Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing, 33392-33420 [2010-10955]
Download as PDF
33392
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0837; FRL–9148–1]
RIN 2060–AQ06
Amendments to the Protocol Gas
Verification Program and Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air
Emission Testing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reconsideration.
SUMMARY: Recent EPA gas audit results
indicate that some gas cylinders used to
calibrate continuous emission
monitoring systems on stationary
sources do not meet EPA’s performance
specification. Reviews of stack test
reports in recent years indicate that
some stack testers do not properly
follow EPA test methods or do not
correctly calculate test method results.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend
its Protocol Gas Verification Program
(PGVP) and the minimum competency
requirements for air emission testing
(formerly air emission testing body
requirements) to improve the accuracy
of emissions data. EPA is also proposing
to amend other sections of the Acid
Rain Program continuous emission
monitoring system regulations by
adding and clarifying certain
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, removing the provisions
pertaining to mercury monitoring and
reporting, removing certain
requirements associated with a classapproved alternative monitoring system,
disallowing the use of a particular
quality assurance option in EPA
Reference Method 7E, adding an
incorporation by reference that was
inadvertently left out of the January 24,
2008 final rule, and clarifying the
language and applicability of certain
provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 12, 2010. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on
the information collection provisions
are best assured of having full effect if
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before July 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2009–0837 (which includes
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
0132, and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0800), by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–
0837. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: 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 West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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: John
Schakenbach, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets
Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
343–9158, e-mail at
schakenbach.john@epa.gov. Electronic
copies of this document can be accessed
through the EPA Web site at: https://
epa.gov/airmarkets.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities regulated
by this action primarily are fossil fuelfired boilers, turbines, and combined
cycle units that serve generators that
produce electricity for sale or cogenerate
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated
categories and entities include:
Examples of potentially
regulated industries
NAICS code
Industry ..........................................................................
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Category
221112 and others ........................................................
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
regulated. To determine whether your
facility, company, business,
organization, etc., is regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine
the applicability provisions in §§ 72.6,
72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Electric service providers.
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Considerations in Preparing
Comments for EPA.
A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—EPA may ask
you to respond to specific questions or
organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Outline. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information
in this preamble.
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule
Revisions
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas
Verification Program
B. Amendments to the Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air
Emission Testing
C. Other Amendments
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
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
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule
Revisions
On January 24, 2008, revisions to 40
CFR part 75, the Acid Rain Program
continuous emission monitoring
regulations, were published in the
Federal Register (see 73 FR 4340
January 24, 2008). These amendments
included provisions requiring that EPA
Protocol gases used for Part 75 purposes
be obtained from specialty gas
producers that participate in a PGVP.
The final rule further provided that only
PGVP participants were allowed to
market calibration gas as ‘‘EPA Protocol
gas’’. The January 24, 2008 rulemaking
also included a provision requiring
minimum competency requirements for
air emission testing bodies (AETBs). The
PGVP and AETB provisions became
effective on January 1, 2009.
The Administrator received a Petition
for Review, and a Petition for
Reconsideration, claiming that EPA had
not properly promulgated the PGVP.
The Agency also received a Petition for
Review challenging the AETB
requirements. Subsequently, EPA
published a final rule in the Federal
Register staying the AETB requirements
(73 FR 65554, November 4, 2008). EPA
also posted a notice on an Agency Web
site stating that the PGVP is not in
effect, and a revised PGVP would not be
effective until EPA goes through notice
and comment rulemaking on any
revised procedure. EPA is today
announcing its reconsideration of
certain aspects of the January 24, 2008
final rule and is proposing to amend the
PGVP and AETB requirements. If these
revisions become final, the amended
rule will replace the existing AETB
requirements, effectively removing the
stay.
EPA is also proposing to amend other
sections of Part 75 by adding several
data elements associated with EPA’s
Emissions Collection and Monitoring
Plan System (ECMPS) software,
clarifying the requirements for
including cover letters with monitoring
plan submittals, certification
applications, and recertification
applications, removing the provisions
pertaining to mercury monitoring and
reporting, removing certain
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33393
requirements associated with a classapproved alternative monitoring system,
disallowing the use of a particular
quality assurance option in EPA
Reference Method 7E, adding an
incorporation by reference that was
inadvertently left out of the January 24,
2008 final rule, and clarifying the
language and applicability of certain
provisions.
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas
Verification Program
The purpose of the proposed EPA
Protocol Gas Verification Program
(PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA
Protocol gases. EPA proposes to require
that the owner or operator of a Part 75
affected source ensure that all
calibration gases used to quality assure
the operation of instrumentation meet
the definition of calibration gas
contained in § 72.2, and the relevant
provision in Section 5.1 of Appendix A
of Part 75. In turn, § 72.2 defines
calibration gas to include, among other
things, EPA Protocol gas. EPA Protocol
gas is a calibration gas mixture prepared
and analyzed according to Section 2 of
the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards,’’ or such revised procedure
as approved by the Administrator. All of
the other calibration gases defined in
§ 72.2 are analyzed by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) or are produced following a more
rigorous procedure and are presumed
more accurate (and costly) than EPA
Protocol gases. Therefore, only EPA
Protocol gases are included in the PGVP
described in today’s proposed rule. The
proposed rule would revise § 75.21 to
require a Part 75 affected source that
uses EPA Protocol gas to obtain it from
an EPA Protocol gas production site
which is on the EPA list of sites
participating in the PGVP at the time the
owner or operator procures the gases.
EPA is proposing that any EPA
Protocol gas production site that
chooses to participate in the PGVP must
notify the Administrator of its intent to
participate. EPA would then issue a
unique vendor identification number
(ID) to the EPA Protocol gas production
site (e.g., a company’s four participating
EPA Protocol gas production sites might
be issued vendor IDs: 75.1, 75.2, 75.3
and 75.4). Affected units would report
the vendor ID as a required data element
in each electronic quarterly report, thus
confirming that the affected unit’s
calibration gases are being supplied by
a participating EPA Protocol gas
production site.
Proposed § 75.21(g) would require an
EPA Protocol gas production site to
notify EPA of its participation in the
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33394
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
PGVP by following the instructions on
the Forms page of the Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) Web site (notification
will likely be through an official EPA email box). Initial participation in the
program would commence on the date
of notification and would extend from
that date through the remainder of the
calendar year. An EPA Protocol gas
production site that elects to continue
participating in the PGVP in the next
calendar year would be required to
notify the Administrator of its intent to
continue in the program by December
31 of the current year. The names of
EPA Protocol gas production sites
participating in the PGVP would be
made publicly available by posting on
official EPA Web sites. EPA believes
that annual posting will be frequent
enough to allow EPA Protocol gas users
to verify that their calibration gases are
being provided by PGVP participants.
The contents of the initial notification
and subsequent re-notification(s) would
be as follows:
(i) The specialty gas company name
which owns or operates the EPA
Protocol gas production site;
(ii) The name and address of that
participating EPA Protocol gas
production site owned or operated by
the specialty gas company; and
(iii) The name, e-mail address, and
telephone number of a contact person
for that participating EPA Protocol gas
production site.
If any of the above information
changes during the year, updates may be
sent to EPA, and Agency Web sites will
be amended accordingly.
Under the PGVP as proposed, the
Agency may annually audit up to four
EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each
participating EPA Protocol gas
production site. The same number and
type of cylinders (i.e., cylinders with the
same certified components,
approximately the same certified
component concentration, and same
number of certified components) would
be obtained from each participating EPA
Protocol gas production site that
produces such cylinders to allow for
better intercompany comparisons.
Each year, EPA intends to audit all
participating EPA Protocol gas
production sites that produce the type
of gas being audited, and to obtain EPA
Protocol gas cylinders that are as
representative of the normal production
process as possible, given the limited
sample size. To achieve this goal, the
Agency intends to obtain cylinders in
such a way that an EPA Protocol gas
production site is not aware that its
cylinders are being audited. In the past,
the Agency has hired a company that
uses EPA Protocol gas cylinders as part
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
of its normal business to purchase
cylinders. It is possible that EPA would
hire a different company each year for
this purpose. The Agency specifically
requests comment on how it can better
ensure that cylinders are obtained from
each production site without raising
suspicion that the cylinders are being
audited. One possibility is to place
cylinder orders from locations that are
geographically close to a production
site. However, there is no guarantee that
EPA can always find a purchaser in
such a location.
After obtaining all of the EPA Protocol
gas cylinders to be audited, EPA would
notify each participating EPA Protocol
gas production site that its EPA Protocol
gas cylinders are being audited and
would identify the purchaser as an EPA
representative or contractor
participating in the audit process. EPA
proposes that each participating EPA
Protocol gas production site would then
either cancel that purchaser’s invoice or
credit the purchaser’s account for the
purchase of those EPA Protocol gas
cylinders, and provide funding to the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) for analysis of those
EPA Protocol gas cylinders, for their
portion of an electronic NIST audit
report on all audited cylinders for the
current audit, for demurrage, and for
return shipment of their cylinders. The
rule as proposed would require that at
the EPA Protocol gas production site’s
own cost, audit results be submitted
electronically by NIST to EPA upon
completion of NIST’s analyses of all
audit cylinders. A copy of NIST’s
analysis of EPA Protocol gas cylinders
from an EPA Protocol gas production
site could also be provided to that site,
if that provision is part of the
production site’s agreement with NIST.
Section 75.21(g) of the proposed rule
provides minimum criteria for auditing
cylinders and reporting the results to
EPA at cost to the production site. As
proposed each participating EPA
Protocol gas production site would
reach formal agreement with and pay
NIST to analyze its EPA Protocol gas
cylinders within two weeks of NIST’s
receipt of the batch containing those
cylinders (or as soon as possible
thereafter) using procedures at least as
rigorous as the ‘‘EPA Traceability
Protocol for Assay and Certification of
Gaseous Calibration Standards’’
(Traceability Protocol), September 1997
(EPA–600/R–97/121) or equivalent
written cylinder analysis protocol that
has been approved by EPA. The two
week deadline assumes that EPA
Protocol gas cylinders would be sent to
NIST in manageable batches, which
EPA intends to do.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Each cylinder’s concentration would
be determined and the results compared
to the cylinder’s certification
documentation and tag value and for
conformity to Section 5.1 of Appendix
A. After NIST analysis, a participant
would then have to assure that each
cylinder has a NIST analyzed
concentration with an uncertainty of
plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or
better, unless otherwise approved by
EPA. The Agency notes that especially
with very low concentration cylinders,
it may not be possible to meet the 1.0
percent uncertainty and reserves the
right to make appropriate adjustments.
Further, the proposed rule would
require that the certification
documentation must be verified in the
audit report as meeting the requirements
of the Traceability Protocol or such
revised procedure as approved by the
Administrator.
All of the information described in
§§ 75.21(g)(9)(ii)–(v) would be provided
in an audit report submitted
electronically by NIST to EPA at the end
of the current (annual) audit. The
Agency would post on EPA Web sites
the results of the NIST analysis in the
same format as Figure 3 (or the Note
below Figure 3, as applicable) or a
revised format approved by EPA.
EPA believes that owners or operators
of Part 75 affected units will use the
results of the NIST analysis to better
inform their EPA Protocol gas purchase
decisions. We specifically request
comment on whether the format and
information contained in proposed
Figure 3 and the Note below Figure 3
are useful for this purpose.
In proposed § 75.21(g)(4), EPA would
reserve the right to remove an EPA
Protocol gas production site from the
list of PGVP participants for any of the
following reasons:
(1) If the production site fails to
provide all of the information required
by § 75.21(g)(1), specifically, items (i)
through (iii), listed above;
(2) If, after being notified that its EPA
Protocol gas cylinders are being audited
by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas
production site fails to cancel its invoice
or to credit the purchaser’s account for
the cylinders; or
(3) Any participating EPA Protocol
gas production site whose cylinders
were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis
but are not in the electronic audit report
submitted by NIST to EPA.
EPA would relist an EPA Protocol gas
production site as follows:
(1) An EPA Protocol gas production
site may be relisted immediately, after
its failure is remedied, if the only failure
is not providing all of the information
required by § 75.21(g)(1);
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) If EPA fails to receive from the
participating EPA Protocol gas
production site a written invoice
cancellation or a hardcopy credit receipt
for the cylinders within two weeks of
notifying the production site that its
cylinders are being audited by EPA, the
cylinders would be returned to the
production site and that production site
would not be eligible for relisting until
December 31 of the current year and
until it submits to EPA the information
required by § 75.21(g)(1), in accordance
with the procedures in §§ 75.21(g)(2)
and 75.21(g)(3); and
(3) Any participating EPA Protocol
gas production site whose cylinders
were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis,
but are not in the electronic audit report
submitted by NIST to EPA, would not
be eligible for relisting until December
31 of the next year and until it submits
to EPA the information required by
§ 75.21(g)(1), in accordance with the
procedures in §§ 75.21(g)(2) and
75.21(g)(3). The eligible relisting date of
December 31 of the next year is later
than the eligible relisting date in (2),
above, because EPA will not know
whether a particular EPA Protocol gas
production site is missing from the
NIST audit report until the last half of
the calendar year. Thus, a production
site would potentially be removed from
the list of participants for only a few
months if the eligible relisting date were
December 31 of the current year, which
may not be sufficient to prevent gaming
of the program.
EPA believes that removing EPA
Protocol gas production sites from the
participants list for cause will provide
sufficient incentive for good faith
participation. However, EPA
specifically requests comment on
whether there are better mechanisms to
ensure good faith participation once a
company elects to participate in the
PGVP.
EPA notes that some EPA Protocol gas
production sites produce EPA Protocol
gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability
for both NO and NOX concentrations in
the same cylinder. If, as provided in the
proposed rule, such cylinders were
analyzed by NIST for the PGVP, they
would have to be analyzed and the
results reported for both the NO and
NOX components, where total NOX is
determined by NO plus NO2. The
Agency believes that this requirement
would better assure NIST traceability,
regardless of whether NO or NOX is
used when performing QA/QC tests.
The Agency believes that there are
approximately 14 specialty gas
companies in the U.S. Some companies
have multiple production sites,
resulting in approximately 30 potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
EPA Protocol gas production sites. If all
production sites were to participate in
the PGVP and EPA were to audit 4
cylinders from each production site,
NIST would have to analyze 120
cylinders each year. If it takes NIST two
weeks to analyze 20 cylinders, and if
EPA shipped a batch of 20 cylinders
every two weeks, it would take NIST 3
months to analyze all 120 cylinders (six
batches). NIST would need additional
time to produce an analysis report and
submit it electronically to EPA. NIST
has indicated that it can analyze 120
cylinders and submit an analysis report
to EPA within six months.
However, if cylinder analyses and
report submittal ever take longer than
one year to complete, an annual PGVP
would not be possible. To address this
and other possibilities, the Agency
specifically requests comments on the
following options.
Option 1: EPA could interpret that an
‘‘EPA Protocol gas production site that is
on the EPA list of sites participating in
the PGVP at the time the owner or
operator procures such gases’’ has the
literal meaning that an EPA Protocol gas
production site simply has to be on the
EPA list to be able to provide EPA
Protocol gases to owners or operators of
Part 75 affected units. Therefore, if EPA
does not procure gases for audit in a
given year (and consequently NIST does
not analyze the gases), an EPA Protocol
gas production site could still market its
EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources.
Option 1 would also allow NIST to take
longer than 12 months to analyze and
report on all audit cylinders. However,
a downside would be that audit results
would be posted at less than an annual
frequency, and Part 75 sources would
not be able to determine the best
performing EPA Protocol gas production
sites as frequently.
Option 2: EPA could reduce the
number of cylinders audited per
production site in a year so that NIST
could analyze and report on all audit
cylinders, and EPA could post results
on an annual basis. While each
production site would still be
represented in the audit, a downside to
Option 2 would be that fewer cylinders
per production site would be audited.
Option 3: Instead of procuring
cylinders from all production sites, EPA
could select fewer production sites from
each specialty gas company. A
downside would be that not all
production sites would be audited, even
though each specialty gas company
would still be represented in the audit
sample.
Option 4: EPA could use any of the
above three options or some
combination in a given year. The
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33395
Agency prefers this option because of
the increased flexibility it provides.
This flexibility might be required to
address certain situations, e.g., an
expansion in the number of EPA
Protocol gas production sites,
unforeseen delays in cylinder analyses
or logistics, and possible Federal budget
constraints.
EPA proposes that if an EPA Protocol
gas production site is removed from the
list of PGVP participants after EPA
Protocol gas cylinders have been
purchased from that site, the owner or
operator would be allowed to use the
cylinders for Part 75 applications until
the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration
date or until the cylinder gas pressure
reaches 150 psig.1 Further, if on the
effective date of § 75.21(g), a Part 75
affected source, or an emissions testing
group or testing company has in its
possession EPA Protocol gases from an
EPA Protocol gas production site that is
not participating in the PGVP, use of
those cylinder gases would also be
permitted for Part 75 applications until
the earlier of the cylinder’s expiration
date or until the cylinder gas pressure
reaches 150 psig. EPA believes that
these proposed rule provisions help
clarify the liability of Part 75 affected
sources in such cases.
After analysis, each EPA Protocol gas
cylinder would be returned to the EPA
Protocol gas production site that
provided it. The EPA Protocol gas
cylinders being returned to the
production site would be almost full
and have an accompanying NIST
analyzed concentration with an
uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent
(inclusive) or better, which more than
meets the Part 75 EPA Protocol gas plus
or minus 2.0 percent of cylinder tag
value requirement.
In order to help contain the cost of
NIST’s cylinder analyses, NIST has
agreed to implement the following cost
containment measures:
(1) The concentrations of the gaseous
components of interest in each batch of
cylinders will be within predefined
concentration ranges. This will allow
NIST to setup instrumentation and form
calibration curves more efficiently.
(2) The arrival of each batch of
cylinders will be coordinated with the
work schedules of key NIST personnel.
This will allow NIST to more efficiently
manage its resources.
(3) NIST has modeled the cross
interactions of the analytical species on
1 Section 2.1.6.4 of the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol
for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards,’’ establishes a minimum compressed gas
cylinder pressure of 150 pounds per square inch
gravimetric, below which the cylinder gas
concentration cannot be assured.
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33396
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
its instrumentation. Future work can
make use of that modeling, so that NIST
needs only to confirm that the
correction factors are still good before
using them.
(4) Since NIST’s uncertainty 2
requirements for intermediate gas
standards are quite stringent (i.e., less
than 0.5% uncertainty, and 1%
expanded), NIST can use intermediate
standards for all of this work. This
keeps the cost down, because expensive
primary standards do not have to be
used. In addition, NIST has invested in
tri-mix working standards that will
allow them to validate their methods
much more quickly.
(5) For the future, NIST is considering
using a Fourier Transform Infrared
Spectroscopy (FTIR) method, which
might further reduce costs by
consolidating all of the analytical work
in a single automated instrument.
NIST has agreed to analyze audit
cylinders to 0.5% uncertainty (1%
expanded uncertainty). The reason for
this uncertainty goal is to allow
reasonable certainty when judging an
audited cylinder with a 2.0%
uncertainty requirement under Part 75.
No reasonable cost savings will be
achieved by increasing the uncertainty
to 1% (2% expanded).
According to NIST, high
concentration cylinders will always cost
less to analyze. The lowest
concentration cylinders will cost NIST
approximately 25% more to analyze.
Based on 2009 cost data from NIST
and recent cylinder shipping costs, EPA
estimates that the average cost for NIST
to analyze one EPA Protocol gas
cylinder, produce a report and return
ship a cylinder is approximately $1,800.
This cost assumes implementation of
cost containment measures #1 through
#3 described above. The cost may
decrease further as a result of
implementing measures #4 and #5.
EPA proposes to add the following
simple recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under §§ 75.59 and 75.64
to enable the Agency to verify that Part
75 affected sources are using EPA
Protocol gases from EPA Protocol gas
production sites that are participating in
the PGVP, and to inform the gas
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits:
(i) Gas level code;
(ii) A code for the type of EPA
Protocol gas used for each gas monitor
that uses EPA Protocol gas for daily
calibrations;
2 Like any measurement, cylinder gas
concentration is subject to uncertainty due to
instrument measurement accuracy and
repeatability, operator error, measurement
methodology, accuracy of reference standards used,
and other sources of error.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
(iii) A code for type of EPA Protocol
gas used for each gas monitor that uses
EPA Protocol gas for quarterly linearity
checks;
(iv) Start and end date and hour for
EPA Protocol gas type code for gases
used on CEMS;
(v) A code for type of EPA Protocol
gas used with EPA Reference Methods
3A and/or 6C and/or 7E, when those
methods are used to perform relative
accuracy test audits (RATAs) for
certification, recertification, routine
quality assurance, or diagnostic testing
of Part 75 monitoring systems; and
(vi) The PGVP vendor ID issued by
EPA.
EPA specifically requests comments
on the following proposed codes for the
type of EPA Protocol gas used. These
codes would not be specified in the
rule, but rather in the electronic
reporting instructions:
SO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard
consisting of a single certified
component, SO2, and a balance gas.
NOX = EPA Protocol gas standard
consisting of a single certified
component, NOX, and a balance gas.
NO = EPA Protocol gas standard
consisting of a single certified
component, NO, and a balance gas.
CO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard
consisting of a single certified
component, CO2, and a balance gas.
O2 = EPA Protocol gas standard
consisting of a single certified
component, O2, and a balance gas.
SC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard
consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and CO2, and a
balance gas.
SN = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and NO and a
balance gas.
SN1 = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and NOX and a
balance gas.
NC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, NO and CO2, and a
balance gas.
N1C = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, NOX and CO2, and a
balance gas.
NCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, NO and CO, and a
balance gas.
N1CO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, NOX and CO, and a
balance gas.
OC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
components, O2 and CO2, and a
balance gas.
OCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, O2 and CO, and a
balance gas.
SO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and O2, and a
balance gas.
SCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend
standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and CO, and a
balance gas.
SN2 = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and NOX and
a balance gas.
N2C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, NO, NOX, and CO2, and
a balance gas.
N2CO = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, NO, NOX, and CO, and
a balance gas.
SNC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and CO2, and
a balance gas.
SN1C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NOX, and CO2, and
a balance gas.
NCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, NO, CO2, and CO, and a
balance gas.
N1CC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, NOX, CO2, and CO, and
a balance gas.
NSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and CO, and a
balance gas.
N1SC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NOX, and CO, and
a balance gas.
OCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, O2, CO2, and CO, and a
balance gas.
OSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend
standard consisting of three certified
components, O2, SO2, and CO, and a
balance gas.
SN2C = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend
standard consisting of four certified
components, SO2, NO, NOX, and CO2,
and a balance gas.
N2CC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend
standard consisting of four certified
components, NO, NOX, CO2, and CO,
and a balance gas.
N2SC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend
standard consisting of four certified
components, SO2, NO, NOX, and CO,
and a balance gas.
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
EPA proposes to allow participation
in the PGVP on and after the effective
date of the rule. The proposed rule
would require PGVP-related
recordkeeping requirements to start six
months after the effective date of this
rule. On and after January 1, 2011, the
new PGVP-related data elements in
§ 75.64 (described in items (i) through
(vi) listed above) would be submitted
prior to or concurrent with the submittal
of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report. However, if the final rule is
delayed, EPA reserves the right to
amend the reporting deadline. The
Agency believes that this will provide
both EPA and the regulated community
adequate time to reprogram
recordkeeping/reporting software.
The Agency is also proposing to
amend Section 6.5.10 of Appendix A to
Part 75 to require that the EPA Protocol
gases used when performing Methods
3A, 6C, and/or 7E must be from EPA
Protocol gas production sites
participating in the PGVP. The Agency
anticipates that this will help improve
the data quality when these test
methods are used at Part 75 affected
sources.
B. Amendments to the Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air
Emission Testing
EPA proposes to add minimum
competency requirements for air
emission testing under § 75.21(f). This
proposed section describes where the
minimum competency requirements
apply and where they do not.
EPA proposes to add simple
recordkeeping requirements under
§ 75.59 and reporting requirements
under §§ 75.63 and 75.64 to enable the
Agency to verify that Qualified
Individuals and Air Emission Testing
Bodies (AETBs) meet the requirements
of this rule should we take final action.
