RD specification may be difficult to meet. Therefore, the final rule adds a third tier to the RD specifications in Sec. 75.22. The paired train agreement is also considered to be acceptable if the absolute difference between the two measured Hg concentrations does not exceed 0.03 [mu]g/m\3\. Several commenters strongly supported the proposal to allow the use of a sorbent-based reference method for Hg emission testing and for the RATAs of Hg monitoring systems. Since publication of the proposed rule, a great deal of progress has been made in this area. First, EPA conducted a Method 301 analysis of available data comparing sorbent trap sampling to the OH method. The results of this analysis showed that a sorbent-based sampling method can be a viable alternative reference method. Second, EPA drafted ``Method 30B'', a reference method that uses iodated carbon traps to measure vapor phase Hg emissions. Finally, as part of a direct final rulemaking, Method 30B was published on September 7, 2007 (see 72 FR 51494-51531), along with Method 30A, an instrumental Hg reference method. Today's final rule allows both Methods 30A and 30B to be used. D. Missing Data Substitution 1. Block Versus Step-Wise Approach Background Historically, EPA's policy has required sources to use a ``block'' approach for CEMS missing data substitution. The percent monitor data availability (PMA) at the end of the missing data period has been used to determine which mathematical algorithm applies, and the substitute data value or values prescribed by that one algorithm have been reported for each hour of the missing data period. However, EPA has recently reconsidered and revised its missing substitution data policy, to allow sources to apply the missing data algorithms in a stepwise manner instead of using the block approach. Under the [[Page 4318]] stepwise methodology, the various missing data algorithms are applied sequentially. That is, the least conservative algorithm is applied to the missing data hours until the PMA drops below 95%. Then, the next algorithm is applied until the PMA has dropped below 90%, and so on. Since Part 75 is not clear about which of the two methods should be used for missing data substitution, EPA proposed to amend Sec. Sec. 75.33 and 75.32(b), to clarify that the stepwise, hour-by-hour method is the preferred one, and that use of that method would be required for all CEMS data recorded on and after January 1, 2009, and for any CEMS data recorded in XML-format during the transition year of 2008. Summary of Rule Changes Commenters unanimously supported the proposal to adopt stepwise missing data substitution and the proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 75.32 and 75.33 have been finalized. 2. Substitute Data Values for Controlled Units Background For units with add-on emission controls, when the PMA for SO2 or NOX is below 90.0 percent, Sec. 75.34(a)(3) has historically allowed the designated representative (DR) to petition the Administrator under Sec. 75.66 for permission to report the maximum controlled concentration or emission rate recorded in a specified lookback period instead of reporting the maximum value recorded in that lookback period, for each missing data hour in which the add-on controls are documented to be operating properly. After more than ten years of implementing the Acid Rain Program, EPA no longer believes that such special petitions are necessary, because sources with add-on controls are required to implement a quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) program that includes the recording of parametric data to document the hourly operating status of the emission controls. This parametric information must be made available to inspectors and auditors upon request. Therefore, any claim that the emission controls were operating properly during a particular missing data period can be easily verified through the audit process. In view of this, the Agency proposed to remove from Sec. 75.34(a)(3) and Sec. 75.66(f) the requirement to petition the Administrator to use the maximum controlled SO2 or NOX concentration (or maximum controlled NOX emission rate) from the applicable lookback period. The proposed revisions would simply allow the maximum controlled values to be reported whenever parametric data are available to document that the emission controls are operating properly. The proposed rule would further clarify that this reporting option applies only to the third missing data tier, when the PMA is greater than or equal to 80.0 percent, but less than 90.0 percent. EPA also proposed to add a new paragraph (a)(5) to Sec. 75.34, which would allow units with add-on emission controls to report alternative substitute data values for missing data periods in the fourth missing data tier, when the PMA is below 80.0 percent. Proposed Sec. 75.34(a)(5) would allow the owner or operator to replace the maximum potential SO2 or NOX concentration (MPC) or the maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER) with a less conservative substitute data value, for missing data hours where parametric data, (as described in Sec. Sec. 75.34(d) and 75.58(b)) are available to verify proper operation of the add-on controls. Specifically, for SO2 and NOX concentration, the replacement value for the MPC would be the greater of: (a) The maximum expected concentration (MEC); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value in the standard missing data lookback period. For NOX emission rate, the replacement value for the MER would be the greater of: (a) The maximum controlled NOX emission rate (MCR); or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value in the standard missing data lookback period. The NOX MCR would be calculated in the same manner as the NOX MER, except that the MEC, rather than the MPC, would be used in the calculation. The proposed alternative data substitution methodology in Sec. 75.34(a)(5) would ensure that the