17288 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 72 and 75 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0837; FRL–9280–9] 

RIN 2060–AQ06 

Protocol Gas Verification Program and 

Minimum Competency Requirements 

for Air Emission Testing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing rule 

revisions that modify existing 

requirements for sources affected by the 

federally administered emission trading 

programs including the NOX Budget 

Trading Program, the Acid Rain 

Program, and the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule. 

EPA is amending 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 amending 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 two 

incorporation by references that were 

inadvertently left out of the January 24, 

2008 final rule, adding two new 

definitions, revising certain compliance 

dates, and clarifying the language and 

applicability of certain provisions. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 27, 2011. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of April 27, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under 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). All documents 

in the docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters 

Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: http:// 

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 §§ 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. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of the final rule is also 

available on the WWW through the 

Technology Transfer Network Web site 

(TTN Web). Following signature, a copy 

of the rule will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Judicial Review. Under CAA section 

307(b), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit on or before May 27, 2011. 

Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only 

those objections to the final rule that 

were raised with specificity during the 

period for public comment may be 

raised during judicial review. Moreover, 

under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by today’s 

final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by EPA to enforce 

these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) 

also provides a mechanism for the EPA 

to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration if the petitioner 

demonstrates that it was impracticable 

to raise an objection during the public 

comment period or if the grounds for 

such objection arose after the comment 

period (but within the time for judicial 

review) and if the objection is of central 

relevance to the rule. Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

EPA should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration, clearly labeled as such, 

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 

EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel, Mail Code 2344A, U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Outline. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information 

in this preamble. 

I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions and 

Responses to Major Comments 

A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas 

Verification Program (PGVP) 

1. Need for the PGVP 

2. Cost 

3. Effective Dates 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17289 

4. Recordkeeping/Reporting 

5. ISO 17025 

6. Credit/Invoice Cancellation 

7. Gas Type Codes 

8. Use of 95% Confidence Interval in Tag 

Values 

9. Uncertainty of Results 

10. Implementation Options 

11. Use of Existing Cylinders 

12. If NIST Withdraws From Participation 

B. Amendments to the Minimum 

Competency Requirements for Air 

Emission Testing 

1. Need for the Minimum Competency 

Requirements 

2. Cost 

3. Effective Dates 

4. Accreditation 

5. Scope of Testing 

6. Affect on Validity of Test Data 

7. Exams 

8. Posting Non-Compliant Air Emission 

Testing Body (AETB) Names 

C. Other Amendments 

1. Compliance Dates for Units Adding New 

Stack or Control Device 

2. Reference Method 7E 

3. Removal of Mercury Provisions 

4. Miscellaneous 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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

I. Detailed Discussion of Rule Revisions 

and Responses to Major Comments 

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). To better ensure the 

accuracy of EPA Protocol gases used for 

Part 75 purposes, these amendments 

required that these gases be obtained 

from specialty gas producers that 

participate in a Protocol Gas 

Verification Program (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 the 

PGVP provisions of the January 24, 2008 

final rule and is finalizing amendments 

to both the PGVP and AETB 

requirements. Today’s final rule 

replaces the existing AETB 

requirements, effectively removing the 

stay. 

EPA is also finalizing amendments to 

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 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, 

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 two 

incorporation by references that were 

inadvertently left out of the January 24, 

2008 final rule and updating others, 

adding two new definitions, updating 

recordkeeping/reporting formats, and 

clarifying the language and applicability 

of certain provisions. 

Today’s preamble provides responses 

to the major comments received on the 

proposed rule and discusses any 

resulting rule changes. The response to 

comments document (see Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0837) provides Agency 

responses to all of the relevant 

comments received on the proposed 

rule. 

A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas 

Verification Program 

EPA encourages any EPA Protocol gas 

production site that is interested in 

participating in the PGVP to notify EPA 

as soon as possible after this final rule 

is published in the Federal Register by 

submitting the contact information 

described in 75.21(g)(1) by following the 

instructions on the CAMD Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

emissions/pgvp.html. 

1. Need for the PGVP 

Background 

EPA proposed to add § 75.21(g) to 

establish a refined EPA Protocol gas 

verification program to better ensure the 

accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. 

Every recent audit of EPA Protocol 

gases has found cylinders that fail the 

part 75 required ± 2% performance 

specification. A 2003 EPA audit (see 

Document ID#s EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0837–0011, –0074, –0075, and –0076 in 

the docket) of EPA Protocol gases found 

an unacceptably high failure rate (11% 

of all components analyzed, with 57% 

of the production sites failing at least 

one gaseous component) with respect to 

the ± 2% standard in Part 75. A 2009 

EPA Inspector General (IG) audit (see 

Document ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0837–0064 in the docket) also found an 

11% failure rate over all components 

analyzed, with 39% of the production 

sites failing at least one gaseous 

component. The IG recommended that 

EPA implement an ongoing PGVP. A 

2010 audit of EPA Protocol gases found 

a 10% failure rate over all components 

analyzed, with 40% of the production 

sites failing at least one gaseous 

component. 

These failures were found using a 

small blind sample of cylinders from 

each specialty gas company in the U.S. 

There is no reason to think these 

samples were not random. Therefore, it 

is likely that for the companies that had 

failed audited cylinders, other cylinders 

from those companies would fail. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Comment: Eleven commenters, 

including one representing seven 

specialty gas companies that provide the 

vast majority of EPA Protocol gases in 

the U.S., supported the PGVP, and three 

commenters opposed it. The accuracy of 

EPA Protocol gases is important because 

these gases are used to help ensure that 

the national emission reduction goals of 

the Clean Air Act are met. 

Response: Many of the proposed rule 

provisions of § 75.21(g) have been 

finalized as proposed. Significant 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

changes to the PGVP provisions in 

§ 75.21(g) are discussed below. 

2. Cost 

Background 

EPA proposed several rule changes 

that added a small number of PGVPrelated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. An information collection 

request (ICR) supporting statement was 

developed, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

EPA Protocol gas production sites 

selling EPA Protocol gases to part 75 

affected sources will be required to have 

a small number of their cylinders 

analyzed each year, and provide annual 

notification to EPA with basic 

information on their facility and other 

information relevant to the PGVP. EPA 

anticipates that these costs will be 

passed through to the customers, which 

are generally sources subject to part 75, 

including large electric utility and 

industrial companies. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the ICR for the proposed 

rule did not include sufficient detail 

and omitted certain costs associated 

with part 75 recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Another 

commenter stated that the proposed 

PGVP program was ‘‘exorbitantly 

expensive because it uses the analytical 

services of NIST.’’ 

Response: No rule changes were 

required to address the commenter’s 

concerns. However, the Agency has 

revised the ICR for the final rule to 

include additional details and costs 

associated with part 75 recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. For a more 

detailed discussion of this issue, refer to 

the ICR for the final rule. 

EPA performed an audit of EPA 

Protocol gases in 2010 and the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) analyzed the cylinders EPA 

collected in the audit. NIST provided an 

initial estimate of $2,000 per cylinder to 

analyze tri-blend gas mixtures in the 

2010 audit. The following costs for the 

PGVP are based on assumptions similar 

to those made for the 2010 audit. These 

assumptions are: (a) That only NO, SO2

and CO2 will be analyzed; (b) that only 

these compounds are within the gas 

mixture along with balance gas nitrogen 

(additional compounds within the gas 

mixture, even if they are not analyzed, 

complicate the analysis of the primary 

components); and (c) that the 

concentrations will all fall within a 

relatively narrow band that can be 

defined in the low, mid and high ranges. 

EPA notes that these assumptions may 

not hold from year-to-year, but believes 

that the following cost estimates are 

generally conservative. The 2010 audit 

consumed 715 hours of time to analyze 

and report on 57 cylinders. NIST 

believes they have designed a better 

sampling system and can reduce that 

time to 550 hours for the same 57 

cylinders. This amount of resources 

equals $1,500 per cylinder analysis and 

report production, and is NIST’s 

estimate for those activities for a similar 

PGVP audit in 2011. Assuming the 

above assumptions hold, NIST has 

agreed to commit to this cost estimate 

for three years, until 2013 (see 

Document ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0837–0058 in the docket). 