On and after January 1, 2011, the new
AETB-related data elements in § 75.64
would be submitted prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the
relevant quarterly electronic data report
required under § 75.64. However, if the
final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the
right to amend the reporting deadline.
The Agency believes that this will
provide both EPA and the regulated
community adequate time to reprogram
recordkeeping/reporting software.
Proposed revisions to Sections
6.1.2(a), (b), and (c) of Appendix A to
Part 75 would provide that all relative
accuracy test audits (RATAs) of Part 75
CEMS and stack tests conducted under
§ 75.19 and Appendix E to Part 75 are
to be conducted by an AETB that has
provided to the owner or operator a
certification that as of the time of testing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
the AETB is operating in conformance
with ASTM D7036–04. That
certification is a certificate of
accreditation or interim accreditation
for the relevant test method issued by a
recognized national accreditation body
or a letter of certification for the relevant
test methods signed by a member of the
senior management staff of the AETB.
The owner or operator would also
record and report: (a) The name,
telephone number and e-mail address of
the Air Emission Testing Body; (b) the
name of the on-site Qualified
Individual; (c) For the reference
method(s) that were performed, the date
that the on-site Qualified Individual
took and passed the relevant
qualification exam(s), required by
ASTM D 7036–04; and (d) the name and
e-mail address of the qualification exam
provider (see Section 6.1.2(b)). All of
this information would have to be
recorded and kept on site for at least 3
years and would be reported to EPA,
except for the certificate of accreditation
or interim accreditation and the letter of
certification. The certificate of
accreditation or interim accreditation
and the letter of certification would not
be reported to EPA but would be
retained on-site for at least 3 years.
The AETB must reasonably have all of
this information available to be in
compliance with ASTM D 7036–04,
§§ 5.4.11 and 8.3.7. Section 5.4.11 states
that the AETB shall ‘‘be able to provide
documentation or otherwise
demonstrate, on request from the
persons or organizations evaluating its
competence, that it complies with * * *
this practice.’’ Section 8.3.7 states that
‘‘The qualification credentials of each
qualified individual shall be available
for inspection at the test site.’’
Qualification credentials are defined in
the ASTM standard as ‘‘evidence that
the qualified individual meets the
requirements of 8.3.2 * * * .’’ Section
8.3.2 includes criteria on experience,
qualification exams, and a statement
saying that all test projects conducted
under the QI’s supervision ‘‘will
conform to the AETB’s quality manual
and to this practice in all respects.’’
EPA is proposing to remove the
reference to sorbent trap testing from
Section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A, in view
of the vacatur of the Clean Air Mercury
Regulation (CAMR) by the D.C. Court of
Appeals. Proposed Section 6.1.2(d) of
Appendix A recommends that the
owner or operator of a Part 75 affected
source request the following
information from an AETB:
(1) The AETB’s quality manual;
(2) The results of any external or
internal audits performed by the AETB
in the prior 12 months;
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33397
(3) A written description of any
corrective actions being implemented by
the AETB in the prior 12 months; and
(4) Any AETB training records in the
prior 12 months. This proposed
provision is merely a recommendation,
will not affect data validation, and does
not require the owner or operator to
review, retain or report copies of such
records. The provision is simply for the
protection of the owner or operator. The
Agency believes this will provide the
owner or operator more assurance that
the AETB is complying with all the
requirements of ASTM D 7036–04. The
Agency anticipates that testers would
have this information with them in their
vehicles when visiting a site in view of
the requirements of the ASTM standard.
If an AETB fails to provide
information provided in Section 6.1.2(d)
when requested by an owner or
operator, the proposed rule provides
that EPA can demand that an AETB
provide evidence to the Administrator
that the AETB has provided the
information to the owner or operator. If
the AETB fails to provide such
evidence, which EPA anticipates would
be clearly identified in the demand,
EPA would have several courses of
action. First, as described below, under
Section 6.1.2(g), the EPA could list the
offending AETB on its Web sites.
Secondly, as more fully explained
below, since EPA’s authority to make
the demand is premised on Clean Air
Act Section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414)(CAA),
a non-compliant AETB could be subject
to enforcement action by EPA under
CAA Section 113. The CAA provides for
several levels of enforcement that
include administrative, civil, and
criminal penalties. The CAA allows for
injunctive relief to compel compliance
and civil and administrative penalties of
up to $32,500 per day. EPA believes that
the availability of these enforcement
tools, coupled with the owner or
operator’s express right to require the
enumerated information from the AETB,
are significant deterrents and will result
in better quality testing.
Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) of
Appendix A states that testing must be
conducted or overseen on site by at least
one Qualified Individual (QI), who is
qualified in the methods employed in
the test project. It is expected that when
a QI is overseeing a test, that the QI
would be actively observing the test for
its duration. It is also expected that if a
QI is conducting a test, that a QI would
actively conduct the test for its duration.
However, allowance would be made for
normal activities of a QI who is
overseeing or conducting a test, e.g.,
bathroom breaks, food breaks, etc., and
emergencies that may arise during a test.
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33398
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) also
provides that if during the test period,
it is discovered that a Qualified
Individual is not present on site either
conducting or overseeing the methods
employed for the test project, that test
must be invalidated and repeated with
a Qualified Individual present. This
provision is intended to encourage the
owner or operator and those observing
the test to make it standard operating
practice to verify that a QI is present
while the testing is still in progress,
thereby preventing potentially large
amounts of data from being invalidated
(e.g., if six months after the completion
of a RATA, EPA were to discover that
a QI was not on site during the test
period). The Agency notes that an
owner or operator could act as an AETB
for its own source or for other sources,
provided that the requirements of
Section 6.1.2 are met.
Of course, having a QI on site either
conducting or overseeing the methods
employed in the test project does not
guarantee proper performance of the
test. Third party (e.g., state agency)
oversight is recommended to help
ensure that testing is properly
conducted. (The Agency notes that even
though third party oversight is highly
recommended, it is not required in
today’s proposed rule.)
Proposed Section 6.1.2(f) of Appendix
A, states that (in the absence of other
information such as evidence of
collusion during testing), test data that
otherwise meet the requirements of Part
75 will be considered valid, provided
that the AETB provides to the owner or
operator a certificate of accreditation (or
interim accreditation) or letter of
certification described in Sections
6.1.2(b)(1) and (2), and the Qualified
Individual requirements in Section
6.1.2(e) are met.
The Agency notes that ASTM D7036–
04 requires that the QI re-take and pass
a qualification exam at least once every
five years (see § 8.3.3 of the ASTM
standard). Therefore, EPA, State and
local air agencies will be checking that
QI exam certificates are current. The
Agency recommends, but is not
requiring, that owners or operators of
Part 75 affected sources also check that
the exam certificates are current.
EPA believes that requiring submittal
of the name and e-mail address of the
qualification exam provider is important
for two reasons: (1) It will be a valuable
deterrent to an AETB providing false
qualification exam dates or
certifications because the Agency may
from time to time check with the exam
provider; and (2) it allows the Agency
to more easily verify the QI’s
credentials.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
EPA understands that it may be unfair
to hold an owner or operator of an
affected source responsible for certain
actions (or inactions) related to an
external AETB’s compliance with
ASTM D7036–04. Therefore, proposed
Section 6.1.2(f) also provides that ‘‘The
certification described in paragraph (b)
of this section, and compliance with
paragraph (e), shall be sufficient proof of
validity of test data that otherwise meet
the requirements of this part.’’ Proposed
paragraph (g) provides that ‘‘[i]f the
Administrator finds that an AETB has
not provided accurate or complete
information required by this section to
an affected source or requested by an
affected source under this section, the
Administrator may post the name of the
offending AETB on Agency Web sites,
and provide the AETB a description of
the failures to be remedied.’’ EPA
believes that this would be a deterrent
to non-compliance with ASTM D7036–
04. The Agency requests comments on
whether posting an offending AETB’s
name on Agency Web sites is an
appropriate response in these situations.
Further, EPA would have the express
authority under proposed Section
6.1.2(h) to require an AETB to provide
certain information relating to
evaluation of the effectiveness of these
provisions and the accuracy of
information provided thereunder. If the
Administrator learns that an AETB has
not provided accurate or complete
information or has not provided
information to an owner or operator
upon request as recommended in this
rule, EPA has the authority under CAA
Section 114 to itself require the AETB
to provide evidence to the Agency that
the AETB has in fact provided such
information. EPA’s authority under
§ 114 is broad, and extends to any
person ‘‘who the Administrator believes
may have information necessary for the
purposes’’ of carrying out the CAA, even
if that person is not otherwise subject to
the CAA. The broad requirement to
provide ‘‘such information as the
Administrator may reasonably require’’,
can be one-time or on a continuous
basis.
By specifically authorizing EPA to
collect information from persons subject
to any requirement of the CAA, as well
as any person whom the Administrator
believes may have necessary
information, Congress clearly intended
that EPA could gather information from
persons not otherwise subject to CAA
requirements. In an effort to resolve
problems which affected sources have
had with air emissions testing bodies,
EPA is proposing these amendments to
Parts 72 and 75, and information to be
available to owners or operators from
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
AETBs is an integral part of that
regulatory structure. Therefore, a clear
statement of EPA’s authority to obtain
information relevant to that which an
owner or operator might solicit from an
AETB is merited.
Further, if following demand, an
AETB fails to provide evidence to the
Agency that (1) it has provided accurate
or complete information or (2) it has in
fact made information available to the
owner or operator upon request, an
AETB could be subject to enforcement
action by EPA under CAA Section 113.
As structured, the proposed rule
provides that upon learning of an
AETB’s deviation from the rule, EPA
would provide notice to the offender
and provide a reasonable period for the
AETB to correct the deviation. If an
AETB does not comply, EPA has the
authority to bring an enforcement
action. EPA’s enforcement authority
includes injunctive relief to compel
compliance and civil and administrative
penalties of up to $32,500 per day.
Deviations from the rule that could
ultimately be considered violations
include, but are not limited to, failure to
provide such information as a
certification of accreditation or interim
accreditation, or a letter of certification
and the date on which the on-site QI
took and passed the qualification exam
for the relevant test method, assuring
that the QI meets the periodic timing
requirement of examinations to retain
his QI status. Additionally, as discussed
above, EPA also would have the
authority to publish the name of the
offending AETB on its Web sites.
EPA is also attempting to clarify
internal and external audit provisions in
ASTM D 7036–04, self certification, and
accreditation by a recognized, national
accreditation body provisions in this
preamble. EPA also specifically requests
comment on whether AETBs should be
required to be accredited.
If the AETB chooses to be accredited
by a recognized, national accreditation
body (neither the January 24, 2008 final
rule nor today’s proposed rule requires
such accreditation), compliance with
ASTM D7036–04 is determined by that
accreditation body. If an AETB fails to
meet the requirements of ASTM D7036–
04, the accreditation body may revoke
the AETB’s accreditation.
However a revoked or denied
accreditation might not affect
compliance with the Part 75 AETB
requirements. Section 4 of the ASTM
practice states that the ‘‘quality manual
and its implementation (including test
protocols, reports, and personnel
testing)’’ will provide the ‘‘sole basis’’ for
determining conformance of the AETB
with the practice. Under Section 7.4 of
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the practice, AETBs are required to
conduct annual internal audits to
identify any deficiencies and determine
and document the effectiveness of
corrective action. Under Sections 18 and
19 of the practice, the AETB also must
have policies and procedures, and
designate appropriate authorities, for
implementing corrective action when
nonconforming work or departures from
its quality system are identified. For
purposes of the Part 75 rule, an AETB
that is conducting internal (or external)
audits and implementing its policies
and procedures for corrective action is
operating in conformance with the
ASTM practice, despite any deficiencies
in the AETB certification or certificate
of accreditation or interim accreditation
required under Section 6.1.2(b) of
Appendix A that might be discovered by
the AETB or by a third party during an
audit.
EPA intends to post a list of activities
on Agency Web site(s) to assist sources
in complying with ASTM D7036–04.
Additionally, EPA plans to similarly
post questions and answers (Qs&As)
related to the air emission testing
minimum competency requirements.
Such Qs&As will be developed and
made available as implementation of the
air emission testing minimum
competency requirements progresses.
Regarding the AETB-related
recordkeeping requirements, EPA
believes that a commencement date of
six months after the effective date of a
final rule would allow sufficient time
for stack testers and stack testing
companies to become fully compliant
with the AETB provisions. Affected
sources and air emission testing bodies
have known that EPA would impose
AETB requirements since August 22,
2006, when the first AETB-related rule
was proposed (see 71 FR 49300, August
22, 2006). On and after January 1, 2011,
the new AETB-related data elements in
§ 75.64 would be submitted to EPA prior
to or concurrent with the submittal of
the relevant quarterly electronic data
report. However, if the final rule is
delayed, EPA reserves the right to
amend the reporting deadline. The
Agency believes that this will provide
both EPA and the regulated community
adequate time to reprogram
recordkeeping/reporting software.
C. Other Amendments
1. Compliance Dates
EPA is proposing to amend
paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) of § 75.4 to
remove the 90 unit operating days
provision pertaining to the monitoring
system certification deadline for new
Acid Rain Program (ARP) units and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
newly-affected units that lose their ARPexempt status under 40 CFR 72.6. A
new ARP unit would have 180 calendar
days after the date the unit commences
commercial operation to complete
certification tests of all monitoring
systems, and would, according to
§ 72.9(c)(3)(iv), be required to
commence holding SO2 allowances
when the 180 day window expires. A
newly-affected ARP unit would also
have 180 days to complete monitor
certification testing and begin holding
allowances, except that in this case, the
reference point would be the date on
which the unit becomes subject to the
ARP, rather than the date on which the
unit commenced commercial operation.
Since § 75.61(a)(2) requires the owner or
operator to notify EPA of the date on
which a new unit commences
commercial operation or the date on
which a previously ARP-exempt unit
loses its exempt status, the Agency
believes the proposed amendments to
§§ 75.4(b) and (c) will clarify and
simplify the determination of when new
and newly-affected ARP units must
complete certification testing and
commence holding SO2 allowances.
EPA is also proposing to amend
§ 75.4(e), chiefly to clarify the
applicability of this section. Section
75.4(e) applies to the construction of a
new stack or the installation of add-on
SO2 or NOX emission controls (or both)
at an existing Acid Rain Program (ARP)
unit after the compliance date specified
in § 75.4(a). For these events, the owner
or operator is given 90 unit operating
days or 180 calendar days (whichever
occurs first) after gases first exit to the
atmosphere through the new stack, flue,
or emission control device to complete
all necessary monitoring system
certification testing.
Under 40 CFR 72.2, a ‘‘new’’ ARP unit
is defined as one that commences
commercial operation on or after
November 15, 1990. Since § 75.4(e)
applies only to ‘‘existing’’ units, it only
covers Phase I and Phase II ARP units
that commenced commercial operation
prior to November 15, 1990.
Therefore, to ensure that the owner or
operator of a new ARP unit that
commences commercial operation after
November 15, 1990 is given the same 90
operating day/180 calendar day flexible
window of time to perform the
necessary monitoring system testing
when a new stack is constructed or addon SO2 or NOX emission controls are
installed, EPA proposes to amend
§ 75.4(e), as follows:
• First, the reference to the
compliance date in § 75.4(a), which
applies only to existing units, would be
expanded to include the compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33399
date in § 75.4(b), which applies to new
units.
• Second, the reference to
‘‘certification testing’’ of the monitoring
systems would be expanded to include
the terms ‘‘recertification’’ and
‘‘diagnostic testing,’’ because new stack
construction and/or addition of
emission controls does not necessarily
require a full battery of certification
tests to be performed.
• Third, the exact starting time of the
90 operating day/180 calendar day
window would be clarified. For
construction of a new stack, no change
is proposed—the clock will start when
gases first exit to the atmosphere
through the new stack. However, for
SO2 or NOX control device addition, the
clock would start when reagent is first
injected into the gas stream. In cases
where there is both new stack
construction and control device
addition, the start of the clock would be
governed by the new stack construction.
• Finally, the allowable data
reporting options during the flexible 90
operating day/180 calendar day window
of time would be clarified.
2. Incorporation by Reference
The Agency is proposing to amend
§ 75.6 by including reference to Section
3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition,
of the American Petroleum Institute
(API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4—
Proving Systems. Section 3 was
inadvertently left out of the January 24,
2008 final rule.
3. Miscellaneous Recordkeeping
Requirements
EPA is proposing to amend certain
recordkeeping and reporting provisions
in §§ 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C),
(g)(1)(i)(E), (g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F),
(g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and
(h)(5), §§ 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)–(H),
§§ 75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L),
(a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G), (d)(3)(xii)
and (xiii), § 75.62(d), and § 75.63(d) by
adding various data elements that were
inadvertently left out of the August 22,
2006 proposed rule and the January 24,
2008 final rule. These data elements
have already been included in the data
acquisition and handling systems of Part
75 affected units, and are needed to
make EPA’s new reporting software data
requirements consistent with the
regulatory requirements. Because there
was zero tolerance for reporting errors
during the transition to the EPA’s reengineered reporting software system
(ECMPS), the Agency is confident that
all Part 75 affected sources have already
met the reporting deadlines for these
data elements.
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33400
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
4. Reference Methods
In § 75.22(a)(5)(iv), the Agency is
proposing to disallow multiple Method
7E runs to be performed before
conducting the post-run bias or system
calibration error check. EPA is
concerned that if the use of this option,
which is described in Section 8.5 of
Method 7E, were allowed, less accurate
gas concentration measurements are
likely to result; and correction of the
run-level data for calibration bias would
become unnecessarily complex and
prone to error.3
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. Alternative Monitoring Systems
EPA is proposing to remove the
requirement for an owner or operator to
demonstrate that emissions for a classapproved alternative monitoring system
(AMS) are de minimis from § 75.47(b).
EPA believes that the de minimis
emissions concept is not appropriate for
Subpart E petitions because in order to
be approved, an AMS must be shown to
be equivalent to a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS). In the Acid
Rain Program and in other Part 75
emissions trading programs, the de
minimis emissions concept has been
used only to justify allowing the use of
less rigorous monitoring methods for
low-emitting units (such as the
Appendix E methodology for gas-fired
and oil-fired peaking units and the low
mass emissions (LME) methodology in
§ 75.19) rather than for justifying the use
of CEMS or AMS shown to be
equivalent to CEMS. There are also
potential problems defining de minimis
emissions for a class of units, and
tracking the available increment. The
Agency notes that today’s proposed
revision to § 75.47(b) does not imply
that it will be easier to get a classapproved AMS petition granted under
Subpart E.
The Agency is also proposing to
remove the self-imposed requirement
3 EPA instrumental Method 7E was developed
and validated with a requirement to conduct a
system bias or calibration error check before and
after each run to ensure that each reference method
run is accurate. Method 7E also includes a
procedure to correct for drift if the drift is less than
the allowable specification. This mathematical
correction assumes (not always correctly) that the
drift over the duration of the testing run is uniform
and therefore adjusts the run measurement to the
average system bias calibration response. In a recent
revision to Section 8.5 of Method 7E, an option was
added to allow testers to forgo the run-by-run
quality assurance (QA) and instead only test the
calibration of the reference method measurement
equipment at the beginning and end of a series of
runs. This change lengthens the interval between
QA checks and thus increases the likelihood that
the uniform drift assumption is not true.
Furthermore, even if the uniform drift assumption
were true, the resulting correction would be
appropriate for the middle runs but not for the early
or later runs of a test.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
for EPA to publish a Federal Register
notice for a 30-day public comment
period prior to granting a classapproved AMS in § 75.47(c). This
Federal Register notice is unnecessary
in view of EPA’s authority under
Subpart E to approve alternative
monitoring systems, and the rigorous
requirements in §§ 75.40 through 75.48
that an AMS must meet in order to be
certified.
6. Cover Letters
EPA is proposing to amend §§ 75.62
and 75.63, regarding the need for cover
letter text to accompany official
monitoring plan submittals, certification
applications, and recertification
applications. Sections 72.21 and 72.22
of the Acid Rain Program core rules
require each official Program submittal
to come from the Designated
Representative (DR) or the Alternate
Designated Representative (ADR), and to
include a certification statement
attesting that the information in the
submittal is, to the best of his or her
knowledge, true and accurate.
In past years, EPA had required a hard
copy form (i.e., EPA form 7610–14) to be
included with all initial monitoring
plan submittals, and with all
certification and recertification
applications. Form 7610–14 included a
certification statement and a signature
block for the DR or ADR. However, the
form eventually became outdated, and
in the January 24, 2008 rulemaking, EPA
removed the requirement to include it
in future monitoring plan, certification
application, and recertification
application submittals. Although
discontinuing the use of Form 7610–14
was appropriate, it resulted in a loss of
the official status of these submittals.
Today’s proposed rule would add a
new paragraph, (d), to both § 75.62 and
§ 75.63. Section 75.62(d) would require
the DR or ADR to enclose a hard copy
cover letter with each hard copy
monitoring plan submittal. The cover
letter would be submitted to the EPA
Regional Office and to the State or local
air agency. Consistent with § 72.21(b),
the cover letter would include the DR’s
(or ADR’s) signature and a certification
statement. Section 75.63(d) would
similarly require a hard copy cover
letter and a signed certification
statement from the DR or ADR to
accompany the hard copy portion of
each certification or recertification
application.
In contrast, for electronic monitoring
plan submittals and the electronic
portions of certification and
recertification applications, there is no
need for cover letter text. For these
official Program submittals, the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
requirements of §§ 72.21 and 72.22 are
met by means of the DR’s (or ADR’s)
electronic signature and electronic
certification statements. However, the
DR or ADR may wish to provide
important explanatory text and
comments along with an official
electronic submittal. In view of this,
EPA proposes to include in §§ 75.62(d)
and 75.63(d) provisions allowing such
text and comments to accompany both
electronic monitoring plan submittals
and the electronic portions of
certification and recertification
applications, provided that the
information is communicated in an
electronic format compatible with the
rest of the data required under §§ 75.62
and 75.63. This is consistent with
§ 75.64(g), which allows the DR or ADR
to provide EPA with similar textual
information in electronic format, so long
as it is compatible with the rest of the
data in the quarterly emissions reports.
7. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Formats
EPA proposes to amend Part 75,
Appendix A, Section 4 to update
recordkeeping and reporting formats.
8. Calibration Gas Tag Values
EPA proposes to amend Part 75,
Appendix A, Sections 5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5
to clarify the meaning of the plus or
minus 2.0 percent performance
specification for EPA Protocol gases and
research gas mixtures.
Section 5.1.4(b) currently requires
calculation of a 95 percent confidence
interval which may provide justification
for a specialty gas company to claim
that it is permissible for an EPA
Protocol gas cylinder tag value to be
more than 2.0 percent different than the
actual cylinder gas concentration. The
Agency generally does not assign an
uncertainty to a performance
specification, e.g., cylinder
concentration must be within 2.0% of
cylinder tag value, because performance
specifications are used to determine
compliance.
Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state
that ‘‘EPA Protocol gas concentrations
must be certified by a specialty gas
company to have an analytical
uncertainty to be not more than plus or
minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).’’
Section 5.1.5 currently states that
research gas mixtures (RGM) must be
vendor certified to be within 2.0 percent
of the cylinder tag value. This statement
may be confusing because the National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(rather than a specialty gas vendor)
actually certifies an RGM concentration.
Proposed Section 5.1.5 would state:
‘‘Concentrations of research gas
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
33401
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
mixtures, as defined in § 72.2 of this
chapter, must be certified by the
National Institute of Standards and
Technology to be within plus or minus
2.0 percent (inclusive) of the
concentration specified on the cylinder
label (i.e., the tag value) in order to be
used as calibration gas under this part.’’
The Agency requests comments on
these proposed changes to Sections
5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5, particularly regarding
the appropriateness of the 2.0 percent
specification for very low gas
concentrations. Would an alternative
specification (e.g., in terms of absolute
difference) be more appropriate for very
low concentration gases?