substitute data values for the fourth missing data tier are always higher than the corresponding substitute data values for the third tier. Finally, EPA proposed to revise Sec. 75.38(c) to extend the alternative missing data options for the third and fourth tiers to mercury (Hg) concentration, and Sec. 75.58(b)(3) would be revised to be consistent with the proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 75.34(a)(3), 75.34(a)(5), and 75.38(c). Summary of Rule Changes Comments on the proposed alternative missing data substitution values for controlled units were generally supportive and these provisions have been finalized. Two commenters requested that parallel language be added to Sec. 75.72(c)(3), to extend the use of the new missing data provisions to ozone season-only reporters. Another commenter asked EPA to clarify that the MCR may be implemented on a fuel-specific basis. EPA has incorporated both of these suggestions in the final rule. Two other commenters suggested that, for common stack configurations, EPA should allow the substitute data values to be apportioned or prorated in some way instead of requiring maximum potential values to be reported, in cases where the emission controls installed on some of the units sharing the stack are documented to be operating properly, but such documentation cannot be provided for the controls on the other units. The Agency believes that this approach would unnecessarily complicate the missing data substitution process and would provide no assurance that emissions are not being underestimated. Therefore, this suggestion was not incorporated in the final rule. 3. Substitute Data Values for Hg Background EPA proposed to revise the Hg missing data procedures. First, for Hg CEMS, the text of Sec. 75.38(a) would be amended to clarify that the PMA ``trigger conditions'' for Hg monitoring systems are different from the trigger conditions for all other parameters. For all parameters except Hg, the trigger points that define the boundaries of the four missing data tiers are 95 percent, 90 percent, and 80 percent PMA. However, for Hg the corresponding trigger points are 90 percent, 80 percent and 70 percent, respectively. Second, EPA proposed to completely revise the missing data provisions in Sec. 75.39 for sorbent trap monitoring systems, to make them the same as for Hg CEMS, so that. the initial missing data procedures of Sec. 75.31(b) and the standard Hg missing data provisions of Sec. 75.38 would be followed for sorbent trap systems. EPA believes that this proposed missing data approach greatly simplifies the missing data substitution process for Hg monitoring systems. The hourly Hg concentration data stream from a sorbent trap system will look essentially the same as the data stream from a CEMS, except that the Hg concentration will ``flat-line'' (i.e., will not change) during each data collection period. Therefore, under the proposal, when the owner or operator elects to use a primary Hg CEMS and a backup sorbent trap system (or vice-versa), the appropriate substitute data values would be derived from a lookback through the previous 720 hours of quality-assured data, irrespective of [[Page 4319]] whether they were from the primary monitoring system or from the backup system. Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were supportive of the proposed changes to the sorbent trap missing data procedures in Sec. 75.39, and these provisions have been finalized. 4. Correction of Cross-References Background For sources that report emissions data on an ozone season-only basis, EPA proposed to revise Sec. 75.74(c)(3)(xi) and (c)(3)(xii) by replacing references to specific missing data sections with more general references to the entire block of CEMS missing data sections, i.e., Sec. Sec. 75.31 through 75.37. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized, as proposed. E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Background To accommodate its new, re-engineered XML reporting format, which will replace the current electronic data reporting (EDR) format in 2009, EPA proposed to revise the monitoring plan recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 75.53, with corresponding revisions to Sec. 75.73(c)(3) (for sources reporting NOX mass emissions under Subpart H) and to Sec. 75.84 (for sources reporting Hg mass emissions under Subpart I). EPA proposed to add two new paragraphs, (g) and (h), to Sec. 75.53, which describe the required monitoring plan data elements in EPA's re-engineered XML data structure. Under this proposal, the provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) would be followed instead of the existing recordkeeping requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f), on and after January 1, 2009. In 2008, sources would be allowed to choose between the EDR format and XML, but new sources reporting for the first time in 2008 would be strongly encouraged to use the XML format. Included among the proposed monitoring plan changes would be mandatory recording and reporting of the key rectangular duct wall effects data elements using these record types. The proposed requirements to record and report the results of wall effects adjustment factor (WAF) determinations in the monitoring plan are found in Sec. Sec. 75.53 (e) and (g) and in Sec. 75.64. EPA also proposed to make a series of modifications to Sec. Sec. 75.58 and 75.59 to support the new XML data structure. The proposed changes to the monitoring plan and recordkeeping sections were presented, section-by-section, in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the preamble to the August 22, 2006 proposed rule. Summary of Rule Changes No significant adverse comments were received on the proposed changes and they have been finalized. 