The following costs are based on 

EPA’s 2010 Protocol gas audit. If NIST 

analyzes 4 cylinders from each 

production site, the total annual cost 

due to the PGVP would be 

approximately $7,200 per production 

site (see Document ID# EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0837–0007 in the docket). This 

cost includes cylinder analysis and 

report production by NIST ($1,667/ 

cylinder), average one-way shipping 

costs back to the production site ($91/ 

cylinder), and average rental cost ($7/ 

cylinder/month). The $1,667/cylinder 

cost estimate covers some deviations, 

e.g., there may be carbon monoxide in 

the gas mixtures, from the assumptions 

made for the 2010 audit, and is therefore 

higher than the $1,500/cylinder NIST 

commitment. The total cost of NIST 

analysis, report production, six months 

cylinder rental, and shipping back to the 

production site is approximately $1,800 

per cylinder (see Document ID# EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0837–0007 in the 

docket). 

EPA estimates that the average 

increased cost due to the PGVP will be 

approximately $2 per cylinder (see 

Table 3 in the ICR for the final rule, in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0837). 

This estimate was derived from 

correspondence with both large and 

small specialty gas companies, which 

based their estimates on the number of 

cylinders they sold per year and the 

above cost estimates. For a small 

company that sells fewer cylinders per 

year, the cost per cylinder will be higher 

than for a larger company. However, 

even for a small company, the increased 

$2.00 per cylinder cost due to the PGVP 

is insignificant in comparison to the 

wide range of cost for the same type of 

EPA Protocol gas cylinder (EPA found 

the 2010 cost of the same tri-blend EPA 

Protocol cylinder ranged from 

approximately $225–$665 in the U.S. 

(see Document ID# EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0837–0009 in the docket)). 

To maintain these costs, scheduling of 

the PGVP audit activity during the year 

must be strictly followed by all the 

companies involved in the audit. 

Economy of batching similar gas 

cylinders and receipt of all similar 

cylinders within a specific time frame 

will enable NIST to control costs. Those 

cylinders with the appropriate funding 

documents that arrive within that time 

frame will be part of the audit. Those 

that do not will be excluded. That is the 

only way NIST will be able to control 

costs. 

The costs are minimized by the 4 

cylinder limit per production site, and 

the cost containment measures 

implemented by NIST and described in 

the preamble to the proposed rule. 

3. Effective Dates 

Background 

EPA proposed to add 

§ 75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) to require that PGVP 

recordkeeping start on and after the date 

that is six months from the effective 

date of the final rule. The PGVP 

reporting would start prior to or 

concurrent with the submittal of the 

relevant quarterly electronic data report 

on and after January 1, 2011. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested clarification of the effective 

dates for the PGVP provisions. One 

commenter requested that the Agency 

provide enough time for production 

sites to submit the information required 

to participate in the PGVP and for EPA 

to notify Part 75 sources of the 

participating production sites. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

wording in the proposed rule should be 

clearer. The effective date of the final 

rule will be 30 days from the date it is 

published in the Federal Register. 

To provide more time for production 

sites to submit necessary information to 

participate in the PGVP and for the 

Agency to inform Part 75 sources of the 

PGVP participants, EPA has amended 

§ 75.21(g)(6) to take effect 60 days from 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. On and after that date, 

sources subject to Part 75 that use EPA 

Protocol gas will need to purchase such 

gas from PGVP participants (or from a 

reseller that sells unaltered gas from a 

PGVP participant). However, 

§ 75.21(g)(7) allows EPA Protocol gas 

cylinders certified by or ordered from 

any production site prior to 60 days 

from publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register to be used up. 

Section 75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) and 

§ 75.64(a)(5) of the final rule require 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17291 

PGVP recordkeeping and reporting for 

sources subject to part 75 to commence 

180 calendar days from the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

4. Recordkeeping/Reporting 

Background 

EPA proposed to add 

§ 75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) and to revise 

§ 75.64(a)(5) to require Part 75 affected 

sources using EPA Protocol gas to 

record and report, respectively: (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. EPA also proposed to 

revise § 75.59(a)(9)(x)(B) and 

§ 75.64(a)(5) to require the recording 

and reporting, respectively, of the 

information in (1), (2) and (5) above for 

each usage of Reference Method 3A or 

Method 6C or 7E performed using EPA 

Protocol gas for the certification, 

recertification, routine quality assurance 

or diagnostic testing (reportable 

diagnostics only) of a Part 75 monitoring 

system. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA explain why such detailed 

reporting of start and end dates and 

hours corresponding to use of a 

particular type of Protocol gas is 

required and why the reporting of 

Protocol gas type codes is important. 

The commenter generally believes that 

tracking of information on individual 

gas cylinders is not necessary and EPA 

has provided no justification for it. The 

commenter is also concerned that the 

level of specificity may result in 

implementation issues or errors that 

complicate reporting. For example, EPA 

proposes to require sources to record 

not only the start and end date, but also 

the hour corresponding to use of a 

particular type of protocol gas and a 

particular PGVP vendor. In the past, 

recorded start and end dates and hours 

have been problematic because of 

differences between the way sources 

interpret the rule and the way EPA’s 

software has been programmed. 

Response: It was originally envisioned 

that the PGVP related information 

would be reported in the monitoring 

plan. However, § 75.64(a)(5) of the final 

rule requires reporting of this 

information in the quarterly electronic 

reports. Therefore, start and end dates 

and times are not needed. Further, the 

reporting of low, mid or high-level gas 

concentrations is already required by 

§ 75.59(a)(3). In view of these 

considerations, the only additional 

ECMPS reporting required by the final 

rule consists of: (a) A code for the type 

of EPA Protocol gas used; (b) the PGVP 

vendor ID; (c) the cylinder expiration 

date; and (d) the cylinder number. The 

reporting of Protocol gas type code is 

important for informing future PGVP 

audits. The reporting of the PGVP 

vendor ID is essential to allow EPA to 

determine that each EPA Protocol gas 

cylinder used by a Part 75 source is 

from a participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site. See the response to the 

next comment for the reasons why we 

are requiring cylinder expiration dates 

and cylinder numbers to be reported. 

Comment: Two commenters desired 

the PGVP program to be more rigorous. 

Response: With respect to 

recordkeeping and reporting, EPA has 

added electronic recordkeeping and 

reporting of cylinder expiration dates 

and cylinder numbers for all cylinders 

used for any certification, 

recertification, diagnostic, or quality 

assurance test required under Part 75. 

The Agency believes that this will 

strengthen the PGVP by reducing or 

eliminating the use of expired cylinders, 

and by improving the tracking of 

cylinder information. It also will assist 

inspectors in their preparation for field 

audits of the CEMS. Sections 

75.59(a)(7)(iv)(X) and 75.59(a)(9)(v) 

already require these two items to be 

recorded in limited situations or in 

hardcopy only, and section 75.60(b)(6) 

already requires these two items to be 

provided to the State, local agency or 

EPA Regional Office in hardcopy RATA 

and emission test reports, when such 

reports are requested. 

5. ISO 17025 

Background 

The Agency proposed to add 

§ 75.21(g) to establish a refined PGVP 

rather than relying on ISO 17025. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA rely on ISO 17025 instead of 

establishing a refined PGVP. 

Response: The Agency disagrees with 

the commenter and has decided to 

finalize a refined PGVP in § 75.21(g) 

instead of requiring compliance with 

ISO 17025. 

EPA has no objection to specialty gas 

companies certifying or accrediting to 

ISO 17025 ‘‘General Requirements for 

the Competence of Testing and 

Calibration Laboratories’’, but 

encourages companies to participate in 

the PGVP. Certifying or accrediting to 

ISO 17025 can be beneficial. However, 

the purpose of the ISO standard is 

different from the purpose of the PGVP. 

The purpose of ISO 17025 is to better 

assure that a laboratory has proper 

quality assurance and quality control 

(QA/QC) practices in place. The idea is 

that if proper QA/QC practices are in 

place, better products will result. 