§§ 75.57(i) and (j), Table 4a in § 75.57,
§ 75.58(b), §§ 75.59(a), (c) and (e),
§ 75.60(b), §§ 75.61(a) and (b), §§ 75.80
through 75.84, Appendix A, Sections
1.1, 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, 2.2.3,
3.1(c), 3.2(3), 3.3.8, 3.4.3, 4 introductory
text, 5.1.9, 6.2 introductory text, (g) and
(h), 6.3.1 introductory text, 6.4
introductory text, 6.5 introductory text,
(c), (e), and (g), 6.5.1, 6.5.6(c), 6.5.10, 7.3
introductory text, 7.6 introductory text,
7.6.1, 7.6.5(b) and (f), Appendix B,
Sections 1.1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1 through 1.5.6,
2.1.4(a), 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1(a), 2.3.1.3(a),
2.3.2(d) and (i), 2.3.4, 2.6, Figures 1 and
2, Appendix F, section 9, and Appendix
K.
problem with a monitor (e.g., a dilution
probe leak) is undetectable by means of
daily or quarterly QA tests, but it is later
discovered, at the time of the annual
RATA. Ordinarily, this could result in
an extended period of missing data
substitution, including the use of
maximum potential values, and a sharp
reduction in the PMA. However, if the
probe leak could be reasonably
quantified, EPA would consider a
petition under § 75.66 to make an
upward adjustment to the data recorded
by the monitor during the leak period
and to report the adjusted data using
MODC ‘‘53’’ instead of applying the
standard Part 75 missing data routines.
9. Removal of Mercury Monitoring
Provisions
EPA is proposing to remove the
mercury (Hg) monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions
from Parts 72 and 75. These provisions
were originally published in May 2005,
in support of the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR) (see 70 FR 28606, May 18,
2005), and were subsequently amended
on September 7, 2007 and January 24,
2008 (see 72 FR 51494, September 7,
2007 and 73 FR 4312, January 24, 2008).
CAMR provided a blueprint for a
national Hg emissions reduction
program, using a ‘‘cap and trade’’
approach. However, the rule was
challenged, and on February 8, 2008,
the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d
574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) vacated the rule.
The sole purpose of the Part 75 Hg
monitoring provisions was to facilitate
the implementation of CAMR. EPA
appealed the Court’s ruling on CAMR,
but the petition for a rehearing was
denied.
In view of vacatur of CAMR, today’s
proposed amendments would not only
remove the more visible Hg monitoring
sections of the rule, such as Subpart I
(Hg mass emissions monitoring
options), § 75.15 (operation of sorbent
trap monitoring systems), §§ 75.38 and
75.39 (Hg missing data provisions),
§§ 75.57(i) and (j) (Hg recordkeeping
provisions), Section 9 of Appendix F
(Hg mass emissions calculations), and
Appendix K (QA procedures for sorbent
trap systems), but would also remove a
myriad of less obvious references to Hg
monitoring scattered throughout the
rule text, Tables, and Figures.
The rule texts affected by the
proposed amendments are as follows:
§ 72.2, § 75.2(d), § 75.4(d), § 75.6,
§ 75.10(d), §§ 75.20(a) through (d),
§ 75.21(a), §§ 75.22(a) and (b),
§ 75.24(d), §§ 75.31(a) and (b),
§ 75.32(a), Table 1 in § 75.33, §§ 75.34(a)
and (d), § 75.38, § 75.39, § 75.53(g),
10. Miscellaneous Corrections and
Additions
EPA also proposes to make several
minor corrections and additions to Part
75, most of which are in the rule
sections cited immediately above. Many
of the proposed revisions are simply
grammatical in nature, for added clarity.
The more substantive proposed
revisions are as follows. First, in
§§ 75.21 and 75.22 and Section 6.5.10 of
Appendix A, corrections would be made
to the citations of the Appendices to
Part 60 in which the EPA reference
methods are found. Second, Equation
A–7 in Appendix A would be corrected.
Third, references to SO2-diluent
monitoring systems, which are no
longer used for Part 75 reporting, would
be removed from § 75.59, Section
2.3.1.1(a) of Appendix B, and from
Figure 2 of Appendix B. Fourth, the
reference to moisture sensors, which are
not required to perform daily calibration
error tests, would be removed from
Section 2.1.4(a) of Appendix B. Fifth, a
reference to the NOX emission tests of
low mass emissions units, which had
been inadvertently omitted, would be
added to § 75.22. Sixth, in Table 4a in
§ 75.57, the reference to the maximum
potential flow rate (MPF) would be
removed from the description of Method
of Determination Code (MODC) ‘‘23’’.
Code 23 pertains to data reporting for an
unmonitored bypass stack. Section
75.16(c)(3) states that during bypass
hours, the standard missing data
procedures are to be used for stack gas
flow rate, rather than reporting the MPF.
Finally, a new MODC, ‘‘53’’, would be
added to Table 4a. This code would be
used for certain alternative emissions
data approved by petition. MODC ‘‘53’’
differs from existing code ‘‘54’’, in that
the hours in which code ‘‘53’’ is reported
would be considered ‘‘available’’ hours
that do not affect the percent monitor
data availability (PMA). An example of
a case where code ‘‘53’’ might be used
is a situation where a developing
II. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993)) and is therefore not
subject to review under the Executive
Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2203.03. The
currently approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) document
prepared by EPA reflects the January 24,
2008 rule (EPA ICR Number 2203.02;
OMB No.: 2060–0626). (OMB control
numbers for EPA regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.) The information
requirements covered by EPA ICR
Number 2203.03 reflect the revisions to
the requirements in 40 CFR parts 72,
and 75 that are being proposed in this
action.
Basic information on the identity of
EPA Protocol gas production sites and
on the type of cylinders used by Part 75
affected sources will be collected by the
Agency. These data will allow the
Agency to verify that a Part 75 affected
source is using EPA Protocol gases from
EPA Protocol gas production sites that
are participating in the Protocol Gas
Verification Program (PGVP), and to
inform the gas cylinder selection for the
PGVP audits. This same type of
information will be collected when EPA
Protocol gases are used to perform
certain EPA test methods. The Agency
anticipates that this will help improve
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33402
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the quality of results when these test
methods are used.
EPA has added simple recordkeeping
and reporting requirements to enable
the Agency to verify that Qualified
Individuals and Air Emission Testing
Bodies meet the requirements of this
rule. EPA maintains that the main costs
for air emission testing bodies to comply
with the minimum competency
requirements in ASTM D7036–04 are
associated with taking qualified
individual (QI) competency exams, and
the development and revision of quality
assurance manuals. The costs will be
passed through to the customers (Part 75
affected sources, primarily large electric
utility and industrial companies), and
the Agency notes that these costs will be
offset by the savings generated by fewer
failed or incorrectly performed relative
accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer
repeat tests required.
EPA is also requiring certain
recordkeeping and reporting provisions
for various data elements that were
inadvertently left out of the August 22,
2006 proposed rule and the January 24,
2008 final rule. These data elements
have already been incorporated in the
data acquisition and handling systems
of Part 75 affected units, and are
required to make EPA’s new reporting
software data requirements consistent
with the regulatory requirements.
All of the above data collections are
mandatory under 40 CFR part 75. None
of the data are considered confidential
business information under 40 CFR part
2, subpart B.
This proposed rule does not
significantly change the existing
requirements in 40 CFR Parts 72, and 75
and thus does not significantly change
the existing information collection
burden. The total annual respondent
burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours,
with total annual labor and O&M costs
estimated to be $1,081,989. This
estimate includes the burden associated
with the increase in fees from AETBs
and PGVP vendors resulting from their
compliance with the new requirements
in the rule as well as the small labor
burden for sources to review the new
requirements and comply with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting
requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
The respondent burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
be a small fraction of both the 124,976
labor hours, and the $8,581,420 total
cost that were calculated for the existing
supporting statement (ICR 2203.02) for
revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75.
Most of these costs are expected to be
borne by the private sector and will be
passed through to the customers (Part 75
affected sources, primarily large electric
utility and industrial companies, or the
rate payers). The Agency notes that
much of the overall cost will be offset
by the savings generated by fewer failed
or incorrectly performed daily
calibration error tests, quarterly linearity
checks, and relative accuracy test audits
(RATAs), and fewer repeat tests
required.
Exhibits 1 and 2 summarize the
respondent burden and cost estimates
performed for the ICR (2203.03)
supporting statement for revisions to 40
CFR Parts 72 & 75. EPA estimates that:
(a) 1,249 ARP sources and 253
additional CAIR sources will need to
review the revised requirements and
comply with the modified reporting
requirements; and (b) 3,736 ARP sources
and 777 additional CAIR sources will
need to perform quality assurance
testing and maintenance tasks. Low
mass emissions units will not have to
modify their DAHS, and sources with
only new units already have their initial
startup burdens and costs accounted for
in the underlying program ICRs. Exhibit
1 shows the total burden and total cost
based on this respondent universe.
EXHIBIT 1—INCREASED RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST (LABOR ONLY) ESTIMATES RELATED TO REVISIONS OF 40 CFR
PARTS 72 & 75
Mean hourly
rate
Information collection activity
Hours per
activity/
year
Number of
respondents
(facilities)
Respondent
hours/year
Total labor
cost/year
ARP Respondents One Time Rule Review .........................
ARP Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting
Requirements ...................................................................
CAIR Respondents One Time Rule Review .......................
CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting
Requirements ...................................................................
80.71
1
1,249
1,249
100,807
80.71
80.71
0.5
1
1,249
253
624.5
253
50,444
20,420
80.71
0.5
253
126.5
10,210
Total ..............................................................................
........................
........................
1,502
2,254
181,881
EXHIBIT 2—INCREASED RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST (QA AND MAINTENANCE) ESTIMATES RELATED TO REVISIONS OF 40
CFR PARTS 72 & 75
Previously
established
cont./O&M
cost
Information collection activity
Increased
cont./O&M
cost per
respondent
Number of
respondents
(units)
Increased total
cost/year
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance
Model
Model
Model
Model
A (CEMS) ..............................................................................................
C (App D—NOX CEM) .........................................................................
D (App D and E) ...................................................................................
E (LME) .................................................................................................
$31,949
17,818
1,843
1,991
$319
178
19
20
1,046
2,107
438
145
$333,674
375,046
8,322
2,900
312
174
18
102
493
150
31,824
85,782
2,700
CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance
• Non ARP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States
—Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS (units) ....................................
—Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units) ...............................................
—Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or LME methods (units) ..........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
31,200
17,400
1,800
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33403
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 2—INCREASED RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST (QA AND MAINTENANCE) ESTIMATES RELATED TO REVISIONS OF 40
CFR PARTS 72 & 75—Continued
Previously
established
cont./O&M
cost
Information collection activity
• Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States
—Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS (units) ....................................
—Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units) ...............................................
—Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or LME methods (units) ..........
Increased
cont./O&M
cost per
respondent
Number of
respondents
(units)
Increased total
cost/year
20,800
17,400
1,800
208
174
18
4
28
0
832
4,872
0
($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year) ..................
........................
12
4,513
54,156
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
900,108
PGVP Increased Costs
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0837.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after June 11, 2010, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by July 12, 2010. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a
small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
EPA conducted a screening analysis
of today’s rule on small entities in the
following manner. The SBA defines
small utilities as any entity and
associated affiliates whose total electric
output for the preceding fiscal year did
not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.
The SBA 4 million megawatt hour
threshold was applied to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA)
Annual Form EIA–923, ‘‘Power Plant
Operations Report’’ 2008 net generation
megawatt hour data and results in an
estimated 1169 facilities. This data is
then paired with facility owner and
associated affiliates data (owners with
net generation over 4 million were
disregarded) resulting in a total of 620
small entities with a 2008 average net
generation of 650,169 megawatt hours.
Multiplying net generation by the 2009
EIA average retail price of electricity
(9.72 cents per kilowatt hour), the
average revenue stream per small entity
was determined to be $63,196,427
dollars. In contrast the average
respondent costs burden for this rule
was determined to be $720.37 per year,
which is considerably less than one
percent of the estimated average
revenue stream per entity. All of the 620
small entities except for one had
respondent costs that were less than one
percent of the estimated revenue stream.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. All but one of the 620 small
electric utilities directly affected by this
proposed rule are expected to
experience costs that are well under one
percent of their estimated revenues.
The proposed rule revisions represent
minor changes to existing monitoring
requirements under Part 75. There will
be some small level of annual costs to
participate in a gas audit program,
taking a qualified stack test individual
competency exam and developing or
revising a quality assurance manual,
and a slight up-front cost to reprogram
existing electronic data reporting
software used under Part 75. The
Agency notes that these costs will be
offset by the savings generated by fewer
failed or incorrectly performed daily
calibration error tests, quarterly linearity
checks, and relative accuracy test audits
(RATAs), and fewer repeat tests
required.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year.
The total annual respondent burden is
estimated to be 2,254 hours, with total
annual labor and O&M costs estimated
to be $1,081,989. This estimate includes
the burden associated with the increase
in fees from AETBs and PGVP vendors
resulting from their compliance with the
new requirements in the rule as well as
the small labor burden for sources to
review the new requirements and
comply with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2). The
respondent burden for this collection of
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33404
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This proposed rule primarily
amends the Protocol Gas Verification
Program, and the minimum competency
requirements for air emission testing
(first promulgated on January 24, 2008
(See 73 FR 4340, 4364, and 4365)) by
having specialty gas company funds go
to the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, who has statutory
authority to receive such funds, to fund
gas cylinder analyses, by changing the
rule language to rely on certain
documentation provided at the time of
stack testing as sufficient proof of
validity of test data that otherwise meets
the requirements of Part 75, by adding
simple recordkeeping/reporting
requirements, and by extending relevant
compliance deadlines. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
information is estimated to be a small
fraction of both the 124,976 labor hours,
and the $8,581,420 total cost that were
calculated for the existing supporting
statement (ICR 2203.03) for revisions to
40 CFR Parts 72 & 75. The costs
incurred by AETBs and PGVP vendors
will be passed through to their
customers (Part 75 affected sources,
primarily large electric utility and
industrial companies, or the rate
payers). The Agency notes that much of
the costs will be offset by the savings
generated by fewer failed or incorrectly
performed daily calibration error tests,
quarterly linearity checks, and relative
accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer
repeat tests required. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
proposed rule would generally affect
large electric utility or industrial
companies.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks.
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This proposed
rule primarily amends the Protocol Gas
Verification Program, and the minimum
competency requirements for air
emission testing (first promulgated on
January 24, 2008 (See 73 FR 4340, 4364,
and 4365)) by having specialty gas
company funds go to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
who has statutory authority to receive
such funds, to fund gas cylinder
analyses, by changing the rule language
to rely on certain documentation
provided at the time of stack testing as
sufficient proof of validity of test data
that otherwise meets the requirements
of Part 75, by adding simple
recordkeeping/reporting requirements,
and by extending relevant compliance
deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. The Agency found
an applicable voluntary consensus
standard, ASTM D 7036–04, Standard
Practice for Competence of Air Emission
Testing Bodies, for use with the air
emission testing body provisions of the
proposed rule. However, EPA could not
identify any applicable voluntary
consensus standard for the Protocol Gas
Verification Program. Therefore, for the
PGVP, EPA has decided to use ‘‘EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards,’’ September 1997, EPA–600/
R–97/121 or such revised procedure as
approved by the Administrator.
EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be
used in this proposed regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This proposed rule
primarily amends the Protocol Gas
Verification Program, and the minimum
competency requirements for air
emission testing (first promulgated on
January 24, 2008 (See 73 FR 4340, 4364,
and 4365)) by having specialty gas
company funds go to the National
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Institute of Standards and Technology,
who has statutory authority to receive
such funds, to fund gas cylinder
analyses, by changing the rule language
to rely on certain documentation
provided at the time of stack testing as
sufficient proof of validity of test data
that otherwise meets the requirements
of Part 75, by adding simple
recordkeeping/reporting requirements,
and by extending relevant compliance
deadlines.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 72 and
75
Environmental protection, Acid rain,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric utilities,
Carbon dioxide, Continuous emission
monitoring, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Reference test methods.
Dated: April 29, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
40 CFR parts 72 and 75 are proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 72—PERMITS REGULATION
1. The authority citation for part 72
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et
seq.
2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
a. Revising definitions of ‘‘Air
Emission Testing Body (AETB)’’, ‘‘EPA
Protocol Gas’’, ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program’’, and ‘‘Qualified
Individual’’;
b. Revising the introductory text of
the definition of ‘‘Continuous emission
monitoring system or CEMS’’;
c. Removing paragraph (7) of the
definition of ‘‘Continuous emission
monitoring system or CEMS’’
d. Removing the definitions of ‘‘NIST
traceable elemental Hg standards’’,
‘‘NIST traceable source of oxidized Hg’’,
‘‘Sorbent trap monitoring system’’, and
‘‘Specialty Gas Producer’’; and
e. Adding in alphabetical order
definitions for ‘‘EPA Protocol Gas
Production Site’’, and ‘‘Specialty Gas
Company’’, to read as follows:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 72.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)
means a company or other entity that
provides to the owner or operator the
certification required by section 6.1.2(b)
of appendix A to part 75 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
Continuous emission monitoring
system or CEMS means the equipment
required by part 75 of this chapter used
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
to sample, analyze, measure, and
provide, by means of readings recorded
at least once every 15 minutes (using an
automated data acquisition and
handling system (DAHS)), a permanent
record of SO2, NOX, or CO2 emissions or
stack gas volumetric flow rate. The
following are the principal types of
continuous emission monitoring
systems required under part 75 of this
chapter. Sections 75.10 through 75.18,
and § 75.71(a) of this chapter indicate
which type(s) of CEMS is required for
specific applications:
*
*
*
*
*
EPA Protocol Gas means a calibration
gas mixture prepared and analyzed
according to section 2 of the ‘‘EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards,’’ September 1997, EPA–600/
R–97/121 or such revised procedure as
approved by the Administrator.
EPA Protocol Gas Production Site
means a site that produces or blends
calibration gas mixtures prepared and
analyzed according to section 2 of the
‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards,’’ September 1997, EPA–600/
R–97/121 or such revised procedure as
approved by the Administrator.
EPA Protocol Gas Verification
Program or PGVP means a calibration
gas audit program described in
§ 75.21(g) of this chapter and
implemented by EPA in cooperation
with the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST).
*
*
*
*
*
Qualified Individual (QI) means an
individual who is identified by an
AETB as meeting the requirements
described in ASTM D7036–04 ‘‘Standard
Practice for Competence of Air Emission
Testing Bodies’’ (incorporated by
reference under § 75.6 of this part), as of
the date of testing.
*
*
*
*
*
Specialty Gas Company means an
organization that wholly or partially
owns or operates one or more EPA
Protocol gas production sites.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 75—CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING
3. The authority citation for part 75
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601, 7651k, and
7651k note.
§ 75.2
[Amended]
4. Section 75.2 is amended by
removing paragraph (d).
5. Section 75.4 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and
(c)(2);
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33405
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory
text; and
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e),
to read as follows:
§ 75.4
Compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) 180 calendar days after the date
the unit commences commercial
operation, notice of which date shall be
provided under subpart G of this part.
(c) * * *
(2) 180 calendar days after the date on
which the unit becomes subject to the
requirements of the Acid Rain Program,
notice of which date shall be provided
under subpart G of this part.
(d) This paragraph (d) applies to
affected units under the Acid Rain
Program and to units subject to a State
or Federal pollutant mass emissions
reduction program that adopts the
emission monitoring and reporting
provisions of this part. In accordance
with § 75.20, for an affected unit which,
on the applicable compliance date, is
either in long-term cold storage (as
defined in § 72.2 of this chapter) or is
shut down as the result of a planned
outage or a forced outage, thereby
preventing the required continuous
monitoring system certification tests
from being completed by the
compliance date, the owner or operator
shall provide notice of such unit storage
or outage in accordance with
§ 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as
applicable. For the planned and
unplanned unit outages described in
this paragraph (d), the owner or operator
shall ensure that all of the continuous
monitoring systems for SO2, NOX, CO2,
opacity, and volumetric flow rate
required under this part (or under the
applicable State or Federal mass
emissions reduction program) are
installed and that all required
certification tests are completed no later
than 90 unit operating days or 180
calendar days (whichever occurs first)
after the date that the unit recommences
commercial operation, notice of which
date shall be provided under
§ 75.61(a)(3) or § 75.61(a)(7), as
applicable. The owner or operator shall
determine and report SO2 concentration,
NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration,
and flow rate data (as applicable) for all
unit operating hours after the applicable
compliance date until all of the required
certification tests are successfully
completed, using either:
(1) The maximum potential
concentration of SO2 (as defined in
section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this
part), the maximum potential NOX
emission rate, as defined in § 72.2 of
this chapter, the maximum potential
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33406
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1
of appendix A to this part, or the
maximum potential CO2 concentration,
as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of appendix
A to this part; or
*
*
*
*
*
(e) In accordance with § 75.20, if the
owner or operator of an affected unit
completes construction of a new stack
or flue, flue gas desulfurization system,
or add-on NOX emission controls after
the applicable deadline in paragraph (a)
or (b) of this section:
(1) The owner or operator shall ensure
that all required certification and/or
recertification and/or diagnostic tests of
the monitoring systems required under
this part (i.e., the SO2, NOX, CO2,
opacity, and volumetric flow rate
monitoring systems, as applicable) are
completed not later than 90 unit
operating days or 180 calendar days
(whichever occurs first) after:
(i) The date that emissions first exit to
the atmosphere through the new stack
or flue, notice of which date shall be
provided under subpart G of this part;
or
(ii) The date that reagent is first
injected into the flue gas desulfurization
system or add-on NOX emission
controls, notice of which date shall be
provided under subpart G of this part.
(2) If the project involves both new
stack or flue construction and
installation of add-on emission controls,
the 90 unit operating days and 180
calendar days shall be reckoned from
the date that emissions first exit to the
atmosphere through the new stack or
flue.
(3) The owner or operator shall
determine and report SO2 concentration,
NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration,
and volumetric flow rate data for all
unit operating hours after emissions first
pass through the new stack or flue, or
reagent is injected into the flue gas
desulfurization system or add-on NOX
emission controls (as applicable) until
all required certification and/or
recertification and/or diagnostic tests
are successfully completed, using either:
(i) The applicable missing data
substitution procedures under §§ 75.31
through 75.37; or
(ii) The conditional data validation
provisions of § 75.20(b)(3); or
(iii) Reference methods under
§ 75.22(b); or
(iv) Another procedure approved by
the Administrator pursuant to a petition
under § 75.66.
*
*
*
*
*
6. Section 75.6 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(38), (a)(43), and (a)(44); and
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and
(f)(3) to read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 75.6
Incorporation by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(38) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(43) [Reserved]
(44) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(48) ASTM D7036–04, Standard
Practice for Competence of Air Emission
Testing Bodies, for § 72.2,
§ 75.59(a)(9)(xi)(iii), (a)(15)(iii),
(b)(6)(iii), (d)(4)(iii), and appendix A,
§ 6.1.2 of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) American Petroleum Institute
(API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4—
Proving Systems, Section 2—Pipe
Provers (Provers Accumulating at Least
10,000 Pulses), Second Edition, March
2001, Section 3—Small Volume Provers,
First Edition, and Section 5—MasterMeter Provers, Second Edition, May
2000, for appendix D to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Section 75.10 is amended by:
a. Revising the second sentence of
paragraph (d)(1); and
b. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (d)(3), to read as follows:
§ 75.10
General operating requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * * The owner or operator shall
reduce all SO2 concentrations,
volumetric flow, SO2 mass emissions,
CO2 concentration, O2 concentration,
CO2 mass emissions (if applicable), NOX
concentration, and NOX emission rate
data collected by the monitors to hourly
averages. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Failure of an SO2, CO2, or O2
emissions concentration monitor, NOX
concentration monitor, flow monitor,
moisture monitor, or NOX-diluent
continuous emission monitoring system
to acquire the minimum number of data
points for calculation of an hourly
average in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall result in the failure to
obtain a valid hour of data and the loss
of such component data for the entire
hour. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
§ 75.15
[Removed and reserved]
8. Section 75.15 is removed and
reserved as follows:
9. Section 75.20 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i);
b. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)
introductory text;
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and
(c)(1)(iii);
e. Removing paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
f. Removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(9); and
g. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(ix), to
read as follows:
§ 75.20 Initial certification and
recertification procedures.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Until such time, date, and hour as
the continuous emission monitoring
system can be adjusted, repaired, or
replaced and certification tests
successfully completed (or, if the
conditional data validation procedures
in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(ix)
of this section are used, until a
probationary calibration error test is
passed following corrective actions in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of
this section), the owner or operator shall
substitute the following values, as
applicable, for each hour of unit
operation during the period of invalid
data specified in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of
this section or in § 75.21: The maximum
potential concentration of SO2, as
defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A
to this part, to report SO2 concentration;
the maximum potential NOX emission
rate, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter,
to report NOX emissions in lb/mmBtu;
the maximum potential concentration of
NOX, as defined in section 2.1.2.1 of
appendix A to this part, to report NOX
emissions in ppm (when a NOX
concentration monitoring system is used
to determine NOX mass emissions, as
defined under § 75.71(a)(2)); the
maximum potential flow rate, as defined
in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this
part, to report volumetric flow; the
maximum potential concentration of
CO2, as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of
appendix A to this part, to report CO2
concentration data; and either the
minimum potential moisture
percentage, as defined in section 2.1.5 of
appendix A to this part or, if Equation
19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter is
used to determine NOX emission rate,
the maximum potential moisture
percentage, as defined in section 2.1.6 of
appendix A to this part; and
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Recertification approval process.