1. Other Reporting Issues a. Long-Term Cold Storage and Deferred Units Background EPA proposed changes to Part 75 to clarify the meaning of the term ``long-term cold storage (LTCS)'', found in Sec. 75.4(d). First, a proposed definition of long-term cold storage would be added to Sec. 72.2. LTCS would mean that the unit has been completely shut down and placed in storage and that the shutdown is intended to last for an extended period of time (at least two calendar years). Second, the Agency proposed to add a new paragraph, (a)(7), to Sec. 75.61, requiring the owner or operator to provide notifications when a unit is placed in LTCS and when the unit re-commences operation. Third, modifications to Sec. 75.20(b) were proposed, requiring recertification of all monitoring systems when a unit re-commences operations after a period of long-term cold storage. If a source claiming LTCS status re-commenced operation sooner than two years after being placed in LTCS, the notification and recertification requirements would apply. Fourth, the proposed rule would exempt a unit in LTCS from quarterly emissions reporting under Sec. 75.64 until the unit recommences operation. Parallel LTCS rule provisions and appropriate cross-references regarding quarterly reporting requirements for Subpart H and Subpart I units would be added to Sec. Sec. 75.73(f)(1) and 75.84(f)(1), respectively, for consistency. EPA also proposed to revise the provisions of Sec. Sec. 75.4(d) and 75.61(a)(3) pertaining to ``deferred'' units, i.e., units for which a planned or unplanned outage prevents the required continuous monitoring systems from being certified by the compliance date. The proposed revisions would broaden the scope of Sec. 75.4(d) beyond the Acid Rain Program, to include units in State or Federal pollutant mass emissions reduction programs that adopt the monitoring and reporting provisions of Part 75. Examples of such programs include the Clean Air Interstate Regulation (CAIR), which is scheduled to begin in 2008 and the Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR), which goes into effect in 2009. The proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 75.4(d) and 75.61(a)(3) were deemed necessary because the CAIR and CAMR rules do not address deferred units. The proposed revisions to Sec. 75.4(d) would require the owner or operator of a deferred unit to provide notice of unit shutdown and recommencement of commercial operation, either according to Sec. 75.61(a)(3) (for planned shutdowns such as scheduled maintenance outages and for unplanned, forced unit outages) or Sec. 75.61(a)(7) (for units in long-term cold storage). For all of these circumstances involving deferred units, EPA proposed that the Part 75 continuous monitoring systems would have to be certified within 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever comes first) of the date that the unit recommences commercial operation. In the time interval between the unit re-start and the completion of the required certification tests, the owner or operator would be required to report emissions data, using either: (1) Maximum potential values; (2) the conditional data validation procedures of Sec. 75.20(b)(3); (3) EPA reference methods; or (4) another procedure approved by petition to the Administrator under Sec. 75.66. Finally, the Agency proposed to revise the notification requirements of Sec. 75.61(a)(3) to be consistent with the proposed changes to Sec. 75.4(d). Summary of Rule Changes Commenters were generally supportive of the proposed long-term cold storage provisions, requesting only minor clarifications. These provisions have been finalized with no substantive changes. One commenter encouraged EPA to adopt the proposed amendments to broaden the scope of Sec. 75.4(d), to ensure that deferred units under programs such as CAIR and CAMR are provided with a reasonable window of time in which to certify the required monitoring systems, when the units resume operation. EPA has finalized these amendments to Sec. 75.4(d), as proposed. b. Notice of Initial Certification Deadline Background EPA proposed to add a new paragraph (a)(8) to Sec. 75.61, to require new and newly affected sources to notify EPA when the monitoring system certification deadline is reached. Depending on the program(s) to which the unit is subject, this date will always be a particular number of calendar days or unit operating days after a unit either: [[Page 4320]] (a) Commences commercial operation; (b) commences operation; or (c) becomes an affected unit. For Acid Rain Program sources, the Agency must know this date to correctly assess when to begin counting emissions against allowances pursuant to Sec. 72.9. Knowing this date also confirms that the monitoring systems either have or have not been certified by the legal deadline. Summary of Rule Changes One commenter asserted that the requirement for sources to submit to EPA a notification of the deadline for initial monitoring system certification is unnecessarily burdensome and should not be incorporated into Part 75. Another commenter requested that the information be reported in the electronic monitoring plan, rather than requiring a separate notification. EPA does not agree that reporting this information will be burdensome or that it is appropriate to report the date of the initial certification deadline in the electronic monitoring plan. Rather, this date is an essential data element that will be managed using the web-based CAMD Business System (CBS). Therefore, the notification requirement can be met electronically using the CBS. In view of this, the amendment to Sec. 75.61 has been finalized, as proposed. c. Monitoring Plan Submittal Deadline Background EPA proposed to amend Sec. 75.62(a) by changing the submittal deadline for the initial monitoring plan for new and newly-affected units from 45 days to 21 days prior to the initial certification testing, in order to synchronize the initial monitoring plan submittal with the initial test notice. Corresponding changes to Subpart H (Sec. 75.73(e)) and to Subpart I (Sec. 75.84(e)) were proposed, for consistency. EPA also proposed to remove the requirement from Sec. 75.62(a)(1) that the electronic monitoring plan must be submitted ``in each electronic quarterly report''. Rather, inclusion of the monitoring plan in the report would be optional, and monitoring plan updates would be made either prior to or concurrent with (but not later than) the date of submission of the quarterly report. These proposed revisions would allow sources to maintain their monitoring plan information separate from the quarterly report, but this option would only be available to sources reporting in the new XML format under the re-engineered data submission process. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized, as proposed. d. EPA Form 7610-14 Background EPA proposed to amend Sec. Sec. 75.63(a)(1) and (a)(2), to remove the requirement to submit hardcopy EPA form 7610-14 along with every certification or recertification application. Significant upgrades to EPA's data systems have been made in recent years, and Form 7610-14 is no longer needed to process these applications. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized, as proposed. e. LME Applications Background EPA proposed to remove the requirement from Sec. 75.63(a)(1)(ii)(A) for a hardcopy LME certification application to be submitted to the Administrator. The proposal would require only the electronic portion of the application, including the monitoring plan and LME qualification records, to be sent to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division. The hardcopy portion of the LME application would be sent to the State and to the EPA Regional Office. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized, as proposed. f. Reporting Test Data for Diagnostic Events Background EPA proposed to revise Sec. 75.63(a)(2)(iii) to make the reporting of the results of diagnostic tests more flexible. Rather than requiring these test results to be reported in the electronic quarterly report for the quarter in which the tests are performed, they could either be submitted prior to or concurrent with that quarterly report. However, this proposed flexibility in the reporting of diagnostic test results would only be available to sources reporting in the new XML format under the re-engineered data submission process. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized, as proposed. g. Modifications to Sec. 75.64 Background As part of its data systems re-engineering effort, EPA proposed to revise Sec. 75.64(a) to describe the transition from the existing EDR reporting requirements to the reporting requirements of the new XML format. The Agency proposed to renumber several paragraphs, to replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) with new paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(7), and to remove existing paragraph (a)(8). Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes. These amendments to Sec. 75.64(a) have been finalized, as proposed. h. Steam Load Reporting Background EPA proposed to add a third option to Part 75 for reporting load data in units of mmBtu/hr of steam thermal output. This option is needed to accommodate emissions trading programs in which allowance allocations are made on an electrical or thermal output basis, rather than a heat input basis. The Agency proposed to add text to several sections in the main body of Part 75 and to the Appendices, to accommodate the new reporting option. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on these proposed rule changes and they have been finalized, as proposed. i. Test Notification Requirements--Hg Low Mass Emission Units Background Section 75.61(a)(5) requires the owner or operator or the designated representative to provide 21-day advance notice for various periodic quality-assurance tests, including the semiannual or annual relative accuracy tests of CEMS, and for the re-tests of Appendix E peaking units and low mass emissions (LME) units. Test notices must be provided to the Administrator, to the appropriate EPA Regional Office and to the State or local agency (unless a particular agency issues a waiver from the requirement). Under Subpart I of Part 75, certain low-emitting units covered by the Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) may qualify under Sec. Sec. 75.81(b) through (d) to perform periodic (semiannual or annual) Hg emission testing in lieu of operating and maintaining continuous Hg monitoring systems. EPA proposed to expand the notification requirements of Sec. 75.61(a)(5) and to add [[Page 4321]] corresponding introductory text to Sec. 75.61(a)(1), requiring the owner or operator or the designated representative to provide at least 21 days notice of the scheduled dates of these periodic Hg emission tests. Summary of Rule Changes No adverse comments were received on this proposed rule change and this test notification requirement has been finalized, as proposed. j. Hardcopy Reports for Retests of Hg Low Mass Emission Units Background Sections 75.60(b)(6) and (b)(7) require the designated representative (DR) to submit the results of certain periodic quality- assurance tests to the appropriate EPA Regional Office or to the State or local agency, when the test results are requested in writing (or by electronic mail). In particular, the results of semiannual or annual RATAs of CEMS and the routine re-tests of Appendix E units may be requested. If requested, the test results must be submitted within 45 days after the test is completed or within 15 days of the request, whichever is later. EPA proposed to add a new paragraph (b)(8) to Sec. 75.60, requiring the DR to provide, upon request from EPA or the State, the results of the semiannual or annual Hg emission tests required under Sec. 75.81(d)(4) for low-emitting units covered by CAMR. The proposed time frame for submitting these Hg emission test results would be the same as the current one for the RATAs and Appendix E re-tests. Summary of Rule Changes No