However, this may not always be the 

case. As a matter of fact, one 

manufacturer (Scott Specialty Gases, 

now a part of Air Liquide) pointed out 

that ISO 17025 certification is not only 

extremely expensive, but it does not 

guarantee that a better protocol product 

will be manufactured. For example, one 

gas manufacturer which held 

certification to the ISO standard 

registered at least 1 failure in a blind 

audit (see Document ID#s EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0837–0069 and –0070_in 

the docket). 

The only audits that ISO 17025 

requires are internal audits of 

procedures, not products. The ISO 

standard states that these internal audits 

are to be conducted ‘‘periodically’’, with 

no time frame specified. The results of 

these audits are to be provided to clients 

of the laboratory, but it is not clear that 

the results would be publicly available. 

Thus potential future clients may not be 

aware of how the laboratory was 

performing. The Agency believes that 

the PGVP audit results should be 

publicly available to allow potential 

EPA Protocol gas customers to make a 

more informed purchasing decision. 

The accuracy of EPA Protocol gases is 

important because these gases are used 

to help ensure that the national 

emission reduction goals of the Clean 

Air Act are met. The Agency’s goal is to 

implement a cylinder audit program to 

better ensure the quality of these gases. 

EPA believes the best way to do that is 

to implement a PGVP and have a blind 

sample of cylinders analyzed by an 

independent, nationally recognized 

laboratory such as the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. A blind 

sample is necessary to ensure that the 

cylinders analyzed are more 

representative of routine production at 

each production site rather than 

representative of the best possible 

performance that would likely occur if 

the production site knew that its 

cylinder was being audited. 

Small and large specialty gas 

companies commented that requiring 

conformance to ISO 17025 would be 

significantly more expensive than 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

complying with the PGVP (see 

Document ID#s EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0837–0057, –0065, –0066, –0067, –0068, 

–0069, –0070, and –0073 in the docket). 

One large specialty gas company stated 

that the PGVP would be more cost 

effective and would provide an actual 

representation of the quality of EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders. 

6. Credit/Invoice Cancellation 

Background 

We proposed to add § 75.21(g)(5)(ii) to 

require that EPA receive written proof of 

a credit receipt or of cancellation of the 

invoice for the cylinders being audited 

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. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA allow 30–45 days for 

submittal of the invoice nullification or 

credit receipt, claiming that two weeks 

is insufficient time for large 

organizations handling hundreds of 

transactions and multiple accounts. One 

commenter suggested that if EPA does 

not allow 30–45 days it should include 

the cost of purchasing the cylinders in 

the bill that is presented to the Protocol 

gas manufacturers instead of a credit 

being issued to them. Another 

commenter added that because a 

producer’s participation in the PGVP is 

contingent on meeting this requirement 

in a timely manner, the time period 

should not be so short as to jeopardize 

a producer’s status as an EPA protocol 

gas producer. In addition, the 

commenter opined that the rule should 

expressly permit the electronic 

transmission of proof of cancellation of 

the invoice or crediting the purchaser’s 

account. 

Response: EPA agrees that two weeks 

for submitting a credit receipt or a 

cancellation of the invoice is 

insufficient time, and that electronic as 

well as written credit receipt or 

cancellation of the invoice is acceptable. 

Section 75.21(g)(5)(ii) of the final rule 

allows up to 45 calendar days for 

production sites to provide EPA with 

electronic or written credit receipt or 

invoice cancellation. 

7. Gas Type Codes 

Background 

EPA proposed to include EPA 

Protocol gas type codes in the ECMPS 

electronic reporting instructions to 

inform cylinder selection for the annual 

PGVP audits. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that EPA use the code ‘‘C’’ for 

a single-blend CO, ‘‘C2’’ for a singleblend CO2, and ‘‘NSCC’’ for an EPA 

Protocol gas quad-blend standard 

consisting of four certified components, 

NOX, SO2, CO2, and CO, and a balance 

gas. 

Response: Under Part 75, carbon 

monoxide is not required to be recorded 

or reported. Therefore, a code for that 

single blend gas cylinder will not be 

included in the reporting instructions. 

EPA must use ‘‘CO2’’ as the code for CO2

because it is used thoughout EPA’s 

database to describe that parameter and 

EPA wants to maintain consistent code 

conventions in the ECMPS reporting 

software. Because NOX can be certified 

as NO, NO2 or NO and NO2, EPA has 

added three codes to the list to represent 

the quad blend NOX, CO2, SO2 and CO 

and a balance gas: SNCC representing 

SO2, NO, CO and CO2 and a balance gas, 

SN2CC representing SO2, NO2, CO and 

CO2 and a balance gas, and SNXCC 

representing SO2, NO, NO2, CO and CO2

and a balance gas. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that EPA should make clear in 

the electronic reporting instructions that 

the list of Protocol gas codes is not 

exclusive, meaning that these are not 

the only formulations of EPA Protocols, 

and that other types of EPA Protocols 

could be made to meet customer needs. 

Response: EPA agrees and will 

provide this clarification in the ECMPS 

electronic reporting instructions. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that EPA provide an option 

for ‘‘other,’’ which would indicate a 

formulation other than those identified 

on the list. 

Response: The Protocol gas type codes 

have been revised to include an ‘‘Other 

EPA-Approved EPA Protocol Gas Blend’’ 

category. However, sources will need to 

receive EPA approval to use it. EPA has 

found that if an ‘‘Other’’ category is 

allowed, sources will sometimes simply 

use that category instead of selecting the 

correct one. EPA will add new codes to 

ECMPS as needed. The ECMPS system 

allows these types of additions to be 

made quickly and easily. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the need for EPA Protocol gas type 

codes. 

Response: The reporting of Protocol 

gas type code is important for informing 

the cylinder selection for the annual 

PGVP audits. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA clarify that it is still allowing 

the use of a blend of gases as both zero 

gas and span gas. 

Response: Section 6.3.1 of Appendix 

A to Part 75 has been revised to clarify 

that a Protocol gas blend may be used 

as both a zero gas and span gas where 

appropriate. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

certain multiple combination codes for 

Protocol gas mixtures, especially code 

SN1, which represents a bi-blend of SO2

and NOX because this gas mixture could 

potentially include sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen dioxide in the same cylinder. 

According to the commenter, the 

combination of nitrogen dioxide and 

sulfur dioxide mixtures cannot be 

manufactured because the nitrogen 

dioxide and sulfur dioxide will react 

with each other causing stability issues 

with the mixture. The commenter 

questioned whether the SN1 mixture 

means sulfur dioxide, and nitric oxide 

with the oxides of nitrogen reported. 

Response: Based on an August 2, 2010 

telephone call from EPA to a specialty 

gas company, the Agency believes that 

an SO2 and NO2 combination may be 

possible. However, if an SO2 and NO2

combination cannot be properly 

manufactured, it probably will not be, 

and any such cylinders that are 

improperly manufactured will likely fail 

if audited in the PGVP. To clarify the 

meaning of the ‘‘SN1’’ code that was in 

the proposed rule preamble, the ECMPS 

PGVP reporting instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/ 

ecmps/docs/pgvp_aetb.pdf now include 

cylinder gas type codes: ‘‘SN’’ for SO2

and NO, ‘‘SN2’’ for SO2 and NO2, and 

‘‘SNX’’ for SO2, NO, and NO2 instead of 

‘‘SN1’’. 

8. Use of 95% Confidence Interval in 

Tag Values 

Background 

EPA proposed to revise section 5.1.4 

(EPA Protocol Gases) of Appendix A to 

Part 75 to remove the reference to the 

95-percent confidence interval, and to 

revise sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 (Research 

Gas Mixtures) to remove the reference to 

calculating uncertainty using the 

statistical procedures (or equivalent 

statistical techniques) that are listed in 

Section 2.1.8 of the ‘‘EPA Traceability 

Protocol for Assay and Certification of 

Gaseous Calibration Standards’’ (EPA 

Traceability Protocol), September 1997, 

as amended August 25, 1999, EPA–600/ 

R–97/121. 