Whenever the owner or operator makes
a replacement, modification, or change
in a certified continuous emission
monitoring system or continuous
opacity monitoring system that may
significantly affect the ability of the
system to accurately measure or record
the SO2 or CO2 concentration, stack gas
volumetric flow rate, NOX emission rate,
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
NOX concentration, percent moisture, or
opacity, or to meet the requirements of
§ 75.21 or appendix B to this part, the
owner or operator shall recertify the
continuous emission monitoring system
or continuous opacity monitoring
system, according to the procedures in
this paragraph. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) For each SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, each NOX
concentration monitoring system used
to determine NOX mass emissions, as
defined under § 75.71(a)(2), and each
NOX-diluent continuous emission
monitoring system:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) A linearity check, where, for the
NOX-diluent continuous emission
monitoring system, the test is performed
separately on the NOX pollutant
concentration monitor and the diluent
gas monitor;
(iii) A relative accuracy test audit. For
the NOX-diluent continuous emission
monitoring system, the RATA shall be
done on a system basis, in units of lb/
mmBtu. For the NOX concentration
monitoring system, the RATA shall be
done on a ppm basis;
*
*
*
*
*
(9) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 75.21 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and
b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g), to
read as follows:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 75.21 Quality assurance and quality
control requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) The owner or operator shall
perform quality assurance upon a
reference method backup monitoring
system according to the requirements of
Method 2, 6C, 7E, or 3A in Appendices
A–1, A–2 and A–4 to part 60 of this
chapter (supplemented, as necessary, by
guidance from the Administrator),
instead of the procedures specified in
appendix B to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Requirements for Air Emission
Testing. On and after [DATE THAT IS
SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], relative
accuracy testing under § 75.74(c)(2)(ii),
section 6.5 of appendix A to this part,
and section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this
part, and stack testing under § 75.19 and
section 2.1 of appendix E to this part
shall be performed by an ‘‘Air Emission
Testing Body’’, as defined in § 72.2 of
this chapter. Conformance to the
requirements of ASTM D7036–04,
referred to in section 6.1.2 of appendix
A to this part, section 1.1.4 of appendix
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
B to this part, and section 2.1 of
appendix E to this part shall apply only
to these tests. Tests and activities under
this part that do not have to be
performed by an AETB as defined in
§ 72.2 include daily CEMS operation,
daily calibration error checks, daily flow
interference checks, quarterly linearity
checks, routine maintenance of CEMS,
voluntary emissions testing, or
emissions testing required under other
regulations.
(g) Requirements for EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program. Any EPA Protocol
gas production site that chooses to
participate in the EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program (PGVP) must
notify the Administrator of its intent to
participate. An EPA Protocol gas
production site’s initial participation
shall commence immediately upon such
notification and shall extend through
the end of the calendar year in which
notification is provided. EPA will issue
a vendor ID to each participating EPA
Protocol gas production site. In each
year of the PGVP, EPA may audit up to
four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from
each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site.
(1) A production site participating in
the PGVP shall provide the following
information in its initial and ongoing
notifications to EPA:
(i) The specialty gas company name
which owns or operates the production
site;
(ii) The name and address of that
participating EPA Protocol gas
production site, owned or operated by
the specialty gas company; and
(iii) The name, e-mail address, and
telephone number of a contact person
for that participating EPA Protocol gas
production site.
(2) An EPA Protocol gas production
site that elects to continue participating
in the PGVP in the next calendar year
must notify the Administrator of its
intent to continue in the program by
December 31 of the current year by
submitting to EPA the information
described in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section.
(3) EPA Protocol gas production sites
shall provide the initial and on-going
notifications described in paragraph
(g)(1) of this section by following the
instructions on the Forms page of the
CAMD Web site (https://www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/business/forms.html). A list
of the names of EPA Protocol gas
production sites participating in the
PGVP will be made publicly available
by posting on EPA Web sites.
(4) EPA may remove an EPA Protocol
gas production site from the list of
PGVP participants for any of the
following reasons:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33407
(i) If the EPA Protocol gas production
site fails to provide all of the
information required by paragraph (g)(1)
of this section;
(ii) If, after being notified that its EPA
Protocol gas cylinders are being audited
by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas
production site fails to cancel its invoice
or to credit the purchaser’s account for
the cylinders; or
(iii) If, after the EPA Protocol gas
production site is notified that its EPA
Protocol gas cylinders are being audited,
EPA does not receive an electronic audit
report required by paragraph (g)(9)(iv) of
this section for the EPA Protocol gas
production site’s cylinders.
(5) EPA may relist an EPA Protocol
gas production site as follows:
(i) An EPA Protocol gas production
site may be relisted immediately after its
failure is remedied if the only reason for
removal from the list of PGVP
participants is failure to provide all of
the information required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this section;
(ii) If EPA does not receive written
proof of a credit receipt or of
cancellation of the invoice for the
cylinders from the EPA Protocol gas
production site within two weeks of
notifying the EPA Protocol gas
production site that its cylinders are
being audited by EPA, the cylinders
shall be returned to the EPA Protocol
gas production site and that EPA
Protocol gas production site shall not be
eligible for relisting until December 31
of the current year and until it submits
to EPA the information required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in
accordance with the procedures in
paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this
section; and
(iii) Any EPA Protocol gas production
site which is notified by EPA that its
cylinders are being audited and for
whom EPA does not receive an
electronic audit report required by
paragraph (g)(9)(iv) of this section, shall
not be eligible for relisting until
December 31 of the next year and until
it submits to EPA the information
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
section, in accordance with the
procedures in paragraphs (g)(2) and
(g)(3) of this section.
(6) For each affected unit under this
part that uses EPA Protocol gases, the
owner or operator must obtain such
gases from either an EPA Protocol gas
production site that is on the EPA list
of sites participating in the PGVP at the
time the owner or operator procures
such gases or from a reseller that sells
to the owner or operator unaltered EPA
Protocol gases produced by an EPA
Protocol gas production site that is on
the EPA list of participating sites. In the
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
33408
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
event that an EPA Protocol gas
production site is removed from the list
of PGVP participants after such gases
are procured, but before the gases have
been consumed, the gas cylinders may
continue to be used for the purposes of
this part until the earlier of the
cylinder’s expiration date or the date on
which the cylinder gas pressure reaches
150 psig.
(7) EPA Protocol gas cylinders
purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE] from a production site
that is not participating in the PGVP
may be used for the purposes of this
part until the earlier of the cylinder’s
expiration date or the date on which the
cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig.
(8) If EPA notifies a participating EPA
Protocol gas production site that its EPA
Protocol gas cylinders are being audited
and identifies the purchaser as an EPA
representative or contractor
participating in the audit process, the
production site shall then either cancel
that purchaser’s invoice or credit that
purchaser’s account for the purchase of
those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and
provide sufficient funding to NIST for
analysis of those EPA Protocol gas
cylinders by NIST, and for the
production site’s pro-rata share of a
NIST electronic audit report on all
cylinders in the current audit, as
specified in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through
(g)(9)(v) of this section, for demurrage,
and for return shipment of its cylinders.
(9) If EPA notifies a participating EPA
Protocol gas production site that its EPA
Protocol gas cylinders are being audited,
then:
(i) Each participating EPA Protocol
gas production site must reach formal
agreement with NIST to analyze its EPA
Protocol gas cylinders provided for
audit as soon after NIST receives the
batch containing those cylinders as
possible, preferably within two weeks,
using analytical procedures consistent
with metrology institute practices and at
least as rigorous as the ‘‘EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration
Standards’’ (Traceability Protocol),
September 1997 (EPA–600/R–97/121) or
equivalent written cylinder analysis
protocol that has been approved by
EPA.
(ii) Each cylinder’s concentration
must be determined by NIST and the
results compared to each cylinder’s
certification documentation and tag
value to establish conformance with
section 5.1 of appendix A to this part.
After NIST analysis, each cylinder must
be provided with a NIST analyzed
concentration with an uncertainty of
plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
better, unless otherwise approved by
EPA.
(iii) The certification documentation
accompanying each cylinder must be
verified in the audit report as meeting
the requirements of the Traceability
Protocol or a revised procedure
approved by the Administrator.
(iv) Each participating EPA Protocol
gas production site shall have NIST
provide all of the information required
by paragraphs (g)(9)(ii) through (g)(9)(v)
of this section in an audit report. The
audit report shall be submitted
electronically by NIST to EPA upon
completion of the current audit. The
audit report shall contain complete
documentation of the NIST procedures
used to analyze the cylinders, including
the analytical reference standards,
analytical method, analytical method
uncertainty, analytical instrumentation,
and instrument calibration procedures.
The audit report shall include a table
with the information and in the format
specified by Figure 3 (or the Note below
Figure 3, as applicable) of appendix B
to this part or such revised format as
approved by the Administrator. The
Agency will post the results of the NIST
analyses in the same format on EPA
Web sites.
(v) For EPA Protocol gas production
sites that produce EPA Protocol gas
cylinders claiming NIST traceability for
both NO and NOX concentrations in the
same cylinder, if analyzed by NIST for
the PGVP, such cylinders must be
analyzed by NIST for both the NO and
NOX components (where total NOX is
determined by NO plus NO2) and the
results of the analyses shall be included
in the audit report.
(10) After analysis by NIST, each EPA
Protocol gas cylinder shall be returned
to the EPA Protocol gas production site
that provided it.
(11) The data validation procedures
under §§ 2.1.4, 2.2.3, and 2.3.2 of
appendix B to this part apply.
11. Section 75.22 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory
text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
c. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v)
d. Removing paragraph (a)(7);
e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory
text; and
f. Removing paragraphs (b)(5) through
(b)(8), to read as follows:
§ 75.22
Reference test methods.
(a) The owner or operator shall use
the following methods, which are found
in appendices A–1 through A–4 to part
60 of this chapter, to conduct the
following tests: Monitoring system tests
for certification or recertification of
continuous emission monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Systems; NOX emission tests of low
mass emission units under
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv); NOX emission tests of
excepted monitoring systems under
appendix E to this part; and required
quality assurance and quality control
tests:
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(iv) Section 8.6 of the method
allowing for the use of ‘‘Dynamic
Spiking’’ as an alternative to the
interference and system bias checks of
the method. Dynamic spiking may be
conducted (optionally) as an additional
quality assurance check; and
(v) That portion of Section 8.5 of the
method allowing multiple sampling
runs to be conducted before performing
the post-run system bias check or
system calibration error check.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The owner or operator may use
any of the following methods, which are
found in appendices A–1 through A–4
to part 60 of this chapter, as a reference
method backup monitoring system to
provide quality-assured monitor data:
*
*
*
*
*
12. Section 75.24 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 75.24 Out-of-control periods and
adjustment for system bias.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) When the bias test indicates that
an SO2 monitor, a flow monitor, a NOXdiluent continuous emission monitoring
system, or a NOX concentration
monitoring system used to determine
NOX mass emissions, as defined in
§ 75.71(a)(2), is biased low (i.e., the
arithmetic mean of the differences
between the reference method value and
the monitor or monitoring system
measurements in a relative accuracy test
audit exceed the bias statistic in section
7 of appendix A to this part), the owner
or operator shall adjust the monitor or
continuous emission monitoring system
to eliminate the cause of bias such that
it passes the bias test or calculate and
use the bias adjustment factor as
specified in section 2.3.4 of appendix B
to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Section 75.31 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
§ 75.31
Initial missing data procedures.
(a) During the first 720 qualityassured monitor operating hours
following initial certification of the
required SO2, CO2, O2, or moisture
monitoring system(s) at a particular unit
or stack location (i.e., the date and time
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33409
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
at which quality assured data begins to
be recorded by CEMS(s) installed at that
location), and during the first 2,160
quality assured monitor operating hours
following initial certification of the
required NOX-diluent, NOX
concentration, or flow monitoring
system(s) at the unit or stack location,
the owner or operator shall provide
substitute data required under this
subpart according to the procedures in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
The owner or operator of a unit shall
use these procedures for no longer than
three years (26,280 clock hours)
following initial certification.
(b) SO2, CO2, or O2 concentration
data, and moisture data. For each hour
of missing SO2 or CO2 emissions
concentration data (including CO2 data
converted from O2 data using the
procedures in appendix F of this part),
or missing O2 or CO2 diluent
concentration data used to calculate
heat input, or missing moisture data, the
owner or operator shall calculate the
substitute data as follows:
(1) Whenever prior quality-assured
data exist, the owner or operator shall
substitute, by means of the data
acquisition and handling system, for
each hour of missing data, the average
of the hourly SO2, CO2, or O2
concentrations or moisture percentages
recorded by a certified monitor for the
unit operating hour immediately before
and the unit operating hour
immediately after the missing data
period.
(2) Whenever no prior quality assured
SO2, CO2, or O2 concentration data or
moisture data exist, the owner or
operator shall substitute, as applicable,
for each hour of missing data, the
maximum potential SO2 concentration
or the maximum potential CO2
concentration or the minimum potential
O2 concentration or (unless Equation
19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in
appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter
is used to determine NOX emission rate)
the minimum potential moisture
percentage, as specified, respectively, in
sections 2.1.1.1, 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.2 and
2.1.5 of appendix A to this part. If
Equation 19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method
19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this
chapter is used to determine NOX
emission rate, substitute the maximum
potential moisture percentage, as
specified in section 2.1.6 of appendix A
to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Section 75.32 is amended by
revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a) introductory text, to read as follows:
§ 75.32 Determination of monitor data
availability for standard missing data
procedures.
(a) Following initial certification of
the required SO2, CO2, O2, or moisture
monitoring system(s) at a particular unit
or stack location (i.e., the date and time
at which quality assured data begins to
be recorded by CEMS(s) at that
location), the owner or operator shall
begin calculating the percent monitor
data availability as described in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and
shall, upon completion of the first 720
quality-assured monitor operating
hours, record, by means of the
automated data acquisition and
handling system, the percent monitor
data availability for each monitored
parameter. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
15. Section 75.33 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading; and
b. Revising Table 1 and the footnotes
below Table 1, to read as follows:
§ 75.33 Standard missing data procedures
for SO2, NOX, and flow rate.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1—MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR SO2 CEMS, CO2 CEMS, MOISTURE CEMS, AND DILUENT (CO2 OR O2)
MONITORS FOR HEAT INPUT DETERMINATION
Trigger conditions
Calculation routines
Monitor data availability
(percent)
Duration (N) of CEMS outage
(hours) 2
Method
95 or more ..............................
N ≤ 24 ....................................
N > 24 ....................................
90 or more, but below 95 .......
N ≤ 8 ......................................
N > 8 ......................................
Average .................................................................................
For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, the greater of:
Average .................................................................................
90th percentile .......................................................................
For O2 and H2Ox, the lesser of:
10th percentile .......................................................................
Average .................................................................................
For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, the greater of:
Average .................................................................................
95th percentile .......................................................................
For O2 and H2Ox, the lesser of:
Average .................................................................................
5th Percentile .........................................................................
For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, Maximum value1 ........................
For O2 and H2Ox: Minimum value1 .......................................
Maximum potential concentration3 or % (for SO2, CO2, and
H2O**) or
Minimum potential concentration or % (for O2 and H2Ox).
N > 0 ......................................
Below 80 .................................
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
80 or more, but below 90 .......
N > 0 ......................................
Lookback
period
HB/HA.
HB/HA.
HB/HA.
720 hours*.
HB/HA.
720 hours*.
HB/HA.
HB/HA.
HB/HA.
720 hours*.
HB/HA.
720 hours*.
720 hours*.
720 hours*.
None
HB/HA = hour before and hour after the CEMS outage.
* Quality-assured, monitor operating hours, during unit operation. May be either fuel-specific or non-fuel-specific. For units that report data only
for the ozone season, include only quality assured monitor operating hours within the ozone season in the lookback period. Use data from no
earlier than 3 years prior to the missing data period.
1 Where a unit with add-on SO emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, as
2
provided in § 75.34, the unit may use the maximum controlled concentration from the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours.
2 During unit operating hours.
3 Where a unit with add-on SO emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, the
2
unit may report the greater of: (a) The maximum expected SO2 concentration or (b) 1.25 times the maximum controlled value from the previous
720 quality-assured monitor operating hours (see § 75.34).
x Use this algorithm for moisture except when Equation 19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter is used for
NOX emission rate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33410
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
** Use this algorithm for moisture only when Equation 19–3, 19–4 or 19–8 in Method 19 in appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter is used for
NOX emission rate.
*
*
*
*
*
16. Section 75.34 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); and
b. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (d), to read as follows:
§ 75.34 Units with add-on emission
controls.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) For the purposes of the missing
data lookback periods described under
§§ 75.33 (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of
this section, the substitute data values
shall be taken from the appropriate
database, depending on the date(s) and
hour(s) of the missing data period. That
is, if the missing data period occurs
inside the ozone season, the ozone
season data shall be used to provide
substitute data. If the missing data
period occurs outside the ozone season,
data from outside the ozone season shall
be used to provide substitute data.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) In order to implement the options
in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(5) of
this section; and §§ 75.31(c)(3) and
75.72(c)(3), the owner or operator shall
keep records of information as described
in § 75.58(b)(3) to verify the proper
operation of all add-on SO2 or NOX
emission controls, during all periods of
SO2 or NOX emission missing data.
* * *
§§ 75.38–75.39
[Removed and Reserved]
17. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are
removed and reserved.
18. Section 75.47 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (c),
to read as follows:
§ 75.47
units.
Criteria for a class of affected
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) A description of the class of
affected units, including data describing
all of the affected units that will
comprise the class.
19. Section 75.53 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A),
(g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(E), (g)(1)(i)(F),
(g)(1)(iii) introductory text, (g)(1)(v)(F),
(g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(H), and
(g)(1)(vi)(I);
b. Adding paragraph (g)(1)(vi)(J); and
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and
(h)(5), to read as follows:
§ 75.53
*
Monitoring plan.
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
(i) * * *
(A) A representation of the exhaust
configuration for the units in the
monitoring plan. On and after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) of the
configuration. Provide the ID number of
each unit and assign a unique ID
number to each common stack, common
pipe multiple stack and/or multiple
pipe associated with the unit(s)
represented in the monitoring plan. For
common and multiple stacks and/or
pipes, provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) of each
stack and/or pipe;
*
*
*
*
*
(C) The stack exit height (ft) above
ground level and ground level elevation
above sea level, and the inside crosssectional area (ft2) at the flue exit and
at the flow monitoring location (for
units with flow monitors, only). Also
use appropriate codes to indicate the
material(s) of construction and the
shape(s) of the stack or duct crosssection(s) at the flue exit and (if
applicable) at the flow monitor location.
On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], provide the activation
date and deactivation date (if
applicable) for the information in this
paragraph (g)(1)(i)(C);
*
*
*
*
*
(E) The type(s) of emission controls
that are used to reduce SO2, NOX, and
particulate emissions from each unit.
Also provide the installation date,
optimization date, and retirement date
(if applicable) of the emission controls,
and indicate whether the controls are an
original installation;
(F) Maximum hourly heat input
capacity of each unit. On and after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) for this
parameter; and
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) For each required continuous
emission monitoring system, each fuel
flowmeter system, and each continuous
opacity monitoring system, identify and
describe the major monitoring
components in the monitoring system
(e.g., gas analyzer, flow monitor, opacity
monitor, moisture sensor, fuel
flowmeter, DAHS software, etc.). Other
important components in the system
(e.g., sample probe, PLC, data logger,
etc.) may also be represented in the
monitoring plan, if necessary. Provide
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the following specific information about
each component and monitoring system:
*
*
*
*
*
(v) * * *
(F) Effective date/hour, and (if
applicable) inactivation date/hour of
each span value. On and after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) for the
measurement scale and dual span
information in paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(A),
(g)(1)(v)(G), and (g)(1)(v)(H) of this
section;
(G) An indication of whether dual
spans are required. If two span values
are required, then, on and after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
indicate whether an autoranging
analyzer is used to represent the two
measurement scales; and
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) * * *
(H) Date and hour that the value is no
longer effective (if applicable);
(I) For units using the excepted
methodology under § 75.19, the
applicable SO2 emission factor; and
(J) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], group identification
code.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Electronic. Unit operating and
capacity factor information
demonstrating that the unit qualifies as
a peaking unit, as defined in § 72.2 of
this chapter for the current calendar
year or ozone season, including:
Capacity factor data for three calendar
years (or ozone seasons) as specified in
the definition of peaking unit in § 72.2
of this chapter; the method of
qualification used; and an indication of
whether the data are actual or projected
data. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], provide the
activation date and deactivation date (if
applicable) for the peaking unit
qualification information in this
paragraph (h)(2)(i).
*
*
*
*
*
(5) For qualification as a gas-fired
unit, as defined in § 72.2 of this part, the
designated representative shall include
in the monitoring plan, in electronic
format, the following: Current calendar
year, fuel usage data for three calendar
years (or ozone seasons) as specified in
the definition of gas-fired in § 72.2 of
this chapter, the method of qualification
used, and an indication of whether the
data are actual or projected data. On and
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], provide the activation date and
deactivation date (if applicable) for the
gas-fired unit qualification information
in this paragraph (h)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
20. Section 75.57 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
c. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
d. Revising Table 4a; and
e. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j), to
read as follows:
§ 75.57
General recordkeeping provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(5) The current monitoring plan as
specified in § 75.53, beginning with the
initial submission required by § 75.62;
33411
(6) The quality control plan as
described in section 1 of appendix B to
this part, beginning with the date of
provisional certification; and
(7) The information required by
sections 6.1.2(b) and (c) of appendix A
to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 4a—CODES FOR METHOD OF EMISSIONS AND FLOW DETERMINATION
Code
1
2
3
4
.............
.............
.............
.............
5 .............
6 .............
7 .............
8 .............
9 .............
10 ...........
11 ...........
12 ...........
13 ...........
14 ...........
15 ...........
16
17
19
20
21
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22 ...........
23 ...........
24 ...........
25 ...........
26 ...........
40 ...........
53 ...........
Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method
Certified primary emission/flow monitoring system.
Certified backup emission/flow monitoring system.
Approved alternative monitoring system.
Reference method:
SO2: Method 6C.
Flow: Method 2 or its allowable alternatives under appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
NOX: Method 7E.
CO2 or O2: Method 3A.
For units with add-on SO2 and/or NOX emission controls: SO2 concentration or NOX emission rate estimate from Agency
preapproved parametric monitoring method.
Average of the hourly SO2 concentrations, CO2 concentrations, O2 concentrations, NOX concentrations, flow rates, moisture percentages or NOX emission rates for the hour before and the hour following a missing data period.
Initial missing data procedures used. Either: (a) the average of the hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, O2 concentration,
or moisture percentage for the hour before and the hour following a missing data period; or (b) the arithmetic average of all NOX
concentration, NOX emission rate, or flow rate values at the corresponding load range (or a higher load range), or at the corresponding operational bin (non-load-based units, only); or (c) the arithmetic average of all previous NOX concentration, NOX
emission rate, or flow rate values (non-load-based units, only).
