Revisions to the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule for the Acid Rain Program, NOX, 4312-4377 [E7-25071]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4312-4377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-25071]



[[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

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[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 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 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: https://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 https://
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 (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
emc/) and on the Agency's Clean Air Markets Division Web site (https://
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 (https://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 P