Summary of Comments, Responses 

and Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the current provisions 

regarding uncertainty in sections 5.1.4 

and 5.1.5 of Appendix A to part 75 are 

scientifically defensible and should 

remain. To tighten the confidence 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17293 

interval would require the enlargement 

of the uncertainty which the entire gas 

industry (including NIST and specialty 

gas manufacturers) have long 

encountered. For example, instead of 

+/¥2% at the 95% confidence interval 

it might change to +/-3% at the 99% 

confidence interval. 

Response: The Agency is persuaded 

by these comments and has decided to 

retain the references in sections 5.1.4 

and 5.1.5 to a 95% confidence interval 

and calculation of uncertainty using the 

statistical procedures (or equivalent 

statistical techniques) that are listed in 

Section 2.1.8 of the EPA Traceability 

Protocol. 

9. Uncertainty of Results 

Background 

The Agency proposed to add 

§ 75.21(g)(9)(ii) to require that the 

concentration of each audited cylinder 

be analyzed by NIST with an 

uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent 

(inclusive) or better, unless otherwise 

approved by EPA. EPA also proposed to 

add a Figure 3 in Appendix B to part 75 

with explanatory text at the bottom of 

the figure stating that ‘‘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.’’ 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA revise the text at the bottom of 

Figure 3 of Appendix B of Part 75 so 

that any overlap between the original 

tag error band and the audit analysis 

error band be considered when 

determining the pass/fail basis of a 

cylinder. For example, if the original tag 

had an error band of 2%, and the audit 

analysis had an error band of 1%, then 

more than a 3% difference would fail 

the PGVP. If the error band concept is 

not used, the assumption is there is no 

propagation of the two errors and the 

NIST audit analysis is error free (has an 

uncertainty of zero). The uncertainty of 

the PGVP begins at the NIST 

metrological institute level where even 

their internal standards have 

uncertainties associated with the tag 

value. The Protocol gas manufacturer’s 

uncertainties and the NIST uncertainties 

must be propagated in order to achieve 

a combined error band. We cannot 

assume one or the other analytical 

process is error free. 

Response: EPA has amended the 

statement at the bottom of Figure 3 in 

part to read: A gaseous component is 

said to fail when the absolute value of 

the difference between the audit and 

vendor concentration values is greater 

than 2.2%. The 2.2% value is 

determined by using the ‘‘paired t test’’ 

at 95% confidence, with an uncertainty 

of plus or minus 2.0% (fixed by Part 75, 

Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)) and plus 

or minus 1.0% (expanded uncertainty 

with coverage factor k=2) for the gas 

vendor and audit, respectively. If the 

plus or minus 1.0% audit expanded 

uncertainty value changes, the 2.2% 

value may change. 

Comment: ‘‘EPA should adopt a 2% 

uncertainty for the NIST analysis of the 

cylinders.’’ 

Response: The Agency disagrees. An 

expanded uncertainty (coverage factor 

k=2) of plus or minus 1.0 percent 

(calculated combined standard 

uncertainty of plus or minus 0.5%), 

inclusive, or better in the NIST analysis 

was assumed when the PGVP costs were 

estimated in the proposed rule. A 2010 

EPA audit of EPA Protocol gases 

required a 0.5% uncertainty in the NIST 

analysis for gas concentrations 

commonly used by Part 75 sources. If 

EPA were to allow the uncertainty of the 

NIST analysis to be up to ±2.0%, the 

audit results would need to allow for 

approximately a 4.0% difference 

between the NIST result and the vendor 

result before a cylinder could be said to 

fail. A ±2.0% uncertainty for the NIST 

audit results defeats the purpose of the 

PGVP. The Part 75 accuracy standard for 

EPA Protocol gases is ±2.0% (see Part 

75, Appendix A, section 5.1.4(b)). To 

verify that a gas meets this standard, 

ideally NIST would need to have a 0.0% 

uncertainty. The further away the NIST 

audit results are from a 0.0% 

uncertainty, the less certain it is that 

this standard is achieved. Section 

75.21(g)(9)(ii) in the final rule allows 

EPA to approve a greater NIST 

analytical uncertainty if required, e.g., 

for certain low concentration gases. EPA 

has added two new definitions in 

section 72.2 to help clarify the terms 

‘‘expanded uncertainty’’ and ‘‘coverage 

factor’’ (see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/ 

Uncertainty/coverage.html). 

10. Implementation Options 

Background 

EPA proposed four implementation 

options for the PGVP in the preamble to 

the June 11, 2010 proposed rule 

regarding the number of production 

sites and cylinders that are audited each 

year and the length of time allotted to 

NIST to analyze the cylinders and to 

report the results. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

Option 1 could result in a specialty gas 

company, which is removed after 

December 31, being unable to be relisted 

for a length of time that is more than 

intended. 

Response: EPA agrees that if the NIST 

audit report takes longer than one year 

to complete so that EPA receives the 

audit report in the first half of a 

calendar year and a production site was 

not in the audit report, that production 

site might not be re-listed for up to two 

years. In this situation, section 

75.21(g)(5)(iii) of the proposed rule did 

not allow re-listing until December 31 of 

the next year. This period of time before 

relisting is longer than was intended. In 

addition, EPA understands that it would 

be unfair not to re-list a production site 

due to circumstances beyond the 

production site’s control. Therefore, the 

Agency has revised sections 

75.21(g)(5)(ii) and (iii) to address these 

concerns. For the two relevant 

situations in sections 75.21(g)(5)(ii) and 

(iii), a production site is eligible for 

relisting 180 calendar days after the date 

of notice of its delisting, provided that 

the information required by § 75.21(g)(1) 

is submitted to EPA. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

Option 2 because it reduced the number 

of cylinders per site selected for 

verification. This commenter also stated 

that while the proposed four cylinders 

do not constitute a representative 

sample, two cylinders would be even 

less so. Two commenters opposed 

Option 3 stating that it would benefit 

large specialty gas companies and 

would assume that all production sites 

for a specialty gas company would have 

equivalent capabilities. This commenter 

also stated as was shown in the IG’s 

report it is possible, indeed, likely, that 

a manufacturer with multiple sites will 

have some production sites that pass 

and some that fail. 

Response: While the Agency 

understands the shortcomings of Option 

1, 2 and 3, EPA believes that these 

options are necessary to preserve the 

ability of producers to sell EPA Protocol 

gases in possible (but unlikely) 

situations where cylinder procurement, 

shipping, or analyses take longer than 

expected to complete, and for EPA to 

implement the PGVP under a variety of 

possible conditions. However, note that 

all three of these options are 

incorporated in Option 4. Two 

commenters supported Option 4 and 

two commenters supported Option 4 but 

without Option 1. For the reasons 

previously stated, EPA will retain the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

maximum flexibility of Option 4 when 

implementing the final rule. Consistent 

with the preamble discussion in the 

proposed rule (see 75 FR 33395, June 

11, 2010), the Agency has also revised 

section 75.21(g)(10) to allow a 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site to continue to sell EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders in the event that 

none of its cylinders are audited. 

Comment: Two commenters preferred 

that the PGVP be more rigorous. 

Response: With respect to 

implementation options, EPA has added 

the following text in section 

75.21(g)(9)(iv) to expedite the posting of 

audit results: ‘‘To be considered in the 

final posted audit report, EPA must 

receive comments, and any cylinder reanalyses from participating EPA 

Protocol gas production sites within 45 

days of the participating EPA Protocol 

gas production site’s receipt of the draft 

redacted audit report sent by EPA.’’ 

11. Use of Existing Cylinders 

Background 

The Agency proposed to add 

§ 75.21(g)(6) and to revise section 6.5.10 

in Appendix A to Part 75 to allow for 

the situation when an EPA Protocol gas 

production site is removed from the list 

of PGVP participants after their gases 

are procured, but before the gases have 

been consumed. In that event, 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. EPA also proposed to 

add Section 75.21(g)(7) and to revise 

section 6.5.10 in Appendix A to Part 75 

to allow EPA Protocol gas cylinders 

purchased prior to the effective date of 

the final rule from a production site that 

is not participating in the PGVP 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. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported these provisions, but 

requested that the Agency clarify that all 

cylinders ordered before the effective 

date of the final rule be allowed for part 

75 purposes through their stated 

expiration date or a final pressure of 150 

psi. Clear, definitive wording on this 

subject will prevent the waste—both 

economic and environmental—of 

potentially thousands of cylinders that 

may be in use or may have valid service 

lives as of the effective date of the final 

rule. 