90th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission
rate or 10th percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
95th percentile hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission
rate or 5th percentile hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
Maximum hourly SO2 concentration, CO2 concentration, NOX concentration, flow rate, moisture percentage, or NOX emission rate or
minimum hourly O2 concentration or moisture percentage in the applicable lookback period (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
Average of hourly flow rates, NOX concentrations or NOX emission rates in corresponding load range, for the applicable lookback
period. For non-load-based units, report either the average flow rate, NOX concentration or NOX emission rate in the applicable
lookback period, or the average flow rate or NOX value at the corresponding operational bin (if operational bins are used).
Maximum potential concentration of SO2, maximum potential concentration of CO2, maximum potential concentration of NOX maximum potential flow rate, maximum potential NOX emission rate, maximum potential moisture percentage, minimum potential O2
concentration or minimum potential moisture percentage, as determined using § 72.2 of this chapter and section 2.1 of appendix A
to this part (moisture missing data algorithm depends on which equations are used for emissions and heat input).
Maximum expected concentration of SO2, maximum expected concentration of NOX, or maximum controlled NOX emission rate.
(See § 75.34(a)(5)).
Diluent cap value (if the cap is replacing a CO2 measurement, use 5.0 percent for boilers and 1.0 percent for turbines; if it is replacing an O2 measurement, use 14.0 percent for boilers and 19.0 percent for turbines).
1.25 times the maximum hourly controlled SO2 concentration, Hg concentration, NOX concentration at the corresponding load or
operational bin, or NOX emission rate at the corresponding load or operational bin, in the applicable lookback period (See
§ 75.34(a)(5)).
SO2 concentration value of 2.0 ppm during hours when only ‘‘very low sulfur fuel’’, as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, is combusted.
Like-kind replacement non-redundant backup analyzer.
200 percent of the MPC; default high range value.
200 percent of the full-scale range setting (full-scale exceedance of high range).
Negative hourly CO2 concentration, SO2 concentration, NOX concentration, percent moisture, or NOX emission rate replaced with
zero.
Hourly average SO2 or NOX concentration, measured by a certified monitor at the control device inlet (units with add-on emission
controls only).
Maximum potential SO2 concentration, NOX concentration, CO2 concentration, or NOX emission rate, or minimum potential O2 concentration or moisture percentage, for an hour in which flue gases are discharged through an unmonitored bypass stack.
Maximum expected NOX concentration, or maximum controlled NOX emission rate for an hour in which flue gases are discharged
downstream of the NOX emission controls through an unmonitored bypass stack, and the add-on NOX emission controls are confirmed to be operating properly.
Maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER). (Use only when a NOX concentration full-scale exceedance occurs and the diluent
monitor is unavailable.)
1.0 mmBtu/hr substituted for Heat Input Rate for an operating hour in which the calculated Heat Input Rate is zero or negative.
Fuel specific default value (or prorated default value) used for the hour.
Other quality-assured data approved through petition. These are treated as available hours for percent monitor availability calculations and are included in missing data lookback.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33412
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4a—CODES FOR METHOD OF EMISSIONS AND FLOW DETERMINATION—Continued
Code
Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method
54 ...........
Other quality assured methodologies approved through petition. These hours are included in missing data lookback and are treated
as unavailable hours for percent monitor availability calculations.
Other substitute data approved through petition. These hours are not included in missing data lookback and are treated as unavailable hours for percent monitor availability calculations.
55 ...........
*
*
*
*
*
21. Section 75.58 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and
(d)(4)(ii); and
b. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii), to read
as follows:
§ 75.58 General recordkeeping provisions
for specific situations.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Except as otherwise provided in
§ 75.34(d), for units with add-on SO2 or
NOX emission controls following the
provisions of §§ 75.34(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)
or (a)(5), the owner or operator shall
record:
(i) Parametric data which
demonstrate, for each hour of missing
SO2 or NOX emission data, the proper
operation of the add-on emission
controls, as described in the quality
assurance/quality control program for
the unit. The parametric data shall be
maintained on site and shall be
submitted, upon request, to the
Administrator, EPA Regional office,
State, or local agency;
(ii) A flag indicating, for each hour of
missing SO2 or NOX emission data,
either that the add-on emission controls
are operating properly, as evidenced by
all parameters being within the ranges
specified in the quality assurance/
quality control program, or that the addon emission controls are not operating
properly.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) For boilers, hourly average boiler
O2 reading (percent, rounded to the
nearest tenth) (flag if value exceeds by
more than 2 percentage points the O2
level recorded at the same heat input
during the previous NOX emission rate
test); and
(iii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], operating condition
codes for the following:
(A) Unit operated on emergency fuel;
(B) Correlation curve for the fuel
mixture has expired;
(C) Operating parameter is outside of
normal limits;
(D) Uncontrolled hour;
(E) Operation above highest tested
heat input rate point on the curve;
(F) Operating parameter data missing
or invalid;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
(G) Designated operational and
control equipment parameters within
normal limits; and
(H) Operation below lowest tested
heat input rate point on the curve.
*
*
*
*
*
22. Section 75.59 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)
introductory text, (a)(5) introductory
text, and (a)(5)(ii) introductory text;
d. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(L);
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(F)
and (G);
f. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(H);
g. Revising paragraph (a)(6)
introductory text;
h. Removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(7)(vii);
i. Removing the title of reserved
paragraph (a)(7)(viii);
j. Removing paragraph (a)(7)(x);
k. Revising paragraph (a)(9)
introductory text;
l. Revising paragraph (a)(9)(vi);
m. Adding paragraphs (a)(9)(x) and
(xi);
n. Revising paragraphs (a)(12)(iv)(E)
and (F);
o. Adding paragraph (a)(12)(iv)(G);
p. Removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(14);
q. Adding paragraph (a)(15);
r. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
s. Revising paragraph (c) introductory
text;
t. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(x) and
(xi);
u. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(xii) and
(xiii);
v. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
w. Removing paragraph (e); and
x. Redesignating paragraph (f) as
paragraph (e), to read as follows:
§ 75.59 Certification, quality assurance,
and quality control record provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant
concentration monitor, flow monitor,
CO2 emissions concentration monitor
(including O2 monitors used to
determine CO2 emissions), or diluent
gas monitor (including wet- and drybasis O2 monitors used to determine
percent moisture), the owner or operator
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shall record the following for all daily
and 7-day calibration error tests, and all
off-line calibration demonstrations,
including any follow-up tests after
corrective action:
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], date, hour, and
minute;
*
*
*
*
*
(3) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant
concentration monitor, CO2 emissions
concentration monitor (including O2
monitors used to determine CO2
emissions), or diluent gas monitor
(including wet- and dry-basis O2
monitors used to determine percent
moisture), the owner or operator shall
record the following for the initial and
all subsequent linearity check(s),
including any follow-up tests after
corrective action.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) For each SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, flow monitor,
each CO2 emissions concentration
monitor (including any O2
concentration monitor used to
determine CO2 mass emissions or heat
input), each NOX-diluent continuous
emission monitoring system, each NOX
concentration monitoring system, each
diluent gas (O2 or CO2) monitor used to
determine heat input, each moisture
monitoring system, and each approved
alternative monitoring system, the
owner or operator shall record the
following information for the initial and
all subsequent relative accuracy test
audits:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) Individual test run data from the
relative accuracy test audit for the SO2
concentration monitor, flow monitor,
CO2 emissions concentration monitor,
NOX-diluent continuous emission
monitoring system, diluent gas (O2 or
CO2) monitor used to determine heat
input, NOX concentration monitoring
system, moisture monitoring system, or
approved alternative monitoring system,
including:
*
*
*
*
*
(L) Average gross unit load, expressed
as a total gross unit load, rounded to the
nearest MWe, or as steam load, rounded
to the nearest thousand lb/hr; on and
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
RULE], for units that do not produce
electrical or thermal output, record,
instead, the average stack gas velocity at
the operating level being tested; and
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) * * *
(F) Bias test results as specified in
section 7.6.4 of appendix A to this part;
(G) Bias adjustment factor from
Equation A–12 in appendix A to this
part for any monitoring system that
failed the bias test (except as otherwise
provided in section 7.6.5 of appendix A
to this part) and 1.000 for any
monitoring system that passed the bias
test; and
(H) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], RATA frequency
code.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) For each SO2, NOX, or CO2
pollutant concentration monitor, each
component of a NOX-diluent continuous
emission monitoring system, and each
CO2 or O2 monitor used to determine
heat input, the owner or operator shall
record the following information for the
cycle time test:
*
*
*
*
*
(7) * * *
(vii) [Reserved]
(viii) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
(9) When hardcopy relative accuracy
test reports, certification reports,
recertification reports, or semiannual or
annual reports for gas or flow rate CEMS
are required or requested under
§ 75.60(b)(6) or § 75.63, the reports shall
include, at a minimum, the following
elements (as applicable to the type(s) of
test(s) performed):
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) Laboratory calibrations of the
source sampling equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
(x) For testing involving use of EPA
Protocol gases, the owner or operator
shall record in electronic and hardcopy
format the following information, as
applicable:
(A) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for each gas
monitor, for both low and high
measurement ranges, record the
following information for the mid-level
or high-level EPA Protocol gas (as
applicable) that is used for daily
calibration error tests, and the low-,
mid-, and high-level gases used for
quarterly linearity checks. For O2, if
purified air is used as the high-level gas
for daily calibrations or linearity checks,
record the following information for the
low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas
used for linearity checks, instead:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
(1) Gas level code;
(2) A code for the type of EPA
Protocol gas used;
(3) Start date and hour for EPA
Protocol gas type code;
(4) End date and hour (if applicable)
for EPA Protocol gas type code;
(5) The PGVP vendor ID issued by
EPA for the EPA Protocol gas
production site that supplied the gas
cylinder.
(6) Start date and hour for PGVP
vendor ID; and
(7) End date and hour (if applicable)
for PGVP vendor ID.
(B) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for each usage
of Reference Method 3A in appendix A–
2 to part 60 of this chapter, or Method
6C or 7E in appendix A–4 to part 60 of
this chapter performed using EPA
Protocol gas for the certification,
recertification, routine quality assurance
or diagnostic testing (reportable
diagnostics, only) of a Part 75
monitoring system, record the
information required by paragraphs
(a)(9)(x)(A)(1), (2), and (5) of this
section.
(xi) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs
performed pursuant to § 75.74(c)(2)(ii),
section 6.5 of appendix A to this part
and section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this
part, and for all NOX emission testing
performed pursuant to section 2.1 of
appendix E to this part, or
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv), the owner or operator
shall record the following information
as provided by the AETB:
(A) The name, telephone number and
e-mail address of the Air Emission
Testing Body;
(B) The name of the on-site Qualified
Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this
chapter;
(C) For the reference method(s) that
were performed, the date that the on-site
Qualified Individual took and passed
the relevant qualification exam(s)
required by ASTM D 7036–04; and
(D) The name and e-mail address of
the qualification exam provider.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) * * *
(iv) * * *
(E) Type of extension;
(F) Quarter and year; and
(G) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], fuel code for Ozone
Season Only reporters under § 75.74(c).
*
*
*
*
*
(14) [Reserved]
(15) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33413
performed pursuant to § 75.74(c)(2)(ii),
section 6.5 of appendix A to this part or
section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part,
the owner or operator shall record in
electronic format the following
information as provided by the AETB:
(i) The name, telephone number and
e-mail address of the Air Emission
Testing Body;
(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified
Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this
chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that
were performed, the date that the on-site
Qualified Individual took and passed
the relevant qualification exam(s)
required by ASTM D 7036–04; and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of
the qualification exam provider.
(b) * * *
(6) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all stack
testing performed pursuant to section
2.1 of appendix E to this part, the owner
or operator shall record in electronic
format the following information as
provided by the AETB:
(i) The name, telephone number and
e-mail address of the Air Emission
Testing Body;
(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified
Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this
chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that
were performed, the date that the on-site
Qualified Individual took and passed
the relevant qualification exam(s)
required by ASTM D 7036–04; and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of
the qualification exam provider.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in
§ 75.58(b)(3)(i), for units with add-on
SO2 or NOX emission controls following
the provisions of § 75.34(a)(1) or (a)(2),
the owner or operator shall keep the
following records on-site in the quality
assurance/quality control plan required
by section 1 of appendix B to this part:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(x) Documentation supporting the
qualification of all units in the group for
reduced testing, in accordance with the
criteria established in
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(B)(1);
(xi) Purpose of group tests;
(xii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], the number of tests
for group; and
(xiii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], the number of units
in group.
(4) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for all NOX
emission testing performed pursuant to
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33414
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv), the owner or operator
shall record in electronic format the
following information as provided by
the AETB:
(i) The name, telephone number and
e-mail address of the Air Emission
Testing Body;
(ii) The name of the on-site Qualified
Individual, as defined in § 72.2 of this
chapter;
(iii) For the reference method(s) that
were performed, the date that the on-site
Qualified Individual took and passed
the relevant qualification exam(s)
required by ASTM D 7036–04; and
(iv) The name and e-mail address of
the qualification exam provider.
§ 75.60
[Amended]
23. Section 75.60 is amended by
removing paragraph (b)(8).
24. Section 75.61 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text;
b. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; and
c. Revising paragraph (a)(8), to read as
follows:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 75.61
Notifications.
(a) * * *
(1) Initial certification and
recertification test notifications. The
owner or operator or designated
representative for an affected unit shall
submit written notification of initial
certification tests and revised test dates
as specified in § 75.20 for continuous
emission monitoring systems, for
alternative monitoring systems under
subpart E of this part, or for excepted
monitoring systems under appendix E to
this part, except as provided in
paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(4)
of this section. The owner or operator
shall also provide written notification of
testing performed under
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(A) to establish fuel-andunit-specific NOX emission rates for low
mass emissions units. Such notifications
are not required, however, for initial
certifications and recertifications of
excepted monitoring systems under
appendix D to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Periodic relative accuracy test
audits, appendix E retests, and low
mass emissions unit retests. The owner
or operator or designated representative
of an affected unit shall submit written
notice of the date of periodic relative
accuracy testing performed under
section 2.3.1 of appendix B to this part,
of periodic retesting performed under
section 2.2 of appendix E to this part,
and of periodic retesting of low mass
emissions units performed under
§ 75.19(c)(1)(iv)(D), no later than 21
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
days prior to the first scheduled day of
testing. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Certification deadline date for new
or newly affected units. The designated
representative of a new or newly
affected unit shall provide notification
of the date on which the relevant
deadline for initial certification is
reached, either as provided in § 75.4(b)
or § 75.4(c), or as specified in a State or
Federal SO2 or NOX mass emission
reduction program that incorporates by
reference, or otherwise adopts, the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of subpart F, G,
or H of this part. The notification shall
be submitted no later than 7 calendar
days after the applicable certification
deadline is reached.
*
*
*
*
*
25. Section 75.62 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 75.62
Monitoring plan submittals.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE
OF FINAL RULE], consistent with
§ 72.21 of this chapter, a hardcopy cover
letter signed by the Designated
Representative (DR) or the Alternate
Designated Representative (ADR) shall
accompany each hardcopy monitoring
plan submittal. The cover letter shall
include the certification statement
described in § 72.21(b) of this chapter,
and shall be submitted to the applicable
EPA Regional Office and to the
appropriate State or local air pollution
control agency. For electronic
monitoring plan submittals to the
Administrator, a cover letter is not
required. However, at his or her
discretion, the DR or ADR may include
important explanatory text or comments
with an electronic monitoring plan
submittal, so long as the information is
provided in an electronic format that is
compatible with the other data required
to be reported under this section.
26. Section 75.63 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 75.63 Initial certification or recertification
application.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Consistent with § 72.21 of this
chapter, a hardcopy cover letter signed
by the Designated Representative (DR)
or the Alternate Designated
Representative (ADR) shall accompany
the hardcopy portion of each
certification or recertification
application. The cover letter shall
include the certification statement
described in § 72.21(b) of this chapter,
and shall be submitted to the applicable
EPA Regional Office and to the
appropriate State or local air pollution
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
control agency. For the electronic
portion of a certification or
recertification application submitted to
the Administrator, a cover letter is not
required. However, at his or her
discretion, the DR or ADR may include
important explanatory text or comments
with the electronic portion of a
certification or recertification
application, so long as the information
is provided in an electronic format
compatible with the other data required
to be reported under this section.
27. Section 75.64 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xi);
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xii)(D);
d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xiii); and
e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as
paragraph (a)(12), to read as follows:
§ 75.64
Quarterly reports.
(a) * * *
(5) Except for the daily calibration
error test data, daily interference check,
and off-line calibration demonstration
information required in § 75.59(a)(1)
and (2), which must always be
submitted with the quarterly report, the
certification, quality assurance, and
quality control information required in
§ 75.59 shall either be submitted prior to
or concurrent with the submittal of the
relevant quarterly electronic data report.
On and after January 1, 2011, the
information required in § 75.59(a)(9)(x),
(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4) shall either be
submitted prior to or concurrent with
the submittal of the relevant quarterly
electronic data report.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) * * *
(xi) Data and results of RATAs that
are aborted or invalidated due to
problems with the reference method or
operational problems with the unit and
data and results of linearity checks that
are aborted or invalidated due to
problems unrelated to monitor
performance;
(xii) * * *
(D) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A)
through (F) shall be reported for all flow
RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in
which Method 2 in appendices A–1 and
A–2 to part 60 of this chapter is used
and a wall effects adjustment factor is
applied; and
(xiii) The certification required by
section 6.1.2(b) of appendix A to this
part and recorded under § 75.57(a)(7).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I [Removed]
28. Subpart I, consisting of §§ 75.80
through 75.84 is removed.
29. Appendix A to Part 75 is amended
by:
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
a. Revising section 1.1;
b. Removing sections 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1
through 2.1.7.4, and 2.2.3;
c. Removing paragraph (c) of section
3.1 and paragraph (3) of section 3.2;
d. Removing sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.3;
e. Revising the introductory text of
section 4;
f. Revising paragraph (6) of section 4;
g. Revising paragraph (b) of Section
5.1.4;
h. Removing paragraph (c) of Section
5.1.4;
i. In section 5.1.4 by redesignating
paragraph (d) as paragraph (c) and by
revising newly designated paragraph (c);
j. Revising the first sentence in
Section 5.1.5;
k. Removing section 5.1.9;
l. Revising section 6.1.2;
m. Revising the first sentence of
section 6.2 introductory text;
n. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h) of
section 6.2;
o. Revising the introductory text of
section 6.3.1;
p. Revising the introductory text of
sections 6.4 and 6.5;
q. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g)
of section 6.5;
r. Revising section 6.5.1;
s. Removing paragraph (c) of section
6.5.6;
t. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of
section 6.5.7;
u. Revising section 6.5.10;
v. Revising the introductory text of
section 7.3;
w. Revising section 7.3.1;
x. Revising the introductory text of
section 7.6;
y. Revising section 7.6.1; and
z. Revising paragraphs (b) and (f) of
section 7.6.5, to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 75—Specifications
and Procedures
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Installation and Measurement Location
1.1 Gas Monitors
(a) Following the procedures in section
8.1.1 of Performance Specification 2 in
appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, install
the pollutant concentration monitor or
monitoring system at a location where the
pollutant concentration and emission rate
measurements are directly representative of
the total emissions from the affected unit.
Select a representative measurement point or
path for the monitor probe(s) (or for the path
from the transmitter to the receiver) such that
the SO2, CO2, O2, or NOX concentration
monitoring system or NOX-diluent CEMS
(NOX pollutant concentration monitor and
diluent gas monitor) will pass the relative
accuracy test (see section 6 of this appendix).
(b) It is recommended that monitor
measurements be made at locations where
the exhaust gas temperature is above the
dew-point temperature. If the cause of failure
to meet the relative accuracy tests is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
determined to be the measurement location,
relocate the monitor probe(s).
*
*
*
*
*
4. Data Acquisition and Handling Systems
(a) Automated data acquisition and
handling systems shall read and record the
entire range of pollutant concentrations and
volumetric flow from zero through full-scale
and provide a continuous, permanent record
of all measurements and required
information in an electronic format. These
systems also shall have the capability of
interpreting and converting the individual
output signals from an SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, a flow monitor, a CO2
monitor, an O2 monitor, a NOX pollutant
concentration monitor, a NOX-diluent CEMS,
and a moisture monitoring system to produce
a continuous readout of pollutant emission
rates or pollutant mass emissions (as
applicable) in the appropriate units (e.g., lb/
hr, lb/mmBtu, tons/hr).
(b) Data acquisition and handling systems
shall also compute and record: Monitor
calibration error; any bias adjustments to
SO2, NOX, flow rate, or NOX emission rate
data; and all missing data procedure statistics
specified in subpart D of this part.
(c) For an excepted monitoring system
under appendix D or E of this part, data
acquisition and handling systems shall:
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Provide a continuous, permanent record
of all measurements and required
information in an electronic format.
*
*
5.1
*
*
*
Reference Gases
*
*
*
*
*
5.1.4
EPA Protocol Gases
*
*
*
*
*
(b) EPA Protocol gas concentrations must
be certified by a specialty gas company to
have an analytical uncertainty to be not more
than plus or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).
(c) A copy of EPA–600/R–97/121 is
available from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA, 703–605–6585 or https://
www.ntis.gov, and from https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/emc/news.html.
5.1.5 Research Gas Mixtures
Concentrations of research gas mixtures, as
defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, must be
certified by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to be within plus
or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive) of the
concentration specified on the cylinder label
(i.e., the tag value) in order to be used as
calibration gas under this part.* * *
*
6.1
*
*
*
*
*
General Requirements
*
*
*
*
6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Testing
(a) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX
MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], all relative accuracy test
audits (RATAs) of CEMS under this part, and
stack testing in § 75.19 and Appendix E to
this part shall be conducted by an Air
Emission Testing Body (AETB) which has
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
33415
provided to the owner or operator of an
affected unit the documentation required in
paragraph (b) of this section, demonstrating
its conformance to ASTM D7036–04
(incorporated by reference under § 75.6 of
this part).
(b) The owner or operator shall obtain from
the AETB a certification that as of the time
of testing the AETB is operating in
conformance with ASTM D7036–04. This
certification shall be provided in the form of
either:
(1) A certificate of accreditation or interim
accreditation for the relevant test methods
issued by a recognized, national accreditation
body; or
(2) A letter of certification for the relevant
test methods signed by a member of the
senior management staff of the AETB.
(c) The owner or operator shall obtain from
the AETB the information required under
paragraphs § 75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), and (d)(4),
as applicable.
(d) While under no obligation to request
the following information from an AETB, to
review the information provided by the
AETB in response to such a request, or to
take any other action related to the response,
it is recommended that the owner or operator
request that the AETB produce the following:
(1) The AETB’s quality manual;
(2) The results of any external or internal
audits performed by the AETB during the
prior 12 months;
(3) A written description of any corrective
actions being implemented by the AETB
during the prior 12 months; and
(4) Any AETB training records for the prior
12 months.
(e) All relative accuracy testing and stack
testing in § 75.19 and Appendix E to this part
shall be conducted or overseen on site by at
least one Qualified Individual, as defined in
§ 72.2 of this chapter with respect to the
methods employed in the test project. When
a QI oversees a test, the QI shall actively
observe the test for its duration. If a QI
conducts a test, the QI shall actively conduct
the test for its duration. However, allowance
is made for normal activities of a QI who is
overseeing or conducting a test, e.g.,
bathroom breaks, food breaks, and
emergencies that may arise during a test. If
the source owner or operator, or a state, local,
or EPA observer, discovers during the test
period, that the QI did not conduct or oversee
the entire test (as qualified by this paragraph
(d)), only those portions of the test that were
conducted or overseen by the QI as described
above may be used under this part.
(f) The certification described in paragraph
(b) of this section, and compliance with
paragraph (e) of this section, shall be
sufficient proof of validity of test data that
otherwise meet the requirements of this part.
(g) If the Administrator finds that the
information submitted to an affected source
by an AETB under this section or the
information requested by an affected source
under this section is either incomplete or
inaccurate, the Administrator may post the
name of the offending AETB on Agency Web
sites, and provide the AETB a description of
the failures to be remedied. The AETB name
will be removed from the EPA Web sites once
the failures are remedied.
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33416
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(h) If the Administrator finds that the
information submitted to an affected source
by an AETB under this section or the
information requested by an affected source
under this section is either incomplete or
inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the
Administrator, provide to the Administrator
evidence within a reasonable time of the
demand that any missing information has
been provided to the affected source and/or
that any inaccurate information has been
corrected.