Response: EPA agrees and has revised 

§ 75.21(g)(7) and section 6.5.10 in 

Appendix A to part 75 to state that an 

EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified by or 

ordered from any production site no 

later than 60 days after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register 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. The Agency chose to 

use ‘‘certified by’’ instead of 

‘‘manufactured by’’ because a cylinder 

could be manufactured and certified for, 

e.g., two years, and then re-certified for 

up to another two years if it was not 

consumed. EPA does not want cylinders 

to be re-certified by an EPA Protocol gas 

production site that was not 

participating in the PGVP and continue 

to be used for potentially four years or 

more after the PGVP takes effect. 

Section 75.21(g)(7) and section 6.5.10 

in Appendix A to part 75 have also been 

slightly revised to allow that in the 

event that an EPA Protocol gas 

production site is removed from the list 

of PGVP participants on the same date 

as or after the date on which a particular 

cylinder has been certified or ordered, 

that gas cylinder 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. 

As an example, a gas cylinder can be 

certified for two years and then be recertified for another two years, if it has 

not been consumed and its pressure is 

still above 500 psig. EPA does not want 

cylinders obtained from production 

sites that are not participating in the 

PGVP to potentially be used for four 

years (or more) after the PGVP takes 

effect. To prevent this from occurring, 

statements have been added to 

§ 75.21(g)(7) and section 6.5.10 of 

Appendix A, prohibiting a production 

site that is not participating in the PGVP 

from recertifying such cylinders to 

extend their useful life and providing 

those cylinders to a source subject to 

part 75. 

12. If NIST Withdraws From 

Participation 

Request for Comment 

In the unlikely event that the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) withdraws from participation in 

the PGVP, EPA requests comments on 

how an analytical lab should be selected 

to analyze cylinders collected under the 

PGVP. Comments should be sent to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0837. The Agency suggests that such an 

analytical lab should meet the following 

minimum criteria: 

(A) Have no conflict of interest with 

any participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site; 

(B) Be capable of analyzing EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders with an expanded 

uncertainty (coverage factor k=2) of plus 

or minus 1.0 percent (calculated 

combined standard uncertainty of plus 

or minus 0.5%) or better; 

(C) Use NIST-certified analytical 

reference standards of appropriate 

mixtures; 

(D) Have no analytical interferences or 

correct for them; 

(E) Identify equipment and calibration 

procedures that will be used to conduct 

the testing; 

(F) Provide credentials of key 

personnel conducting the testing and 

analysis; 

(G) Provide assurances that the 

analytical lab will adhere to costcontainment provisions in any contract 

it signs, and a description of the cost 

containment provisions it would agree 

to; and 

(H) Provide a date on which the 

analytical lab will be available to begin 

PGVP cylinder analyses. 

EPA is interested in determining: (a) 

Whether the above acceptance criteria 

are sufficient; (b) how many labs could 

meet the above criteria or other 

suggested criteria; (c) how compliance 

with the acceptance criteria can be 

verified; and (d) contact information for 

the labs that could meet appropriate 

criteria. 

Would use of multiple labs be 

appropriate under the PGVP? Please 

consider that use of multiple labs would 

mean: (a) Different analysts, reference 

material, equipment, and analytical 

techniques would be used by the 

different labs; (b) possible logistical 

problems with EPA contractors 

mistakenly shipping cylinders to the 

wrong lab, causing delays and possibly 

lost cylinders; (c) possible problem with 

intercomparison of results because there 

would not be a common reference 

standard, analyst, equipment, or 

analytical technique; and (d) possible 

increase in the chance of collusion 

between a lab and a production site that 

pays the lab. 

B. Amendments to the Minimum 

Competency Requirements for Air 

Emission Testing 

1. Need for the AETB Requirements 

Background 

EPA proposed to add § 75.21(f) and to 

revise section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to 

part 75 to replace the existing air 

emission testing body (AETB) 

requirements. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17295 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the AETB minimum 

competency requirements. However, 

several commenters questioned the need 

for these requirements. These 

commenters suggested that the ASTM D 

7036–04 provisions are subjective, 

arbitrary or unclear and are not 

designed such that each provision could 

be a federally enforceable regulatory 

requirement; and that there is no 

evidence that compliance with the 

ASTM standard will prevent mistakes. 

These commenters suggested a more 

appropriate approach is to encourage 

voluntary compliance. 

Response: Small and large stack 

testing companies, sources subject to 

part 75, and State and EPA regulators in 

the ASTM D 7036–04 work group 

believe that implementation of the 

ASTM Practice will result in improved 

data quality. EPA believes the evidence 

is strong that unqualified, under-trained 

and inexperienced testers are routinely 

deployed on testing projects. EPA has 

had experiences with tests that have 

been invalidated or called into question 

due to poor performance by testing 

contractors (see Document ID#s EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0837–0015, –0016, 

–0062, and –0063, and Document ID# 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0132–0035 in the 

dockets). For example, an EPA Office of 

Inspector General Audit Report ‘‘Report 

of EPA’s Oversight of State Stack 

Testing Programs’’, Report Number 

2000–P–00019, September 11, 2000, 

states that the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) made 

significant corrections to 57 percent of 

stack tests, that 86 percent of the test 

protocols were deficient, 28 percent of 

the test programs had to be repeated for 

at least one parameter, and 26 percent 

of the test reports required significant 

correction, clarification, or were rejected 

by the NJDEP. The NJDEP states they 

have seen errors in approximately 50 

percent of recent stack tests. 

While EPA believes that meeting the 

requirements of ASTM D7036 and 

having a Qualified Individual on site 

during testing does not guarantee proper 

performance of any individual test, 

these actions will likely result in proper 

test execution and high quality data 

generation. EPA also believes that third 

party (e.g., State agency) oversight helps 

ensure that testing is properly 

conducted and strongly encourages such 

oversight to continue. Although there 

might be no evidence that compliance 

with the ASTM standard will prevent 

mistakes, there is also no evidence that 

compliance with the ASTM standard 

will not prevent mistakes. 

Voluntary compliance with any 

minimum competency standard has not 

worked for the past 30 years, which is 

how long EPA and other organizations 

have tried to develop an acceptable 

standard for stack testers. There are 

many reasons why voluntary 

compliance has not worked, including 

disagreement among stack test 

companies on a minimum competency 

standard, and the sources’ often used 

practice of hiring the lowest bidder. The 

lack of voluntary compliance with a 

minimum competency standard is also 

why various States, including 

Louisiana, have developed their own 

stack testing regulatory standards. A 

driving force for the development of the 

ASTM standard was to prevent the 

patchwork of standards that was 

beginning to occur throughout the U.S. 

If each State were to develop its own 

standard for stack testing, testing costs 

would increase as stack testers 

performing work in multiple States 

would have to qualify in and abide by 

differing requirements in multiple 

jurisdictions. EPA notes that the 

Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel its 

stack testing accreditation program (see 

Document ID# EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0837–0072 in the docket) and in its 

place substitute accreditation to ASTM 

D 7036–04. Louisiana DEQ also agrees 

to recognize third party accreditors such 

as the Stack Testing Accreditation 

Council. 

Many of the proposed rule provisions 

of § 75.21(f) and section 6.1.2 have been 

finalized as proposed. Significant 

changes to these sections are discussed 

below. 

2. Cost 

Background 

EPA proposed to add § 75.21(f) and to 

revise section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to 

part 75 to require AETBs that perform 

certain part 75 QA tests to provide a 

certification that they conform with 

ASTM D 7036–04. EPA also revised 

§ 75.59 and § 75.64 to include a small 

number of AETB-related recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. For these 

requirements, an information collection 

request (ICR) supporting statement was 

developed, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that AETB costs were 

underestimated. One commenter stated 

that EPA’s economic analysis is highly 

flawed and was clearly prepared by 

someone unfamiliar with the business 

side of the industry, but this commenter 

did not provide any supporting data. 

This commenter further stated that the 

proposed AETB requirements will not 

drive prices down, and whatever 

increase in price there is cannot 

necessarily be passed on to the 

customer. In addition, smaller testing 

firms suffer more from this increased 

cost, even though they may be the better 

choice in many cases. The same 

commenter noted that EPA ‘‘assumes in 

its economic analysis that the majority 

of tests done are for part 75. That is 

patently false, at least for many if not 

most companies.’’ 

Response: The economic analysis 

only included Part 75 tests because the 

proposed rule only applies to Part 75 

sources. Unless a stack test company 

accredits to ASTM D 7036–04 through, 

e.g., the Stack Testing Accreditation 

Council, the stack test company does 

not have to meet ASTM D 7036–04 for 

non-part 75 testing. The Agency notes 

that if a company chooses to accredit to 

the ASTM standard, it may be possible 

to limit the scope of accreditation to 

Part 75 testing. In any case, the 

proposed rule does not require 

accreditation. A letter of certification 

signed by senior management of the 

AETB will suffice. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA include: (1) The cost for staff 

time to develop and implement the 

quality manual required by the ASTM 

practice, including document control 

procedures, hiring of additional 

personnel, performance of annual 

audits, and documentation of corrective 

action, (2) application fees and the cost 

of preparing applications for 

accreditation and/or QI qualification, (3) 

the cost of QI exams, including tuition 

for preparatory courses, exam fees, and 

travel expenses, (4) any new costs 

associated with preparation of test plans 

and reports to comply with the specific 

criteria in the practice, and (5) cost of 

required records storage and backup. 

Response: The Agency believes that 

AETBs should already be operating in a 

manner consistent with ASTM D 7036– 

04. However, EPA revised the ICR to 

include additional supporting detail for 

the estimated burden associated with 

increased annual quality-assurance and 

maintenance costs that would be passed 

on to a unit subject to Part 75. Based on 

information provided by stack testing 

firms, a conservative one percent 

increase was applied to the previously 

established annual O&M costs per unit 

at each respondent facility. This is 

based on the average stack testing 

industry costs of preparing a QA/QC 

manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

certification ($1,200), and annual 

operating costs of maintaining the 

quality control system ($5,000–$50,000 

depending on size). The increased stack 

testing overhead costs translate into an 

increased performance test cost of $68 

to $549 per RATA test depending on the 

size of the company. The increased cost 

per test drops even further if applied to 

all types of tests performed by typical 

stack testing companies. EPA assumes 

that the costs will be passed through to 

the customers, which are generally 

sources subject to part 75, including 

large electric utility and industrial 

companies. 

3. Effective Dates 

Background 

EPA proposed to add § 75.59(a)(9)(xi), 

§ 75.59(a)(15), § 75.59(b)(6), and 

§ 75.59(d)(4) to require that AETBrelated recordkeeping start on and after 

the date that is six months from the 

effective date of the final rule. The 

Agency proposed to revise Section 

75.64(a)(5) to require the AETB-related 

reporting to start prior to or concurrent 

with the submittal of the relevant 

quarterly electronic data report on and 

after January 1, 2011. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: The Agency received 

requests to extend the AETB compliance 

deadline from three commenters. One of 

those commenters suggested that EPA 

extend the AETB compliance deadline 

to January 2012. None of the 

commenters thought that EPA was 

providing too much time. Several 

commenters requested that EPA clarify 

the effective dates of the AETB-related 

provisions. 

Response: EPA agrees that the 

wording in the proposed rule could be 

clearer. The effective date of the final 

rule is 30 days from the date it is 

published in the Federal Register. The 

Agency agrees that a compliance 

deadline for the AETB-related 

provisions of 365 days from publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register 

is more reasonable for several reasons. 

There are approximately 400 stack test 

companies in the U.S. Only about 30 

percent of them have at least one 

qualified individual. But even these 

companies may not yet be fully 

compliant with ASTM D 7036–04. 

Further, the large amount of near term 

stack testing that must be performed to 

respond to the Agency’s requests for 

information collection under Section 

114 of the Clean Air Act to assess the 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

from electric generating units provides 

even less time for companies to come 

into compliance with the AETB 

provisions. Therefore, to better ensure 

that every stack test company has a 

reasonable time to comply with ASTM 

D 7036–04, EPA has extended both the 

compliance date in § 75.21(f) and the 

commencement date in section 6.1.2(a) 

of Appendix A to 365 days after the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Section 75.64(a)(5) has 

also been revised to require the 

information in §§ 75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), 

and (d)(4) to be provided commencing 

365 days after the publication date of 

the final rule in the Federal Register. 

4. Accreditation 

Background 

EPA proposed to revise section 

6.1.2(b) in Appendix A to part 75 to 

require a part 75 source owner or 

operator to obtain from an AETB a 

certification that as of the time of testing 

the AETB is operating in conformance 

with ASTM D 7036–04. This 

certification must be provided in the 

form of either (1) a certificate of 

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. 

EPA also requested comment on 

whether the Agency should require 

accreditation. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed requiring accreditation. One 

commenter requested that EPA 

eventually require third party 

accreditation for all AETBs. The 

commenter recognizes, however, that 

the U.S. accreditation program is just 

beginning and that the requirement for 

all AETBs to be accredited may be 

premature, and suggested the following 

approach: Section 6.1.2(b)(2) should be 

amended to include a ‘‘sunset clause’’ 

for self-certified AETBs. Specifically, 

five years after the effective date of the 

final rule AETBs should not have the 

option to self-certify and must have a 

certificate of accreditation from a third 

party accreditation body. This five year 

period provides more than ample time 

for the maturation of U.S. AETB 

accreditation programs. 

Response: The commenter did not 

provide any evidence to suggest that 

accreditation is any better at assuring 

compliance with ASTM D 7036–04 than 

self-certification. Over time, if evidence 

is found that self-certification is no 

longer appropriate, then at that time the 

Agency could consider proposing 

revisions of the rule to require 

accreditation. 

5. Scope of Testing 

Background 

EPA proposed to add § 75.21(f) and to 

revise section 6.1.2(b) in Appendix A to 

Part 75, among other things, to limit the 

scope of testing required to be 

performed by AETBs, as defined in 

§ 72.2 of this chapter. Section 75.21(f) 

and section 6.1.2(b) would require 

AETBs that perform relative accuracy 

testing under 75.74(c)(2)(ii), section 6.5 

of Appendix A to Part 75, and section 

2.3.1 of Appendix B to Part 75, and 

stack testing under § 75.19 and section 

2.1 of Appendix E to Part 75 to provide 

a certification that they conform with 

ASTM D 7036–04. Conformance to the 

requirements of ASTM D 7036–04 

would apply only to these tests 

performed on Part 75 affected sources. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that if an AETB fails to declare a limit 

on the applicability of ASTM D 7036– 

04 and fails to perform any work in full 

conformance to ASTM D 7036–04, this 

would jeopardize even that work that 

may have been performed in accordance 

with the standard. The preamble to the 

proposed rule indicates that an AETB 

would be evaluated against its quality 

manual when assessing AETB 

conformance to the standard. The 

commenter recommends that the final 

rule clarify the limits of applicability of 

ASTM D 7036–04 when evaluating an 

AETB’s conformance to ASTM D 7036– 

04. 

Response: Section 4.1, Note 3 in 

ASTM D 7036–04 states: ‘‘There is no 

requirement to define a scope of testing. 