6.2 Linearity Check (General Procedures)
Check the linearity of each SO2, NOX, CO2,
and O2 monitor while the unit, or group of
units for a common stack, is combusting fuel
at conditions of typical stack temperature
and pressure; it is not necessary for the unit
to be generating electricity during this test.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
6.3 * * *
6.3.1 Gas Monitor 7-Day Calibration Error
Test
The following monitors and ranges are
exempted from the 7-day calibration error
test requirements of this part: the SO2, NOX,
CO2 and O2 monitors installed on peaking
units (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter);
and any SO2 or NOX measurement range with
a span value of 50 ppm or less. In all other
cases, measure the calibration error of each
SO2 monitor, each NOX monitor, and each
CO2 or O2 monitor while the unit is
combusting fuel (but not necessarily
generating electricity) once each day for 7
consecutive operating days according to the
following procedures. (In the event that unit
outages occur after the commencement of the
test, the 7 consecutive unit operating days
need not be 7 consecutive calendar days).
Units using dual span monitors must perform
the calibration error test on both high- and
low-scales of the pollutant concentration
monitor. The calibration error test procedures
in this section and in section 6.3.2 of this
appendix shall also be used to perform the
daily assessments and additional calibration
error tests required under sections 2.1.1 and
2.1.3 of appendix B to this part. Do not make
manual or automatic adjustments to the
monitor settings until after taking
measurements at both zero and high
concentration levels for that day during the
7-day test. If automatic adjustments are made
following both injections, conduct the
calibration error test such that the magnitude
of the adjustments can be determined and
recorded. Record and report test results for
each day using the unadjusted concentration
measured in the calibration error test prior to
making any manual or automatic adjustments
(i.e., resetting the calibration). The
calibration error tests should be
approximately 24 hours apart, (unless the 7day test is performed over nonconsecutive
days). Perform calibration error tests at both
the zero-level concentration and high-level
concentration, as specified in section 5.2 of
this appendix. Alternatively, a mid-level
concentration gas (50.0 to 60.0 percent of the
span value) may be used in lieu of the highlevel gas, provided that the mid-level gas is
more representative of the actual stack gas
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
concentrations. In addition, repeat the
procedure for SO2 and NOX pollutant
concentration monitors using the low-scale
for units equipped with emission controls or
other units with dual span monitors. Use
only calibration gas, as specified in section
5.1 of this appendix. Introduce the
calibration gas at the gas injection port, as
specified in section 2.2.1 of this appendix.
Operate each monitor in its normal sampling
mode. For extractive and dilution type
monitors, pass the calibration gas through all
filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other
monitor components used during normal
sampling and through as much of the
sampling probe as is practical. For in-situ
type monitors, perform calibration, checking
all active electronic and optical components,
including the transmitter, receiver, and
analyzer. Challenge the pollutant
concentration monitors and CO2 or O2
monitors once with each calibration gas.
Record the monitor response from the data
acquisition and handling system. Using
Equation A–5 of this appendix, determine the
calibration error at each concentration once
each day (at approximately 24-hour intervals)
for 7 consecutive days according to the
procedures given in this section. The results
of a 7-day calibration error test are acceptable
for monitor or monitoring system
certification, recertification or diagnostic
testing if none of these daily calibration error
test results exceed the applicable
performance specifications in section 3.1 of
this appendix. The status of emission data
from a gas monitor prior to and during a 7day calibration error test period shall be
determined as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
6.4 Cycle Time Test
Perform cycle time tests for each pollutant
concentration monitor and continuous
emission monitoring system while the unit is
operating, according to the following
procedures. Use a zero-level and a high-level
calibration gas (as defined in section 5.2 of
this appendix) alternately. To determine the
downscale cycle time, measure the
concentration of the flue gas emissions until
the response stabilizes. Record the stable
emissions value. Inject a zero-level
concentration calibration gas into the probe
tip (or injection port leading to the
calibration cell, for in situ systems with no
probe). Record the time of the zero gas
injection, using the data acquisition and
handling system (DAHS). Next, allow the
monitor to measure the concentration of the
zero gas until the response stabilizes. Record
the stable ending calibration gas reading.
Determine the downscale cycle time as the
time it takes for 95.0 percent of the step
change to be achieved between the stable
stack emissions value and the stable ending
zero gas reading. Then repeat the procedure,
starting with stable stack emissions and
injecting the high-level gas, to determine the
upscale cycle time, which is the time it takes
for 95.0 percent of the step change to be
achieved between the stable stack emissions
value and the stable ending high-level gas
reading. Use the following criteria to assess
when a stable reading of stack emissions or
calibration gas concentration has been
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
attained. A stable value is equivalent to a
reading with a change of less than 2.0 percent
of the span value for 2 minutes, or a reading
with a change of less than 6.0 percent from
the measured average concentration over 6
minutes. Alternatively, the reading is
considered stable if it changes by no more
than 0.5 ppm or 0.2% CO2 or O2 (as
applicable) for two minutes. (Owners or
operators of systems which do not record
data in 1-minute or 3-minute intervals may
petition the Administrator under § 75.66 for
alternative stabilization criteria). For
monitors or monitoring systems that perform
a series of operations (such as purge, sample,
and analyze), time the injections of the
calibration gases so they will produce the
longest possible cycle time. Refer to Figures
6a and 6b in this appendix for example
calculations of upscale and downscale cycle
times. Report the slower of the two cycle
times (upscale or downscale) as the cycle
time for the analyzer. Prior to January 1, 2009
for the NOX-diluent continuous emission
monitoring system test, either record and
report the longer cycle time of the two
component analyzers as the system cycle
time or record the cycle time for each
component analyzer separately (as
applicable). On and after January 1, 2009,
record the cycle time for each component
analyzer separately. For time-shared systems,
perform the cycle time tests at each probe
locations that will be polled within the same
15-minute period during monitoring system
operations. To determine the cycle time for
time-shared systems, at each monitoring
location, report the sum of the cycle time
observed at that monitoring location plus the
sum of the time required for all purge cycles
(as determined by the continuous emission
monitoring system manufacturer) at each of
the probe locations of the time-shared
systems. For monitors with dual ranges,
report the test results for each range
separately. Cycle time test results are
acceptable for monitor or monitoring system
certification, recertification or diagnostic
testing if none of the cycle times exceed 15
minutes. The status of emissions data from a
monitor prior to and during a cycle time test
period shall be determined as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
6.5 Relative Accuracy and Bias Tests
(General Procedures)
Perform the required relative accuracy test
audits (RATAs) as follows for each CO2
emissions concentration monitor (including
O2 monitors used to determine CO2
emissions concentration), each SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, each NOX
concentration monitoring system used to
determine NOX mass emissions, each flow
monitor, each NOX-diluent CEMS, each O2 or
CO2 diluent monitor used to calculate heat
input, and each moisture monitoring system.
For NOX concentration monitoring systems
used to determine NOX mass emissions, as
defined in § 75.71(a)(2), use the same general
RATA procedures as for SO2 pollutant
concentration monitors; however, use the
reference methods for NOX concentration
specified in section 6.5.10 of this appendix:
*
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
*
*
11JNP2
*
*
33417
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(c) For monitoring systems with dual
ranges, perform the relative accuracy test on
the range normally used for measuring
emissions. For units with add-on SO2 or NOX
controls that operate continuously rather
than seasonally, or for units that need a dual
range to record high concentration ‘‘spikes’’
during startup conditions, the low range is
considered normal. However, for some dual
span units (e.g., for units that use fuel
switching or for which the emission controls
are operated seasonally), provided that both
monitor ranges are connected to a common
probe and sample interface, either of the two
measurement ranges may be considered
normal; in such cases, perform the RATA on
the range that is in use at the time of the
scheduled test. If the low and high
measurement ranges are connected to
separate sample probes and interfaces, RATA
testing on both ranges is required.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Complete each single-load relative
accuracy test audit within a period of 168
consecutive unit operating hours, as defined
in § 72.2 of this chapter (or, for CEMS
installed on common stacks or bypass stacks,
168 consecutive stack operating hours, as
defined in § 72.2 of this chapter). For 2-level
and 3-level flow monitor RATAs, complete
all of the RATAs at all levels, to the extent
practicable, within a period of 168
consecutive unit (or stack) operating hours;
however, if this is not possible, up to 720
consecutive unit (or stack) operating hours
may be taken to complete a multiple-load
flow RATA.
*
*
*
*
*
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(g) For each SO2 or CO2 emissions
concentration monitor, each flow monitor,
each CO2 or O2 diluent monitor used to
determine heat input, each NOX
concentration monitoring system used to
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined in
§ 75.71(a)(2), each moisture monitoring
system, and each NOX-diluent CEMS,
calculate the relative accuracy, in accordance
with section 7.3 or 7.4 of this appendix, as
applicable. In addition (except for CO2, O2,
or moisture monitors), test for bias and
determine the appropriate bias adjustment
factor, in accordance with sections 7.6.4 and
7.6.5 of this appendix, using the data from
the relative accuracy test audits.
6.5.1 Gas Monitoring System RATAs
(Special Considerations)
(a) Perform the required relative accuracy
test audits for each SO2 or CO2 emissions
concentration monitor, each CO2 or O2
diluent monitor used to determine heat
input, each NOX-diluent CEMS, and each
NOX concentration monitoring system used
to determine NOX mass emissions, as defined
in § 75.71(a)(2), at the normal load level or
normal operating level for the unit (or
combined units, if common stack), as defined
in section 6.5.2.1 of this appendix. If two
load levels or operating levels have been
designated as normal, the RATAs may be
done at either load (or operating) level.
(b) For the initial certification of a gas
monitoring system and for recertifications in
which, in addition to a RATA, one or more
other tests are required (i.e., a linearity test,
cycle time test, or 7-day calibration error
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
test), EPA recommends that the RATA not be
commenced until the other required tests of
the CEMS have been passed.
*
*
*
*
*
6.5.7 Sampling Strategy
(a) Conduct the reference method tests so
they will yield results representative of the
pollutant concentration, emission rate,
moisture, temperature, and flue gas flow rate
from the unit and can be correlated with the
pollutant concentration monitor, CO2 or O2
monitor, flow monitor, and SO2 or NOX
CEMS measurements. The minimum
acceptable time for a gas monitoring system
RATA run or for a moisture monitoring
system RATA run is 21 minutes. For each
run of a gas monitoring system RATA, all
necessary pollutant concentration
measurements, diluent concentration
measurements, and moisture measurements
(if applicable) must, to the extent practicable,
be made within a 60-minute period. For
NOX-diluent monitoring system RATAs, the
pollutant and diluent concentration
measurements must be made simultaneously.
For flow monitor RATAs, the minimum time
per run shall be 5 minutes. Flow rate
reference method measurements may be
made either sequentially from port-to-port or
simultaneously at two or more sample ports.
The velocity measurement probe may be
moved from traverse point to traverse point
either manually or automatically. If, during a
flow RATA, significant pulsations in the
reference method readings are observed, be
sure to allow enough measurement time at
each traverse point to obtain an accurate
average reading when a manual readout
method is used (e.g., a ‘‘sight-weighted’’
average from a manometer). Also, allow
sufficient measurement time to ensure that
stable temperature readings are obtained at
each traverse point, particularly at the first
measurement point at each sample port,
when a probe is moved sequentially from
port-to-port. A minimum of one set of
auxiliary measurements for stack gas
molecular weight determination (i.e., diluent
gas data and moisture data) is required for
every clock hour of a flow RATA or for every
three test runs (whichever is less restrictive).
Alternatively, moisture measurements for
molecular weight determination may be
performed before and after a series of flow
RATA runs at a particular load level (low,
mid, or high), provided that the time interval
between the two moisture measurements
does not exceed three hours. If this option is
selected, the results of the two moisture
determinations shall be averaged
arithmetically and applied to all RATA runs
in the series. Successive flow RATA runs
may be performed without waiting in
between runs. If an O2 diluent monitor is
used as a CO2 continuous emission
monitoring system, perform a CO2 system
RATA (i.e., measure CO2, rather than O2,
with the reference method). For moisture
monitoring systems, an appropriate
coefficient, ‘‘K’’ factor or other suitable
mathematical algorithm may be developed
prior to the RATA, to adjust the monitoring
system readings with respect to the reference
method. If such a coefficient, K-factor or
algorithm is developed, it shall be applied to
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the CEMS readings during the RATA and (if
the RATA is passed), to the subsequent
CEMS data, by means of the automated data
acquisition and handling system. The owner
or operator shall keep records of the current
coefficient, K factor or algorithm, as specified
in § 75.59(a)(5)(vii). Whenever the
coefficient, K factor or algorithm is changed,
a RATA of the moisture monitoring system
is required.
(b) To properly correlate individual SO2 or
NOX CEMS data (in lb/mmBtu) and
volumetric flow rate data with the reference
method data, annotate the beginning and end
of each reference method test run (including
the exact time of day) on the individual chart
recorder(s) or other permanent recording
device(s).
*
*
*
*
*
6.5.10 Reference Methods
The following methods are from appendix
A to part 60 of this chapter, and are the
reference methods for performing relative
accuracy test audits under this part: Method
1 or 1A in appendix A–1 to part 60 of this
chapter for siting; Method 2 in appendix A–
1 to part 60 of this chapter or its allowable
alternatives in appendices A–1 and A–2 to
part 60 of this chapter (except for Methods
2B and 2E in appendix A–1 to part 60 of this
chapter) for stack gas velocity and volumetric
flow rate; Methods 3, 3A or 3B in appendix
A–2 to part 60 of this chapter for O2 and CO2;
Method 4 in appendix A–3 to part 60 of this
chapter for moisture; Methods 6, 6A or 6C in
appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for
SO2; and Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in
appendix A–4 to part 60 of this chapter for
NOX, excluding the exceptions to Method 7E
identified in § 75.22(a)(5). When using
Method 7E for measuring NOX concentration,
total NOX, including both NO and NO2, must
be measured. When using EPA Protocol gas
with Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E, the gas must
be from an EPA Protocol gas production site
that is participating in the EPA Protocol Gas
Verification Program described in § 75.21(g).
However, EPA Protocol gas cylinders
purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] from a production site that is
not participating in the PGVP may be used
for the purposes of this part until the earlier
of the cylinder’s expiration date or the date
on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches
150 psig. In the event that an EPA Protocol
gas production site is removed from the list
of PGVP participants after such gases are
procured, but before the gases have been
consumed, the gas cylinders may continue to
be used for the purposes of this part until the
earlier of the cylinder’s expiration date or the
date on which the cylinder gas pressure
reaches 150 psig.
*
*
*
*
*
7.3 Relative Accuracy for SO2 and CO2
Emissions Concentration Monitors, O2
Monitors, NOX Concentration Monitoring
Systems, and Flow Monitors
Analyze the relative accuracy test audit
data from the reference method tests for SO2
and CO2 emissions concentration monitors,
CO2 or O2 monitors used for heat input rate
determination, NOX concentration
monitoring systems used to determine NOX
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33418
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
d avg =
1 n
∑ di
n i =1
*
(Eq. A-7)
Where:
davg = Arithmetic mean of the differences
n = Number of data points (test runs)
n
∑ di = Algebraic sum of the individual
differences d
i =1
i
di = The difference between a reference
method value and the corresponding
continuous emission monitoring system
value (RMi ¥ CEMi), for a given data
point
*
*
*
*
*
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
7.6 Bias Test and Adjustment Factor
Test the following relative accuracy test
audit data sets for bias: SO2 pollutant
concentration monitors; flow monitors; NOX
concentration monitoring systems used to
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined in
75.71(a)(2); and NOX-diluent CEMS using the
procedures outlined in sections 7.6.1 through
7.6.5 of this appendix. For multiple-load flow
RATAs, perform a bias test at each load level
designated as normal under section 6.5.2.1 of
this appendix.
7.6.1 Arithmetic Mean
Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
differences of the data set using Equation A–
7 of this appendix. To calculate bias for an
SO2 or NOX pollutant concentration monitor,
‘‘di’’ is, for each paired data point, the
difference between the SO2 or NOX
concentration value (in ppm) obtained from
the reference method and the monitor. To
calculate bias for a flow monitor, ‘‘di’’ is, for
each paired data point, the difference
between the flow rate values (in scfh)
obtained from the reference method and the
monitor. To calculate bias for a NOX-diluent
continuous emission monitoring system, ‘‘di’’
is, for each paired data point, the difference
between the NOX emission rate values (in lb/
mmBtu) obtained from the reference method
and the monitoring system.
*
*
*
*
*
7.6.5 * * *
(b) For single-load RATAs of SO2 pollutant
concentration monitors, NOX concentration
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
*
*
*
*
(f) Use the bias-adjusted values in
computing substitution values in the missing
data procedure, as specified in subpart D of
this part, and in reporting the concentration
of SO2, the flow rate, the average NOX
emission rate, the unit heat input, and the
calculated mass emissions of SO2 and CO2
during the quarter and calendar year, as
specified in subpart G of this part. In
addition, when using a NOX concentration
monitoring system and a flow monitor to
calculate NOX mass emissions under subpart
H of this part, use bias-adjusted values for
NOX concentration and flow rate in the mass
emission calculations and use bias-adjusted
NOX concentrations to compute the
appropriate substitution values for NOX
concentration in the missing data routines
under subpart D of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
30. Appendix B to Part 75 is amended
by:
a. Revising section 1.1.4;
b. Removing sections 1.5 and 1.5.1
through 1.5.6;
c. Revising paragraph (a) of section
2.1.4;
d. Adding paragraph (c) to section
2.1.4;
e. Revising section 2.2.1;
f. Adding paragraph (i) to section
2.2.3;
g. Revising paragraph (a) of section
2.3.1.1, paragraph (a) of section 2.3.1.3,
and paragraphs (d) and (i) of section
2.3.2;
h. Adding paragraph (k) to section
2.3.2;
i. Revising section 2.3.4;
j. Removing section 2.6;
k. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and
e. Adding Figure 3, to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 75—Quality
Assurance and Quality Control
Procedures
1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Program
*
*
*
*
*
1.1.4 The provisions in section 6.1.2 of
appendix A to this part shall apply to the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
annual RATAs described in § 75.74(c)(2)(ii)
and to the semiannual and annual RATAs
described in section 2.3 of this appendix.
*
*
*
*
*
2. Frequency of Testing
*
*
*
*
*
2.1.4 Data Validation
(a) An out-of-control period occurs when
the calibration error of an SO2 or NOX
pollutant concentration monitor exceeds 5.0
percent of the span value, when the
calibration error of a CO2 or O2 monitor
(including O2 monitors used to measure CO2
emissions or percent moisture) exceeds 1.0
percent O2 or CO2, or when the calibration
error of a flow monitor exceeds 6.0 percent
of the span value, which is twice the
applicable specification of appendix A to this
part. Notwithstanding, a differential
pressure-type flow monitor for which the
calibration error exceeds 6.0 percent of the
span value shall not be considered out-ofcontrol if |R– A|, the absolute value of the
difference between the monitor response and
the reference value in Equation A–6 of
appendix A to this part, is < 0.02 inches of
water. In addition, an SO2 or NOX monitor
for which the calibration error exceeds 5.0
percent of the span value shall not be
considered out-of-control if |R- A| in Equation
A–6 does not exceed 5.0 ppm (for span
values ≤ 50 ppm), or if |R- A| does not exceed
10.0 ppm (for span values > 50 ppm, but ≤
200 ppm). The out-of-control period begins
upon failure of the calibration error test and
ends upon completion of a successful
calibration error test. Note, that if a failed
calibration, corrective action, and successful
calibration error test occur within the same
hour, emission data for that hour recorded by
the monitor after the successful calibration
error test may be used for reporting purposes,
provided that two or more valid readings are
obtained as required by § 75.10. A NOXdiluent CEMS is considered out-of-control if
the calibration error of either component
monitor exceeds twice the applicable
performance specification in appendix A to
this part. Emission data shall not be reported
from an out-of-control monitor.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The results of any certification,
recertification, diagnostic, or quality
assurance test required under this part may
not be used to validate the emissions data
required under this part, if the test is
performed using EPA Protocol gas from a
production site that is not participating in the
PGVP, except as provided in § 75.21(g)(6) and
(7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an
independent laboratory and shown to meet
the requirements of section 5.1.4(b) of
appendix A to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
2.2.1 Linearity Check
Unless a particular monitor (or monitoring
range) is exempted under this paragraph or
under section 6.2 of appendix A to this part,
perform a linearity check, in accordance with
the procedures in section 6.2 of appendix A
to this part, for each primary and redundant
backup SO2, and NOx pollutant
concentration monitor and each primary and
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
EP11JN10.001
7.3.1 Arithmetic Mean
Calculate the arithmetic mean of the
differences of a data set as follows:
monitoring systems, and NOX-diluent
monitoring systems, and for the single-load
flow RATAs required or allowed under
section 6.5.2 of this appendix and sections
2.3.1.3(b) and 2.3.1.3(c) of appendix B to this
part, the appropriate BAF is determined
directly from the RATA results at normal
load, using Equation A–12. Notwithstanding,
when a NOX concentration CEMS or an SO2
CEMS or a NOX-diluent CEMS installed on
a low-emitting affected unit (i.e., average SO2
or NOX concentration during the RATA ≤ 250
ppm or average NOX emission rate ≤ 0.200 lb/
mmBtu) meets the normal 10.0 percent
relative accuracy specification (as calculated
using Equation A–10) or the alternate relative
accuracy specification in section 3.3 of this
appendix for low-emitters, but fails the bias
test, the BAF may either be determined using
Equation A–12, or a default BAF of 1.111
may be used.
EP11JN10.000
mass emissions under subpart H of this part,
and flow monitors using the following
procedures. Summarize the results on a data
sheet. An example is shown in Figure 2.
Calculate the mean of the monitor or
monitoring system measurement values.
Calculate the mean of the reference method
values. Using data from the automated data
acquisition and handling system, calculate
the arithmetic differences between the
reference method and monitor measurement
data sets. Then calculate the arithmetic mean
of the difference, the standard deviation, the
confidence coefficient, and the monitor or
monitoring system relative accuracy using
the following procedures and equations.
33419
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
redundant backup CO2 or O2 monitor
(including O2 monitors used to measure CO2
emissions or to continuously monitor
moisture) at least once during each QA
operating quarter, as defined in § 72.2 of this
chapter. For units using both a low and high
span value, a linearity check is required only
on the range(s) used to record and report
emission data during the QA operating
quarter. Conduct the linearity checks no less
than 30 days apart, to the extent practicable.
The data validation procedures in section
2.2.3(e) of this appendix shall be followed.
*
*
*
*
*
2.2.3
Data Validation
*
*
*
*
*
(i) The results of any certification,
recertification, diagnostic, or quality
assurance test required under this part may
not be used to validate the emissions data
required under this part, if the test is
performed using EPA Protocol gas from a
production site that is not participating in the
PGVP, except as provided in § 75.21(g)(6) and
(7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an
independent laboratory and shown to meet
the requirements of section 5.1.4(b) of
appendix A to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
a subsequent RATA having been conducted.
If a RATA has not been completed by the end
of the eighth calendar quarter since the
quarter of the last RATA, then the RATA
must be completed within a 720 unit (or
stack) operating hour grace period (as
provided in section 2.3.3 of this appendix)
following the end of the eighth successive
elapsed calendar quarter, or data from the
CEMS will become invalid.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Data Validation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Each time that a hands-off RATA of an
SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, a
NOX-diluent monitoring system, a NOX
concentration monitoring system, or a flow
monitor is passed, perform a bias test in
accordance with section 7.6.4 of appendix A
to this part. Apply the appropriate bias
adjustment factor to the reported SO2, NOX,
or flow rate data, in accordance with section
7.6.5 of appendix A to this part.
2.3.1.3 RATA Load (or Operating) Levels
and Additional RATA Requirements
(a) For SO2 pollutant concentration
monitors, CO2 emissions concentration
monitors (including O2 monitors used to
determine CO2 emissions), CO2 or O2 diluent
monitors used to determine heat input, NOX
concentration monitoring systems, and NOXdiluent monitoring systems, the required
semiannual or annual RATA tests shall be
done at the load level (or operating level)
designated as normal under section 6.5.2.1(d)
of appendix A to this part. If two load levels
(or operating levels) are designated as
normal, the required RATA(s) may be done
at either load level (or operating level).