It is a requirement of this practice that 

prior to performing a test method for the 

first time, the AETB has in place 

resources, training, and QA/QC 

consistent with this practice to insure 

data of acceptable quality are 

produced.’’ It is EPA’s intent in this 

rulemaking that the ASTM D 7036–04 

scope of testing be limited to Part 75 

relative accuracy test audits, and Part 75 

stack tests related to Appendix E and 

low mass emitters. However, EPA 

understands the concern of the 

commenter and has revised section 

6.1.2(a) of Appendix A to part 75 to 

allow an AETB to limit its conformance 

to ASTM D 7036–04 to units subject to 

this part and to the test methods 

required by this part. Section 6.1.2(b) 

has been similarly revised. Unless a 

stack test company accredits to ASTM D 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17297 

7036–04 through, e.g., the Stack Testing 

Accreditation Council, the stack test 

company does not have to meet ASTM 

D 7036–04 for non-part 75 testing. The 

Agency notes that even if a company 

chooses to accredit to the ASTM 

standard, it may be possible to limit the 

scope of accreditation to Part 75 testing. 

In any case, the proposed rule does not 

require accreditation. A letter of 

certification signed by senior 

management of the AETB will suffice. 

6. Effect on Validity of Test Data 

Background 

EPA proposed to add section 6.1.2(f) 

in Appendix A to Part 75, which states 

that meeting two conditions (1) 

providing to the owner or operator of a 

part 75 source with a certificate of 

accreditation or letter of certification 

that an AETB is operating in 

conformance with ASTM D 7036–04; 

and (2) having at least one Qualified 

Individual on site conducting or 

overseeing the applicable tests would be 

sufficient proof of validity of test data 

that otherwise meet the requirements of 

part 75. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter strongly 

supported section 6.1.2(f), but explained 

that the provision should not be 

understood to validate data that do not 

otherwise meet the requirements of part 

75. Another commenter strongly 

objected to inclusion of the provision in 

the rule and requested that EPA remove 

section 6.1.2(f). This commenter 

provided the following rationale: 

‘‘(1) This section has no legal consequence 

and no benefit. Certification of testers and of 

a Qualified Individual on or leading the test 

team will not change evaluations and use of 

tests and test reports: with or without it, 

regulators should evaluate tests and test 

reports, and, if they find the work and 

records valid, accept the ‘validity of test data 

that otherwise meet the requirements of this 

part’. This rule accomplishes requiring 

certified people to do the test. Once such 

people have performed the test, it has no 

more legal effect. 

‘‘(2) This section will give the false 

impression to those who do not know that 

Part 75 requires correct test performance that 

review is superseded by tester accreditation 

and QI participation, that their testing must 

be accepted as valid. 

‘‘(a) It is unfair and a disservice to all to 

give this impression to facilities and testers. 

It will lead to substandard testing, which 

may get approved anyway and costs everyone 

involved extra effort, time, and expense. 

‘‘(b) Many regulatory agencies will have 

this impression and will not reject invalid 

testing performed by accredited testers with 

QIs on their teams because they will believe 

that this section says they have to accept the 

test results. Do not give this false impression. 

It will lead to worse testing and more 

acceptance of invalid testing. 

‘‘(3) Accreditation does not mean a test is 

valid. Some regulatory agencies will believe 

this section means this. This section then 

leads to lack of review and of enforcement of 

valid testing; the incentive for testers will be 

to get accreditation, then cut corners. We all 

know unplanned things happen while source 

testing that may require method 

modification. However, source testers seem 

to forget or not realize they are actually 

modifying the test method.’’ 

Response: EPA understands that it 

may be unfair to hold an owner or 

operator of a source subject to Part 75 

responsible for certain actions (or 

inactions) related to an external AETB’s 

compliance with ASTM D7036–04 and 

attempted to address this in section 

6.1.2(f) of the proposed rule by limiting 

the responsibility of the owner or 

operator of a part 75 source. 

As the commenter states, several 

sections of Part 75 require units subject 

to part 75 to meet certification and 

ongoing QA/QC requirements: § 75.4(f) 

requires sources using Appendix E to 

meet those requirements. Section 75.4(j) 

requires successful completion of 

certification tests or use of maximum 

potential concentration, maximum 

potential flow, maximum potential NOX

emission rate, or use appropriate 

reference methods or another procedure 

approved by the Administrator. Section 

75.5(b) states that no affected unit shall 

be operated without complying with the 

requirements of §§ 75.2–75.75 and 

Appendices A–G to part 75. Section 

75.10(b) requires that sources meet the 

performance specifications in Appendix 

A to part 75. (The Appendix A relative 

accuracy performance specifications are 

also required for the ongoing relative 

accuracy tests in Appendix B to part 

75.) 

EPA believes that the language in 

Appendix A, section 6.1.2(f) is clear that 

all part 75 testing requirements must be 

met. However, the Agency understands 

the concern of the commenter, and has 

amended 6.1.2(f) in the final rule to read 

as follows: ‘‘Except as provided in 

paragraph (e), no RATA 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, and no 

stack test under § 75.19 or Appendix E 

to this part (or portion of such a RATA 

or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as 

defined in § 72.2) shall be invalidated 

under this part as a result of the failure 

of the AETB to conform to ASTM D 

7036–04. Validation of such tests is 

determined based on the other part 75 

testing requirements. EPA recommends 

that proper observation of tests and 

review of test results continue, 

regardless of whether an AETB fully 

conforms to ASTM D7036–04.’’ 

The Agency also wishes to clarify that 

an AETB’s failure to conform to ASTM 

D 7036–04 with respect to testing at a 

particular unit does not affect its ability 

to certify conformance prior to 

conducting testing at another unit as 

long as it is following the procedures in 

ASTM D 7036–04 for addressing 

nonconformance. 

7. Exams 

Background 

EPA proposed to add section 6.1.2(e) 

in Appendix A to Part 75 to require 

having at least one Qualified Individual 

(QI) on site conducting or overseeing 

applicable tests. A QI must pass 

appropriate exam(s), described in ASTM 

D 7036–04, covering the test methods 

the QI will perform. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

No rule changes were required. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the QI exams be better 

targeted to the test methods the QI will 

actually perform, and not include 

additional test methods. A 

representative comment stated that the 

test program developed for QIs is 

excessive. The methods are grouped, 

and may not represent the type of work 

an individual or firm will conduct. For 

example, if a company elects not to 

perform 3–D probe work in Method 2F, 

there is no way to exclude these 

questions from the current QI test which 

puts this individual at a disadvantage if 

there are questions on the exam 

concerning a method the firm will not 

conduct. 

Response: The QI exams provided by 

the Source Evaluation Society (SES) are 

created with the knowledge and wisdom 

of many experienced stack testers. 

Periodically, these exams are modified 

using feedback from people who have 

taken the exams. 

The interdependency of emissions 

testing methods is inherent in any 

emissions testing program. EPA and the 

SES membership, which includes large 

and small stack test companies, believe 

that an individual who can pass a 

multiple method group exam is one who 

understands emissions testing 

principles broadly enough to lead a test 

team and can be expected to address the 

myriad of complicating issues that arise 

during a source test. 

It is EPA’s understanding that the SES 

membership can and has evaluated and 

adjusted the qualifications approach 

from time to time. Commenters are 

welcome to work with SES to address 

concerns they may have. While 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

recognizing that there might be 

opportunities for improvement, the 

Agency supports the QI qualification 

exam program in its current form. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that it makes no sense for an individual 

to sit for an exam that covers material 

for which the candidate is not qualified 

to perform or intends to perform. This 

means that an AETB that performs a 

limited scope of testing may legitimately 

argue that a qualified external exam 

provider is not available and may 

choose to offer internal exams. The 

current language in the preamble to the 

proposed rule favors an external exam 

provider. EPA should recognize the 

validity of internal examination 

providers when suggesting that sources 

obtain information about examination 

providers. 

Response: Three comments were 

received on the subject of external as 

opposed to internal exams. Internally 

administered exams are allowed only if 

an external exam for that test method is 

not available. The current format of 

external exams covers a group of related 

test methods. If a QI desires to be 

certified for a particular test method and 

that test method is part of an external 

exam for a group of methods, that QI 

must take that external exam. An 

individual that has been qualified with 

an internal exam must re-qualify with 

an external exam within three years of 

the availability of an external exam or 

when a re-test is required, whichever is 

sooner. The ASTM D 7036–04 

workgroup (in part, made up of small 

and large stack test companies) 

confirmed that, in general, an external 

exam is a better indication of 

qualification than an internal exam. The 

Agency agrees with this view because 

an externally administered exam may be 

more impartial, provide exam questions 

that have been better vetted, and may be 

less subject to abuse than an internally 

developed and administered exam. 