2.3.2
2.3.1.1 Standard RATA Frequencies
(a) Except as otherwise specified in
§ 75.21(a)(6) or (a)(7) or in section 2.3.1.2 of
this appendix, perform relative accuracy test
audits semiannually, i.e., once every two
successive QA operating quarters (as defined
in § 72.2 of this chapter) for each primary and
redundant backup SO2 pollutant
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO2
emissions concentration monitor (including
O2 monitors used to determine CO2
emissions), CO2 or O2 diluent monitor used
to determine heat input, moisture monitoring
system, NOX concentration monitoring
system, or NOX-diluent CEMS. A calendar
quarter that does not qualify as a QA
operating quarter shall be excluded in
determining the deadline for the next RATA.
No more than eight successive calendar
quarters shall elapse after the quarter in
which a RATA was last performed without
RATA(s) at the other load level(s) (or
operating level(s)) are unaffected, unless the
monitor’s polynomial coefficients or Kfactor(s) must be changed to correct the
problem that caused the calibration failure,
in which case a subsequent 3-load (or 3-level)
RATA is required), except as otherwise
provided in section 2.3.1.3 (c)(5) of this
appendix.
*
(d) For single-load (or single-level) RATAs,
if a daily calibration error test is failed during
a RATA test period, prior to completing the
test, the RATA must be repeated. Data from
the monitor are invalidated prospectively
from the hour of the failed calibration error
test until the hour of completion of a
subsequent successful calibration error test.
The subsequent RATA shall not be
commenced until the monitor has
successfully passed a calibration error test in
accordance with section 2.1.3 of this
appendix. For multiple-load (or multiplelevel) flow RATAs, each load level (or
operating level) is treated as a separate RATA
(i.e., when a calibration error test is failed
prior to completing the RATA at a particular
load level (or operating level), only the RATA
at that load level (or operating level) must be
repeated; the results of any previously-passed
*
*
*
*
(k) The results of any certification,
recertification, diagnostic, or quality
assurance test required under this part may
not be used to validate the emissions data
required under this part, if the test is
performed using EPA Protocol gas from a
production site that is not participating in the
PGVP, except as provided in § 75.21(g)(6) and
(7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an
independent laboratory and shown to meet
the requirements of section 5.1.4(b) of
appendix A to this part.
*
*
*
*
*
2.3.4
Bias Adjustment Factor
Except as otherwise specified in section
7.6.5 of appendix A to this part, if an SO2
pollutant concentration monitor, a flow
monitor, a NOX-diluent CEMS, or a NOX
concentration monitoring system used to
calculate NOX mass emissions fails the bias
test specified in section 7.6 of appendix A to
this part, use the bias adjustment factor given
in Equations A–11 and A–12 of appendix A
to this part or the allowable alternative BAF
specified in section 7.6.5(b) of appendix A of
this part, to adjust the monitored data.
*
*
*
*
*
FIGURE 1 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS
Basic QA test frequency requirements
Daily *
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Test
Calibration Error Test (2 pt.) ........................................................................................................
Interference Check (flow) ............................................................................................................
Flow-to-Load Ratio ......................................................................................................................
Leak Check (DP flow monitors) ...................................................................................................
Linearity Check* (3 pt.) ................................................................................................................
RATA (SO2, NOX, CO2, O2, H2O)1 ..............................................................................................
RATA (flow) 1, 2 .............................................................................................................................
Quarterly *
Semiannual
or
annual
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
* ‘‘Daily’’ means operating days, only. ‘‘Quarterly’’ means once every QA operating quarter. ‘‘Semiannual’’ means once every two QA operating
quarters. ‘‘Annual’’ means once every four QA operating quarters.
1 Conduct RATA annually (i.e., once every four QA operating quarters) rather than semiannually, if monitor meets accuracy requirements to
qualify for less frequent testing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
33420
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules
2 For flow monitors installed on peaking units, bypass stacks, or units that qualify for single-level RATA testing under section 6.5.2(e) of this
part, conduct all RATAs at a single, normal load (or operating level). For other flow monitors, conduct annual RATAs at two load levels (or operating levels). Alternating single-load and 2-load (or single-level and 2-level) RATAs may be done if a monitor is on a semiannual frequency. A
single-load (or single-level) RATA may be done in lieu of a 2-load (or 2-level) RATA if, since the last annual flow RATA, the unit has operated at
one load level (or operating level) for ≥ 85.0 percent of the time. A 3-level RATA is required at least once every five years (20 calendar quarters)
and whenever a flow monitor is re-characterized, except for flow monitors exempted from 3-level RATA testing under section 6.5.2(b) or 6.5.2(e)
of appendix A to this part.
FIGURE 2 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—RELATIVE ACCURACY TEST FREQUENCY INCENTIVE SYSTEM
Semiannual W
RATA
SO2 or NOXY ..................................
NOX-diluent ....................................
Flow ...............................................
CO2 or O2 ......................................
Moisture .........................................
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
<
<
<
<
<
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
or
or
or
or
or
±
±
±
±
±
Annual W
15.0 ppm X ...................................................
0.020 lb/mmBtu X .........................................
2.0 fps X ........................................................
1.0% CO2/O2 X .............................................
1.5% H2O X ..................................................
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
7.5%
or
or
or
or
or
±
±
±
±
±
12.0 ppm X.
0. 015 lb/mmBtu X.
1.5 fps X.
0.7% CO2/O2 X.
1.0% H2O X.
W The deadline for the next RATA is the end of the second (if semiannual) or fourth (if annual) successive QA operating quarter following the
quarter in which the CEMS was last tested. Exclude calendar quarters with fewer than 168 unit operating hours (or, for common stacks and bypass stacks, exclude quarters with fewer than 168 stack operating hours) in determining the RATA deadline. For SO2 monitors, QA operating
quarters in which only very low sulfur fuel as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter, is combusted may also be excluded. However, the exclusion of
calendar quarters is limited as follows: the deadline for the next RATA shall be no more than 8 calendar quarters after the quarter in which a
RATA was last performed. A 720 operating hour grace period is available if the RATA cannot be completed by the deadline.
X The difference between monitor and reference method mean values applies to moisture monitors, CO , and O monitors, low emitters of SO ,
2
2
2
NOX, and low flow, only.
Y A NO concentration monitoring system used to determine NO mass emissions under § 75.71.
X
X
FIGURE 3 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—SINGLE COMPONENT PLUS BALANCE GAS CYLINDERS EPA PROTOCOL GAS
VERIFICATION PROGRAM RESULTS EPA CYLINDER GAS ASSAYS PERFORMED BY NIST
[NIST to Insert: Month, Year]
Gas Component, e.g., SO2
Specialty gas company name
EPA protocol gas
production
site name
Vendor
ID
Stamped
cylinder
ID
Tag
value
(e.g.,
ppm
SO2)
Audit Results
Orig tag
value
(pass/fail)
Orig
tag
(% diff)
Re-analyzed
value
(pass/fail)
Re-analysis
(% diff)
Vendor analytical method
(e.g., FTIR)
Vendor
ref
std used
(e.g.,
NTRM)
Supplied
complete
documentation
(yes/no)
A gaseous component is said to fail only if all available analytical techniques used in the audit indicate greater than a 2.0% difference from the cylinder tag value.
Any accuracy assessment is an instantaneous snapshot of the process being measured. These results should not be regarded as a final statement on the accuracy
of EPA Protocol gases. They can be used as an indicator of the current status of the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases as a whole. However, individual results should
not be taken as definitive indicators of the analytical capabilities of individual producers. EPA presents this information without assigning a rating to the gas vendors,
for example, who is the best, who is approved, or is not approved.
% diff = 100 × (Tag Value ¥ NIST Value)/NIST Value
Note: For cylinders with more than one component plus balance gas, change the title appropriately, e.g., ‘‘FIGURE 3 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—BI-BLEND
PLUS BALANCE GAS CYLINDERS * * * ’’ and add appropriate columns to Figure 3 for the additional components following the same format used in the columns for
SO2 above.
Appendix E to Part 75—Optional NOX
Emissions Estimation Protocol for GasFired Peaking Units and Oil-Fired
Peaking Units
2.1 Initial Performance Testing
* * * The requirements in section 6.1.2 of
appendix A to this part shall apply to any
stack testing performed to obtain O2 and NOX
concentration measurements under this
appendix, either for units using the excepted
methodology in this appendix or for units
using the low mass emissions excepted
methodology in § 75.19.
[FR Doc. 2010–10955 Filed 6–10–10; 8:45 am]
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
31. In Appendix E to Part 75, Section
2.1 is amended by revising the last
sentence to read as follows:
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
15:06 Jun 10, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00030
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 9990
Appendix F to Part 75 [Amended]
32. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended
by removing and reserving section 9.
Appendix K to Part 75 [Removed]
33. Appendix K to Part 75 is removed.
E:\FR\FM\11JNP2.SGM
11JNP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 112 (Friday, June 11, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33392-33420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10955]
[[Page 33391]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 33392]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 72 and 75
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837; FRL-9148-1]
RIN 2060-AQ06
Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum
Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Recent EPA gas audit results indicate that some gas cylinders
used to calibrate continuous emission monitoring systems on stationary
sources do not meet EPA's performance specification. Reviews of stack
test reports in recent years indicate that some stack testers do not
properly follow EPA test methods or do not correctly calculate test
method results. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend its Protocol Gas
Verification Program (PGVP) and the minimum competency requirements for
air emission testing (formerly air emission testing body requirements)
to improve the accuracy of emissions data. EPA is also proposing to
amend other sections of the Acid Rain Program continuous emission
monitoring system regulations by adding and clarifying certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, removing the provisions
pertaining to mercury monitoring and reporting, removing certain
requirements associated with a class-approved alternative monitoring
system, disallowing the use of a particular quality assurance option in
EPA Reference Method 7E, adding an incorporation by reference that was
inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008 final rule, and
clarifying the language and applicability of certain provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2010. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before July 12, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0837 (which includes Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132, and
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0800), by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0837. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: 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 West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. 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: John Schakenbach, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9158, e-mail at schakenbach.john@epa.gov. Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: https://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 for sale or cogenerate
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities
include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code Examples of potentially regulated industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................. 221112 and others....... Electric service providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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.
Considerations in Preparing Comments for EPA.
A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
[[Page 33393]]
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating
information in this preamble.
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Revisions
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air
Emission Testing
C. Other Amendments
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 Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Revisions
On January 24, 2008, revisions to 40 CFR part 75, the Acid Rain
Program continuous emission monitoring regulations, were published in
the Federal Register (see 73 FR 4340 January 24, 2008). These
amendments included provisions requiring that EPA Protocol gases used
for Part 75 purposes be obtained from specialty gas producers that
participate in a PGVP. The final rule further provided that only PGVP
participants were allowed to market calibration gas as ``EPA Protocol
gas''. The January 24, 2008 rulemaking also included a provision
requiring minimum competency requirements for air emission testing
bodies (AETBs). The PGVP and AETB provisions became effective on
January 1, 2009.
The Administrator received a Petition for Review, and a Petition
for Reconsideration, claiming that EPA had not properly promulgated the
PGVP. The Agency also received a Petition for Review challenging the
AETB requirements. Subsequently, EPA published a final rule in the
Federal Register staying the AETB requirements (73 FR 65554, November
4, 2008). EPA also posted a notice on an Agency Web site stating that
the PGVP is not in effect, and a revised PGVP would not be effective
until EPA goes through notice and comment rulemaking on any revised
procedure. EPA is today announcing its reconsideration of certain
aspects of the January 24, 2008 final rule and is proposing to amend
the PGVP and AETB requirements. If these revisions become final, the
amended rule will replace the existing AETB requirements, effectively
removing the stay.
EPA is also proposing to amend other sections of Part 75 by adding
several data elements associated with EPA's Emissions Collection and
Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) software, clarifying the requirements
for including cover letters with monitoring plan submittals,
certification applications, and recertification applications, removing
the provisions pertaining to mercury monitoring and reporting, removing
certain requirements associated with a class-approved alternative
monitoring system, disallowing the use of a particular quality
assurance option in EPA Reference Method 7E, adding an incorporation by
reference that was inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008 final
rule, and clarifying the language and applicability of certain
provisions.
A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
The purpose of the proposed EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program
(PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. EPA proposes to
require that the owner or operator of a Part 75 affected source ensure
that all calibration gases used to quality assure the operation of
instrumentation meet the definition of calibration gas contained in
Sec. 72.2, and the relevant provision in Section 5.1 of Appendix A of
Part 75. In turn, Sec. 72.2 defines calibration gas to include, among
other things, EPA Protocol gas. EPA Protocol gas is a calibration gas
mixture prepared and analyzed according to Section 2 of the ``EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards,'' or such revised procedure as approved by the
Administrator. All of the other calibration gases defined in Sec. 72.2
are analyzed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) or are produced following a more rigorous procedure and are
presumed more accurate (and costly) than EPA Protocol gases. Therefore,
only EPA Protocol gases are included in the PGVP described in today's
proposed rule. The proposed rule would revise Sec. 75.21 to require a
Part 75 affected source that uses EPA Protocol gas to obtain it from an
EPA Protocol gas production site which is on the EPA list of sites
participating in the PGVP at the time the owner or operator procures
the gases.
EPA is proposing that any EPA Protocol gas production site that
chooses to participate in the PGVP must notify the Administrator of its
intent to participate. EPA would then issue a unique vendor
identification number (ID) to the EPA Protocol gas production site
(e.g., a company's four participating EPA Protocol gas production sites
might be issued vendor IDs: 75.1, 75.2, 75.3 and 75.4). Affected units
would report the vendor ID as a required data element in each
electronic quarterly report, thus confirming that the affected unit's
calibration gases are being supplied by a participating EPA Protocol
gas production site.
Proposed Sec. 75.21(g) would require an EPA Protocol gas
production site to notify EPA of its participation in the
[[Page 33394]]
PGVP by following the instructions on the Forms page of the Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) Web site (notification will likely be through
an official EPA e-mail box). Initial participation in the program would
commence on the date of notification and would extend from that date
through the remainder of the calendar year. An EPA Protocol gas
production site that elects to continue participating in the PGVP in
the next calendar year would be required to notify the Administrator of
its intent to continue in the program by December 31 of the current
year. The names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in
the PGVP would be made publicly available by posting on official EPA
Web sites. EPA believes that annual posting will be frequent enough to
allow EPA Protocol gas users to verify that their calibration gases are
being provided by PGVP participants.
The contents of the initial notification and subsequent re-
notification(s) would be as follows:
(i) The specialty gas company name which owns or operates the EPA
Protocol gas production site;
(ii) The name and address of that participating EPA Protocol gas
production site owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and
(iii) The name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact
person for that participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
If any of the above information changes during the year, updates
may be sent to EPA, and Agency Web sites will be amended accordingly.
Under the PGVP as proposed, the Agency may annually audit up to
four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each participating EPA Protocol
gas production site. The same number and type of cylinders (i.e.,
cylinders with the same certified components, approximately the same
certified component concentration, and same number of certified
components) would be obtained from each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site that produces such cylinders to allow for better
intercompany comparisons.
Each year, EPA intends to audit all participating EPA Protocol gas
production sites that produce the type of gas being audited, and to
obtain EPA Protocol gas cylinders that are as representative of the
normal production process as possible, given the limited sample size.
To achieve this goal, the Agency intends to obtain cylinders in such a
way that an EPA Protocol gas production site is not aware that its
cylinders are being audited. In the past, the Agency has hired a
company that uses EPA Protocol gas cylinders as part of its normal
business to purchase cylinders. It is possible that EPA would hire a
different company each year for this purpose. The Agency specifically
requests comment on how it can better ensure that cylinders are
obtained from each production site without raising suspicion that the
cylinders are being audited. One possibility is to place cylinder
orders from locations that are geographically close to a production
site. However, there is no guarantee that EPA can always find a
purchaser in such a location.
After obtaining all of the EPA Protocol gas cylinders to be
audited, EPA would notify each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited
and would identify the purchaser as an EPA representative or contractor
participating in the audit process. EPA proposes that each
participating EPA Protocol gas production site would then either cancel
that purchaser's invoice or credit the purchaser's account for the
purchase of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and provide funding to
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for analysis
of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, for their portion of an electronic
NIST audit report on all audited cylinders for the current audit, for
demurrage, and for return shipment of their cylinders. The rule as
proposed would require that at the EPA Protocol gas production site's
own cost, audit results be submitted electronically by NIST to EPA upon
completion of NIST's analyses of all audit cylinders. A copy of NIST's
analysis of EPA Protocol gas cylinders from an EPA Protocol gas
production site could also be provided to that site, if that provision
is part of the production site's agreement with NIST.
Section 75.21(g) of the proposed rule provides minimum criteria for
auditing cylinders and reporting the results to EPA at cost to the
production site. As proposed each participating EPA Protocol gas
production site would reach formal agreement with and pay NIST to
analyze its EPA Protocol gas cylinders within two weeks of NIST's
receipt of the batch containing those cylinders (or as soon as possible
thereafter) using procedures at least as rigorous as the ``EPA
Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous
Calibration Standards'' (Traceability Protocol), September 1997 (EPA-
600/R-97/121) or equivalent written cylinder analysis protocol that has
been approved by EPA. The two week deadline assumes that EPA Protocol
gas cylinders would be sent to NIST in manageable batches, which EPA
intends to do.
Each cylinder's concentration would be determined and the results
compared to the cylinder's certification documentation and tag value
and for conformity to Section 5.1 of Appendix A. After NIST analysis, a
participant would then have to assure that each cylinder has a NIST
analyzed concentration with an uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent
(inclusive) or better, unless otherwise approved by EPA. The Agency
notes that especially with very low concentration cylinders, it may not
be possible to meet the 1.0 percent uncertainty and reserves the right
to make appropriate adjustments. Further, the proposed rule would
require that the certification documentation must be verified in the
audit report as meeting the requirements of the Traceability Protocol
or such revised procedure as approved by the Administrator.
All of the information described in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(9)(ii)-(v)
would be provided in an audit report submitted electronically by NIST
to EPA at the end of the current (annual) audit. The Agency would post
on EPA Web sites the results of the NIST analysis in the same format as
Figure 3 (or the Note below Figure 3, as applicable) or a revised
format approved by EPA.
EPA believes that owners or operators of Part 75 affected units
will use the results of the NIST analysis to better inform their EPA
Protocol gas purchase decisions. We specifically request comment on
whether the format and information contained in proposed Figure 3 and
the Note below Figure 3 are useful for this purpose.
In proposed Sec. 75.21(g)(4), EPA would reserve the right to
remove an EPA Protocol gas production site from the list of PGVP
participants for any of the following reasons:
(1) If the production site fails to provide all of the information
required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1), specifically, items (i) through (iii),
listed above;
(2) If, after being notified that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders
are being audited by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to
cancel its invoice or to credit the purchaser's account for the
cylinders; or
(3) Any participating EPA Protocol gas production site whose
cylinders were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis but are not in the
electronic audit report submitted by NIST to EPA.
EPA would relist an EPA Protocol gas production site as follows:
(1) An EPA Protocol gas production site may be relisted
immediately, after its failure is remedied, if the only failure is not
providing all of the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1);
[[Page 33395]]
(2) If EPA fails to receive from the participating EPA Protocol gas
production site a written invoice cancellation or a hardcopy credit
receipt for the cylinders within two weeks of notifying the production
site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the cylinders would
be returned to the production site and that production site would not
be eligible for relisting until December 31 of the current year and
until it submits to EPA the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1),
in accordance with the procedures in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(2) and
75.21(g)(3); and
(3) Any participating EPA Protocol gas production site whose
cylinders were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis, but are not in the
electronic audit report submitted by NIST to EPA, would not be eligible
for relisting until December 31 of the next year and until it submits
to EPA the information required by Sec. 75.21(g)(1), in accordance
with the procedures in Sec. Sec. 75.21(g)(2) and 75.21(g)(3). The
eligible relisting date of December 31 of the next year is later than
the eligible relisting date in (2), above, because EPA will not know
whether a particular EPA Protocol gas production site is missing from
the NIST audit report until the last half of the calendar year. Thus, a
production site would potentially be removed from the list of
participants for only a few months if the eligible relisting date were
December 31 of the current year, which may not be sufficient to prevent
gaming of the program.
EPA believes that removing EPA Protocol gas production sites from
the participants list for cause will provide sufficient incentive for
good faith participation. However, EPA specifically requests comment on
whether there are better mechanisms to ensure good faith participation
once a company elects to participate in the PGVP.
EPA notes that some EPA Protocol gas production sites produce EPA
Protocol gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability for both NO and
NOX concentrations in the same cylinder. If, as provided in
the proposed rule, such cylinders were analyzed by NIST for the PGVP,
they would have to be analyzed and the results reported for both the NO
and NOX components, where total NOX is determined
by NO plus NO2. The Agency believes that this requirement
would better assure NIST traceability, regardless of whether NO or
NOX is used when performing QA/QC tests.
The Agency believes that there are approximately 14 specialty gas
companies in the U.S. Some companies have multiple production sites,
resulting in approximately 30 potential EPA Protocol gas production
sites. If all production sites were to participate in the PGVP and EPA
were to audit 4 cylinders from each production site, NIST would have to
analyze 120 cylinders each year. If it takes NIST two weeks to analyze
20 cylinders, and if EPA shipped a batch of 20 cylinders every two
weeks, it would take NIST 3 months to analyze all 120 cylinders (six
batches). NIST would need additional time to produce an analysis report
and submit it electronically to EPA. NIST has indicated that it can
analyze 120 cylinders and submit an analysis report to EPA within six
months.
However, if cylinder analyses and report submittal ever take longer
than one year to complete, an annual PGVP would not be possible. To
address this and other possibilities, the Agency specifically requests
comments on the following options.
Option 1: EPA could interpret that an ``EPA Protocol gas production
site that is on the EPA list of sites participating in the PGVP at the
time the owner or operator procures such gases'' has the literal
meaning that an EPA Protocol gas production site simply has to be on
the EPA list to be able to provide EPA Protocol gases to owners or
operators of Part 75 affected units. Therefore, if EPA does not procure
gases for audit in a given year (and consequently NIST does not analyze
the gases), an EPA Protocol gas production site could still market its
EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources. Option 1 would also allow NIST
to take longer than 12 months to analyze and report on all audit
cylinders. However, a downside would be that audit results would be
posted at less than an annual frequency, and Part 75 sources would not
be able to determine the best performing EPA Protocol gas production
sites as frequently.
Option 2: EPA could reduce the number of cylinders audited per
production site in a year so that NIST could analyze and report on all
audit cylinders, and EPA could post results on an annual basis. While
each production site would still be represented in the audit, a
downside to Option 2 would be that fewer cylinders per production site
would be audited.
Option 3: Instead of procuring cylinders from all production sites,
EPA could select fewer production sites from each specialty gas
company. A downside would be that not all production sites would be
audited, even though each specialty gas company would still be
represented in the audit sample.
Option 4: EPA could use any of the above three options or some
combination in a given year. The Agency prefers this option because of
the increased flexibility it provides. This flexibility might be
required to address certain situations, e.g., an expansion in the
number of EPA Protocol gas production sites, unforeseen delays in
cylinder analyses or logistics, and possible Federal budget
constraints.
EPA proposes that if an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed
from the list of PGVP participants after EPA Protocol gas cylinders
have been purchased from that site, the owner or operator would be
allowed to use the cylinders for Part 75 applications until the earlier
of the cylinder's expiration date or until the cylinder gas pressure
reaches 150 psig.\1\ Further, if on the effective date of Sec.
75.21(g), a Part 75 affected source, or an emissions testing group or
testing company has in its possession EPA Protocol gases from an EPA
Protocol gas production site that is not participating in the PGVP, use
of those cylinder gases would also be permitted for Part 75
applications until the earlier of the cylinder's expiration date or
until the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. EPA believes that
these proposed rule provisions help clarify the liability of Part 75
affected sources in such cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 2.1.6.4 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' establishes a
minimum compressed gas cylinder pressure of 150 pounds per square
inch gravimetric, below which the cylinder gas concentration cannot
be assured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After analysis, each EPA Protocol gas cylinder would be returned to
the EPA Protocol gas production site that provided it. The EPA Protocol
gas cylinders being returned to the production site would be almost
full and have an accompanying NIST analyzed concentration with an
uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or better, which
more than meets the Part 75 EPA Protocol gas plus or minus 2.0 percent
of cylinder tag value requirement.
In order to help contain the cost of NIST's cylinder analyses, NIST
has agreed to implement the following cost containment measures:
(1) The concentrations of the gaseous components of interest in
each batch of cylinders will be within predefined concentration ranges.
This will allow NIST to setup instrumentation and form calibration
curves more efficiently.
(2) The arrival of each batch of cylinders will be coordinated with
the work schedules of key NIST personnel. This will allow NIST to more
efficiently manage its resources.
(3) NIST has modeled the cross interactions of the analytical
species on
[[Page 33396]]
its instrumentation. Future work can make use of that modeling, so that
NIST needs only to confirm that the correction factors are still good
before using them.
(4) Since NIST's uncertainty \2\ requirements for intermediate gas
standards are quite stringent (i.e., less than 0.5% uncertainty, and 1%
expanded), NIST can use intermediate standards for all of this work.
This keeps the cost down, because expensive primary standards do not
have to be used. In addition, NIST has invested in tri-mix working
standards that will allow them to validate their methods much more
quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Like any measurement, cylinder gas concentration is subject
to uncertainty due to instrument measurement accuracy and
repeatability, operator error, measurement methodology, accuracy of
reference standards used, and other sources of error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) For the future, NIST is considering using a Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) method, which might further reduce costs
by consolidating all of the analytical work in a single automated
instrument.
NIST has agreed to analyze audit cylinders to 0.5% uncertainty (1%
expanded uncertainty). The reason for this uncertainty goal is to allow
reasonable certainty when judging an audited cylinder with a 2.0%
uncertainty requirement under Part 75. No reasonable cost savings will
be achieved by increasing the uncertainty to 1% (2% expanded).
According to NIST, high concentration cylinders will always cost
less to analyze. The lowest concentration cylinders will cost NIST
approximately 25% more to analyze.
Based on 2009 cost data from NIST and recent cylinder shipping
costs, EPA estimates that the average cost for NIST to analyze one EPA
Protocol gas cylinder, produce a report and return ship a cylinder is
approximately $1,800. This cost assumes implementation of cost
containment measures 1 through 3 described above. The
cost may decrease further as a result of implementing measures
4 and 5.
EPA proposes to add the following simple recordkeeping and
reporting requirements under Sec. Sec. 75.59 and 75.64 to enable the
Agency to verify that Part 75 affected sources are using EPA Protocol
gases from EPA Protocol gas production sites that are participating in
the PGVP, and to inform the gas cylinder selection for the PGVP audits:
(i) Gas level code;
(ii) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used for each gas
monitor that uses EPA Protocol gas for daily calibrations;
(iii) A code for type of EPA Protocol gas used for each gas monitor
that uses EPA Protocol gas for quarterly linearity checks;
(iv) Start and end date and hour for EPA Protocol gas type code for
gases used on CEMS;
(v) A code for type of EPA Protocol gas used with EPA Reference
Methods 3A and/or 6C and/or 7E, when those methods are used to perform
relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) for certification,
recertification, routine quality assurance, or diagnostic testing of
Part 75 monitoring systems; and
(vi) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA.
EPA specifically requests comments on the following proposed codes
for the type of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be
specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting
instructions:
SO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, SO2, and a balance gas.
NOX = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, NOX, and a balance gas.
NO = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single certified
component, NO, and a balance gas.
CO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, CO2, and a balance gas.
O2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single
certified component, O2, and a balance gas.
SC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and CO2, and a balance gas.
SN = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and NO and a balance gas.
SN1 = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two
certified components, SO2 and NOX and a balance
gas.
NC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, NO and CO2, and a balance gas.
N1C = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two
certified components, NOX and CO2, and a balance
gas.
NCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, NO and CO, and a balance gas.
N1CO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two
certified components, NOX and CO, and a balance gas.
OC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, O2 and CO2, and a balance gas.
OCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, O2 and CO, and a balance gas.
SO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and O2, and a balance gas.
SCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified
components, SO2 and CO, and a balance gas.
SN2 = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, SO2, NO, and NOX and
a balance gas.
N2C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, NO, NOX, and CO2, and
a balance gas.
N2CO = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, NO, NOX, and CO, and a balance
gas.
SNC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and CO2, and a balance gas.
SN1C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, SO2, NOX, and
CO2, and a balance gas.
NCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, NO, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
N1CC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, NOX, CO2, and CO, and
a balance gas.
NSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, SO2, NO, and CO, and a balance gas.
N1SC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of
three certified components, SO2, NOX, and CO, and
a balance gas.
OCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, O2, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
OSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified
components, O2, SO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
SN2C = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of
four certified components, SO2, NO, NOX, and
CO2, and a balance gas.
N2CC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of
four certified components, NO, NOX, CO2, and CO,
and a balance gas.
N2SC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of
four certified components, SO2, NO, NOX, and CO,
and a balance gas.
[[Page 33397]]
EPA proposes to allow participation in the PGVP on and after the
effective date of the rule. The proposed rule would require PGVP-
related recordkeeping requirements to start six months after the
effective date of this rule. On and after January 1, 2011, the new
PGVP-related data elements in Sec. 75.64 (described in items (i)
through (vi) listed above) would be submitted prior to or concurrent
with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report.
However, if the final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the right to amend
the reporting deadline. The Agency believes that this will provide both
EPA and the regulated community adequate time to reprogram
recordkeeping/reporting software.
The Agency is also proposing to amend Section 6.5.10 of Appendix A
to Part 75 to require that the EPA Protocol gases used when performing
Methods 3A, 6C, and/or 7E must be from EPA Protocol gas production
sites participating in the PGVP. The Agency anticipates that this will
help improve the data quality when these test methods are used at Part
75 affected sources.
B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission
Testing
EPA proposes to add minimum competency requirements for air
emission testing under Sec. 75.21(f). This proposed section describes
where the minimum competency requirements apply and where they do not.
EPA proposes to add simple recordkeeping requirements under Sec.
75.59 and reporting requirements under Sec. Sec. 75.63 and 75.64 to
enable the Agency to verify that Qualified Individuals and Air Emission
Testing Bodies (AETBs) meet the requirements of this rule should we
take final action. On and after January 1, 2011, the new AETB-related
data elements in Sec. 75.64 would be submitted prior to or concurrent
with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report
required under Sec. 75.64. However, if the final rule is delayed, EPA
reserves the right to amend the reporting deadline. The Agency believes
that this will provide both EPA and the regulated community adequate
time to reprogram recordkeeping/reporting software.
Proposed revisions to Sections 6.1.2(a), (b), and (c) of Appendix A
to Part 75 would provide that all relative accuracy test audits (RATAs)
of Part 75 CEMS and stack tests conducted under Sec. 75.19 and
Appendix E to Part 75 are to be conducted by an AETB that has provided
to the owner or operator a certification that as of the time of testing
the AETB is operating in conformance with ASTM D7036-04. That
certification is a certificate of accreditation or interim
accreditation for the relevant test method issued by a recognized
national accreditation body or a letter of certification for the
relevant test methods signed by a member of the senior management staff
of the AETB. The owner or operator would also record and report: (a)
The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air Emission
Testing Body; (b) the name of the on-site Qualified Individual; (c) For
the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that the on-site
Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant qualification
exam(s), required by ASTM D 7036-04; and (d) the name and e-mail
address of the qualification exam provider (see Section 6.1.2(b)). All
of this information would have to be recorded and kept on site for at
least 3 years and would be reported to EPA, except for the certificate
of accreditation or interim accreditation and the letter of
certification. The certificate of accreditation or interim
accreditation and the letter of certification would not be reported to
EPA but would be retained on-site for at least 3 years.
The AETB must reasonably have all of this information available to
be in compliance with ASTM D 7036-04, Sec. Sec. 5.4.11 and 8.3.7.
Section 5.4.11 states that the AETB shall ``be able to provide
documentation or otherwise demonstrate, on request from the persons or
organizations evaluating its competence, that it complies with * * *
this practice.'' Section 8.3.7 states that ``The qualification
credentials of each qualified individual shall be available for
inspection at the test site.'' Qualification credentials are defined in
the ASTM standard as ``evidence that the qualified individual meets the
requirements of 8.3.2 * * * .'' Section 8.3.2 includes criteria on
experience, qualification exams, and a statement saying that all test
projects conducted under the QI's supervision ``will conform to the
AETB's quality manual and to this practice in all respects.''
EPA is proposing to remove the reference to sorbent trap testing
from Section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A, in view of the vacatur of the
Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Proposed Section 6.1.2(d) of Appendix A recommends that the owner or
operator of a Part 75 affected source request the following information
from an AETB:
(1) The AETB's quality manual;
(2) The results of any external or internal audits performed by the
AETB in the prior 12 months;
(3) A written description of any corrective actions being
implemented by the AETB in the prior 12 months; and
(4) Any AETB training records in the prior 12 months. This proposed
provision is merely a recommendation, will not affect data validation,
and does not require the owner or operator to review, retain or report
copies of such records. The provision is simply for the protection of
the owner or operator. The Agency believes this will provide the owner
or operator more assurance that the AETB is complying with all the
requirements of ASTM D 7036-04. The Agency anticipates that testers
would have this information with them in their vehicles when visiting a
site in view of the requirements of the ASTM standard.
If an AETB fails to provide information provided in Section
6.1.2(d) when requested by an owner or operator, the proposed rule
provides that EPA can demand that an AETB provide evidence to the
Administrator that the AETB has provided the information to the owner
or operator. If the AETB fails to provide such evidence, which EPA
anticipates would be clearly identified in the demand, EPA would have
several courses of action. First, as described below, under Section
6.1.2(g), the EPA could list the offending AETB on its Web sites.
Secondly, as more fully explained below, since EPA's authority to make
the demand is premised on Clean Air Act Section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414)(CAA), a non-compliant AETB could be subject to enforcement action
by EPA under CAA Section 113. The CAA provides for several levels of
enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal penalties.
The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and
administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day. EPA believes that
the availability of these enforcement tools, coupled with the owner or
operator's express right to require the enumerated information from the
AETB, are significant deterrents and will result in better quality
testing.
Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) of Appendix A states that testing must be
conducted or overseen on site by at least one Qualified Individual
(QI), who is qualified in the methods employed in the test project. It
is expected that when a QI is overseeing a test, that the QI would be
actively observing the test for its duration. It is also expected that
if a QI is conducting a test, that a QI would actively conduct the test
for its duration. However, allowance would be made for normal
activities of a QI who is overseeing or conducting a test, e.g.,
bathroom breaks, food breaks, etc., and emergencies that may arise
during a test.
[[Page 33398]]
Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) also provides that if during the test
period, it is discovered that a Qualified Individual is not present on
site either conducting or overseeing the methods employed for the test
project, that test must be invalidated and repeated with a Qualified
Individual present. This provision is intended to encourage the owner
or operator and those observing the test to make it standard operating
practice to verify that a QI is present while the testing is still in
progress, thereby preventing potentially large amounts of data from
being invalidated (e.g., if six months after the completion of a RATA,
EPA were to discover that a QI was not on site during the test period).
The Agency notes that an owner or operator could act as an AETB for its
own source or for other sources, provided that the requirements of
Section 6.1.2 are met.
Of course, having a QI on site either conducting or overseeing the
methods employed in the test project does not guarantee proper
performance of the test. Third party (e.g., state agency) oversight is
recommended to help ensure that testing is properly conducted. (The
Agency notes that even though third party oversight is highly
recommended, it is not required in today's proposed rule.)
Proposed Section 6.1.2(f) of Appendix A, states that (in the
absence of other information such as evidence of collusion during
testing), test data that otherwise meet the requirements of Part 75
will be considered valid, provided that the AETB provides to the owner
or operator a certificate of accreditation (or interim accreditation)
or letter of certification described in Sections 6.1.2(b)(1) and (2),
and the Qualified Individual requirements in Section 6.1.2(e) are met.
The Agency notes that ASTM D7036-04 requires that the QI re-take
and pass a qualification exam at least once every five years (see Sec.
8.3.3 of the ASTM standard). Therefore, EPA, State and local air
agencies will be checking that QI exam certificates are current. The
Agency recommends, but is not requiring, that owners or operators of
Part 75 affected sources also check that the exam certificates are
current.
EPA believes that requiring submittal of the name and e-mail
address of the qualification exam provider is important for two
reasons: (1) It will be a valuable deterrent to an AETB providing false
qualification exam dates or certifications because the Agency may from
time to time check with the exam provider; and (2) it allows the Agency
to more easily verify the QI's credentials.
EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or operator
of an affected source responsible for certain actions (or inactions)
related to an external AETB's compliance with ASTM D7036-04. Therefore,
proposed Section 6.1.2(f) also provides that ``The certification
described in paragraph (b) of this section, and compliance with
paragraph (e), shall be sufficient proof of validity of test data that
otherwise meet the requirements of this part.'' Proposed paragraph (g)
provides that ``[i]f the Administrator finds that an AETB has not
provided accurate or complete information required by this section to
an affected source or requested by an affected source under this
section, the Administrator may post the name of the offending AETB on
Agency Web sites, and provide the AETB a description of the failures to
be remedied.'' EPA believes that this would be a deterrent to non-
compliance with ASTM D7036-04. The Agency requests comments on whether
posting an offending AETB's name on Agency Web sites is an appropriate
response in these situations.
Further, EPA would have the express authority under proposed
Section 6.1.2(h) to require an AETB to provide certain information
relating to evaluation of the effectiveness of these provisions and the
accuracy of information provided thereunder. If the Administrator
learns that an AETB has not provided accurate or complete information
or has not provided information to an owner or operator upon request as
recommended in this rule, EPA has the authority under CAA Section 114
to itself require the AETB to provide evidence to the Agency that the
AETB has in fact provided such information. EPA's authority under Sec.
114 is broad, and extends to any person ``who the Administrator
believes may have information necessary for the purposes'' of carrying
out the CAA, even if that person is not otherwise subject to the CAA.
The broad requirement to provide ``such information as the
Administrator may reasonably require'', can be one-time or on a
continuous basis.
By specifically authorizing EPA to collect information from persons
subject to any requirement of the CAA, as well as any person whom the
Administrator believes may have necessary information, Congress clearly
intended that EPA could gather information from persons not otherwise
subject to CAA requirements. In an effort to resolve problems which
affected sources have had with air emissions testing bodies, EPA is
proposing these amendments to Parts 72 and 75, and information to be
available to owners or operators from AETBs is an integral part of that
regulatory structure. Therefore, a clear statement of EPA's authority
to obtain information relevant to that which an owner or operator might
solicit from an AETB is merited.
Further, if following demand, an AETB fails to provide evidence to
the Agency that (1) it has provided accurate or complete information or
(2) it has in fact made information available to the owner or operator
upon request, an AETB could be subject to enforcement action by EPA
under CAA Section 113. As structured, the proposed rule provides that
upon learning of an AETB's deviation from the rule, EPA would provide
notice to the offender and provide a reasonable period for the AETB to
correct the deviation. If an AETB does not comply, EPA has the
authority to bring an enforcement action. EPA's enforcement authority
includes injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and
administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day. Deviations from the
rule that could ultimately be considered violations include, but are
not limited to, failure to provide such information as a certification
of accreditation or interim accreditation, or a letter of certification
and the date on which the on-site QI took and passed the qualification
exam for the relevant test method, assuring that the QI meets the
periodic timing requirement of examinations to retain his QI status.
Additionally, as discussed above, EPA also would have the authority to
publish the name of the offending AETB on its Web sites.
EPA is also attempting to clarify internal and external audit
provisions in ASTM D 7036-04, self certification, and accreditation by
a recognized, national accreditation body provisions in this preamble.
EPA also specifically requests comment on whether AETBs should be
required to be accredited.
If the AETB chooses to be accredited by a recognized, national
accreditation body (neither the January 24, 2008 final rule nor today's
proposed rule requires such accreditation), compliance with ASTM D7036-
04 is determined by that accreditation body. If an AETB fails to meet
the requirements of ASTM D7036-04, the accreditation body may revoke
the AETB's accreditation.
However a revoked or denied accreditation might not affect
compliance with the Part 75 AETB requirements. Section 4 of the ASTM
practice states that the ``quality manual and its implementation
(including test protocols, reports, and personnel testing)'' will
provide the ``sole basis'' for determining conformance of the AETB with
the practice. Under Section 7.4 of
[[Page 33399]]
the practice, AETBs are required to conduct annual internal audits to
identify any deficiencies and determine and document the effectiveness
of corrective action. Under Sections 18 and 19 of the practice, the
AETB also must have policies and procedures, and designate appropriate
authorities, for implementing corrective action when nonconforming work
or departures from its quality system are identified. For purposes of
the Part 75 rule, an AETB that is conducting internal (or external)
audits and implementing its policies and procedures for corrective
action is operating in conformance with the ASTM practice, despite any
deficiencies in the AETB certification or certificate of accreditation
or interim accreditation required under Section 6.1.2(b) of Appendix A
that might be discovered by the AETB or by a third party during an
audit.
EPA intends to post a list of activities on Agency Web site(s) to
assist sources in complying with ASTM D7036-04. Additionally, EPA plans
to similarly post questions and answers (Qs&As) related to the air
emission testing minimum competency requirements. Such Qs&As will be
developed and made available as implementation of the air emission
testing minimum competency requirements progresses.
Regarding the AETB-related recordkeeping requirements, EPA believes
that a commencement date of six months after the effective date of a
final rule would allow sufficient time for stack testers and stack
testing companies to become fully compliant with the AETB provisions.
Affected sources and air emission testing bodies have known that EPA
would impose AETB requirements since August 22, 2006, when the first
AETB-related rule was proposed (see 71 FR 49300, August 22, 2006). On
and after January 1, 2011, the new AETB-related data elements in Sec.
75.64 would be submitted to EPA prior to or concurrent with the
submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report. However, if
the final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the right to amend the
reporting deadline. The Agency believes that this will provide both EPA
and the regulated community adequate time to reprogram recordkeeping/
reporting software.
C. Other Amendments
1. Compliance Dates
EPA is proposing to amend paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) of Sec.
75.4 to remove the 90 unit operating days provision pertaining to the
monitoring system certification deadline for new Acid Rain Program
(ARP) units and newly-affected units that lose their ARP-exempt status
under 40 CFR 72.6. A new ARP unit would have 180 calendar days after
the date the unit commences commercial operation to complete
certification tests of all monitoring systems, and would, according to
Sec. 72.9(c)(3)(iv), be required to commence holding SO2
allowances when the 180 day window expires. A newly-affected ARP unit
would also have 180 days to complete monitor certification testing and
begin holding allowances, except that in this case, the reference point
would be the date on which the unit becomes subject to the ARP, rather
than the date on which the unit commenced commercial operation. Since
Sec. 75.61(a)(2) requires the owner or operator to notify EPA of the
date on which a new unit commences commercial operation or the date on
which a previously ARP-exempt unit loses its exempt status, the Agency
believes the proposed amendments to Sec. Sec. 75.4(b) and (c) will
clarify and simplify the determination of when new and newly-affected
ARP units must complete certification testing and commence holding
SO2 allowances.
EPA is also proposing to amend Sec. 75.4(e), chiefly to clarify
the applicability of this section. Section 75.4(e) applies to the
construction of a new stack or the installation of add-on
SO2 or NOX emission controls (or both) at an
existing Acid Rain Program (ARP) unit after the compliance date
specified in Sec. 75.4(a). For these events, the owner or operator is
given 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever occurs
first) after gases first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack,
flue, or emission control device to complete all necessary monitoring
system certification testing.
Under 40 CFR 72.2, a ``new'' ARP unit is defined as one that
commences commercial operation on or after November 15, 1990. Since
Sec. 75.4(e) applies only to ``existing'' units, it only covers Phase
I and Phase II ARP units that commenced commercial operation prior to
November 15, 1990.
Therefore, to ensure that the owner or operator of a new ARP unit
that commences commercial operation after November 15, 1990 is given
the same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOX emission
controls are installed, EPA proposes to amend Sec. 75.4(e), as
follows:
First, the reference to the compliance date in Sec.
75.4(a), which applies only to existing units, would be expanded to
include the compliance date in Sec. 75.4(b), which applies to new
units.
Second, the reference to ``certification testing'' of the
monitoring systems would be expanded to include the terms
``recertification'' and ``diagnostic testing,'' because new stack
construction and/or addition of emission controls does not necessarily
require a full battery of certification tests to be performed.
Third, the exact starting time of the 90 operating day/180
calendar day window would be clarified. For construction of a new
stack, no change is proposed--the clock will start when gases first
exit to the atmosphere through the new stack. However, for
SO2 or NOX control device addition, the clock
would start when reagent is first injected into the gas stream. In
cases where there is both new stack construction and control device
addition, the start of the clock would be governed by the new stack
construction.
Finally, the allowable data reporting options during the
flexible 90 operating day/180 calendar day window of time would be
clarified.
2. Incorporation by Reference
The Agency is proposing to amend Sec. 75.6 by including reference
to Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition, of the American
Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards,
Chapter 4--Proving Systems. Section 3 was inadvertently left out of the
January 24, 2008 final rule.
3. Miscellaneous Recordkeeping Requirements
EPA is proposing to amend certain recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in Sec. Sec. 75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(E),
(g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F), (g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and
(h)(5), Sec. Sec. 75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)-(H), Sec. Sec.
75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L), (a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G),
(d)(3)(xii) and (xiii), Sec. 75.62(d), and Sec. 75.63(d) by adding
various data elements that were inadvertently left out of the August
22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final rule. These data
elements have already been included in the data acquisition and
handling systems of Part 75 affected units, and are needed to make
EPA's new reporting software data requirements consistent with the
regulatory requirements. Because there was zero tolerance for reporting
errors during the transition to the EPA's re-engineered reporting
software system (ECMPS), the Agency is confident that all Part 75
affected sources have already met the reporting deadlines for these
data elements.
[[Page 33400]]
4. Reference Methods
In Sec. 75.22(a)(5)(iv), the Agency is proposing to disallow
multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before conducting the post-run
bias or system calibration error check. EPA is concerned that if the
use of this option, which is described in Section 8.5 of Method 7E,
were allowed, less accurate gas concentration measurements are likely
to result; and correction of the run-level data for calibration bias
would become unnecessarily complex and prone to error.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA instrumental Method 7E was developed and validated with
a requirement to conduct a system bias or calibration error check
before and after each run to ensure that each reference method run
is accurate. Method 7E also includes a procedure to correct for
drift if the drift is less than the allowable specification. This
mathematical correction assumes (not always correctly) that the
drift over the duration of the testing run is uniform and therefore
adjusts the run measurement to the average system bias calibration
response. In a recent revision to Section 8.5 of Method 7E, an
option was added to allow testers to forgo the run-by-run quality
assurance (QA) and instead only test the calibration of the
reference method measurement equipment at the beginning and end of a
series of runs. This change lengthens the interval between QA checks
and thus increases the likelihood that the uniform drift assumption
is not true. Furthermore, even if the uniform drift assumption were
true, the resulting correction would be appropriate for the middle
runs but not for the early or later runs of a test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Alternative Monitoring Systems
EPA is proposing to remove the requirement for an owner or operator
to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved alternative
monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis from Sec. 75.47(b). EPA
believes that the de minimis emissions concept is not appropriate for
Subpart E petitions because in order to be approved, an AMS must be
shown to be equivalent to a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS). In the Acid Rain Program and in other Part 75 emissions trading
programs, the de minimis emissions concept has been used only to
justify allowing the use of less rigorous monitoring methods for low-
emitting units (such as the Appendix E methodology for gas-fired and
oil-fired peaking units and the low mass emissions (LME) methodology in
Sec. 75.19) rather than for justifying the use of CEMS or AMS shown to
be equivalent to CEMS. There are also potential problems defining de
minimis emissions for a class of units, and tracking the available
increment. The Agency notes that today's proposed revision to Sec.
75.47(b) does not imply that it will be easier to get a class-approved
AMS petition granted under Subpart E.
The Agency is also proposing to remove the self-imposed requirement
for EPA to publish a Federal Register notice for a 30-day public
comment period prior to granting a class-approved AMS in Sec.
75.47(c). This Federal Register notice is unnecessary in view of EPA's
autho