8. Posting Non-Compliant AETB Names 

Background 

In section 6.1.2(g) of Appendix A to 

Part 75, EPA proposed that 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 could 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 would be 

removed from the EPA Web sites once 

the failures were remedied. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: Several commenters agreed 

with the concept of posting the name of 

an offending AETB on Agency Web 

sites. One commenter agreed that 

posting the names of offending AETBs 

on the EPA Web site would provide a 

deterrent for non-conformance with 

ASTM D7036–04 and generally agrees 

with this approach. However, the 

commenter asserted that paragraph 

6.1.2(g) should be amended to ensure 

that an AETB is notified and has the 

opportunity to correct any deficiencies 

before the name is posted on the Web 

site. The commenter was also concerned 

about the responsiveness of EPA in 

updating this list once the AETB has 

provided EPA with the required 

information. Therefore, the commenter 

suggested that a requirement should be 

added for EPA to respond to an AETB’s 

submittal within 30 days, indicating 

whether the submittal is sufficient to 

remedy the problem. If so, the name of 

the AETB would be removed from the 

list. If EPA failed to respond within 30 

days, the submittal would be assumed 

to be sufficient to remedy the problem 

and the name is removed from the list. 

Another commenter requested that the 

determination of accuracy and 

completeness in section 6.1.2(g) be 

solely based on the provisions of ASTM 

D 7036–04. 

Response: EPA believes that the 

determination of accuracy and 

completeness should be based on ASTM 

D7036–04 and Part 75 taken together 

because Part 75 limits the application of 

ASTM D 7036–04 to only certain tests 

performed on part 75 sources. The 

Agency agrees that an AETB should 

have the opportunity to correct any 

deficiencies before its name is posted on 

the Web site and has therefore revised 

section 6.1.2(g) accordingly. If an owner 

or operator has requested information 

from an AETB and believes that the 

information provided by the AETB is 

either incomplete or inaccurate, the 

owner or operator may request the 

Administrator’s assistance in remedying 

the alleged deficiencies. Upon such 

request, if the Administrator concurs 

that the information submitted to the 

source is either incomplete or 

inaccurate, the Administrator will 

provide the AETB a description of the 

deficiencies to be remedied. The 

Administrator’s determination of 

completeness and accuracy of the 

information will be solely based on the 

provisions of ASTM D 7036–04 and this 

part. The Administrator may post the 

name of the offending AETB on Agency 

Web sites if, within 30 days of having 

provided the AETB a description of the 

deficiencies to be remedied, the AETB 

does not satisfactorily respond to the 

source and notify the Administrator of 

the response via electronic mail. The 

AETB need not submit the information 

it provides to the owner or operator to 

the Administrator, unless specifically 

requested by the Administrator. If after 

the AETB’s name is posted, the 

Administrator determines that the 

AETB’s response is sufficient, the 

AETB’s name will be removed from the 

EPA Web sites. 

If, upon request by the Administrator, 

the AETB or the owner or operator 

provides to the Administrator any 

information identified as confidential 

business information (CBI), the 

Administrator will treat the information 

according to the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B. Note that the 

modifications to section 6.1.2(g) make 

section 6.1.2(h) redundant and it has 

been removed. 

C. Other Amendments 

1. Compliance Dates for Units Adding 

New Stack or Control Device 

Background 

Section 75.4(e)(2) only applies to 

existing Acid Rain Program units that 

are building a new stack, or adding 

control equipment. EPA proposed to 

extend the provision to include both 

existing and new units. For a project 

involving both a new stack or flue and 

installation of add-on emission controls, 

EPA proposed to revise § 75.4(e)(2) to 

require that the compliance window for 

required CEMS certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic tests 

start on the date that emissions first exit 

to the atmosphere through the new stack 

or flue. The end of the compliance 

window would be the 90th operating 

day or the 180th calendar day 

(whichever occurs first) after the start 

date. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed revisions to § 75.4(e) are 

consistent with the original intent of the 

provision, which was to address 

compliance deadlines for units that 

must relocate, replace, or retest 

monitoring systems as a result of the 

addition of new controls, regardless of 

when the unit commenced construction. 

This commenter further stated that the 

provision was never intended to draw a 

distinction between ‘‘existing’’ units as 

that term is defined under § 72.2 and 

other units with previously certified 

monitoring systems. The commenter 

suggested that the addition of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17299 

recertification and diagnostic tests also 

is consistent with EPA’s intent and past 

implementation of the provision 

through guidance. However, the 

commenter objected to EPA’s proposal 

to hold units that are constructing both 

a new stack and a control device to a 

single testing deadline based on use of 

the new stack. The commenter 

concluded that although most sources 

likely would try to meet the testing 

deadline under § 75.4(e) associated with 

the use of the new stack by timing the 

initial operation of the control device to 

coincide as closely as possible with the 

time that gases first exit to the 

atmosphere through the new stack, there 

is no valid reason for limiting an owner 

or operator to a single deadline or set of 

tests to validate data from the 

monitoring systems. 

Response: EPA agrees in part with the 

commenter. As noted above, § 75.4(e)(2), 

on its face, applies only to existing units 

(which are generally units commencing 

commercial operation before November 

1, 1990 and serving a generator with a 

nameplate capacity greater than 25 

MWe) and thus was not intended to 

cover new units. However, EPA agrees 

that it is appropriate to expand 

§ 75.4(e)(2) to provide a similar 

approach for monitoring compliance 

deadlines and missing data substitution 

for new stack construction and add-on 

SO2 or NOX control installation at both 

existing and new units and to cover 

recertification and diagnostic tests, in 

addition to the certification tests 

covered by the existing provision. In 

addition, EPA agrees that in cases where 

a project involves both new stack 

construction and installation of add-on 

SO2 or NOX controls, the initial routing 

of flue gas through the new stack and 

the initial operation of an add-on 

control device (i.e., when reagent is first 

injected) should, if necessary, be treated 

as two separate events, each of which is 

allotted a flexible 90 operating day/180 

calendar day window to complete all 

required certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic testing 

of the monitoring systems installed on 

the new stack. Two separate compliance 

windows may be needed in cases where 

there is a long interval of time between 

the starting dates of the two events. 

Therefore, a new paragraph, (e)(3), has 

been added to § 75.4(e) to allow for 

completion of CEMS certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic testing 

requirements for both new stack 

construction and new add-on SO2 or 

NOX controls either: (a) Within the 

window of time provided for new stack 

construction; or (b) within the separate 

window of time applicable to such 

event provided under § 75.4 (e)(1). 

EPA also revised § 75.4(e) to address 

the reporting of CEMS data, in cases 

where only one compliance window is 

used, and where both windows are 

used. Section 75.4(e)(2), as revised, 

addresses how to report emissions or 

flow rate data after emissions first pass 

through the new stack or flue, or reagent 

is first injected into the flue gas 

desulfurization system or add-on NOX

emission controls, until all required 

certification and/or recertification and/ 

or diagnostic tests are successfully 

completed. For example, if section 2 of 

Appendix A to Part 75 requires two 

spans and ranges for the monitor that 

measures the pollutant being removed 

by the add-on SO2 or NOX controls, 

certification of the high measurement 

scale is sufficient to initiate reporting of 

quality-assured data from that monitor. 

All data recorded on the certified high 

scale, including data that would 

ordinarily be required to be recorded on 

the low scale, may be reported as 

quality-assured for up to 60 unit or stack 

operating days after the first injection of 

reagent into the control device. Then, all 

required tests of the low measurement 

scale must be completed within the 90 

operating day/180 calendar day 

compliance window of time associated 

with the first injection of reagent into 

the control device. 

EPA believes that it is appropriate to 

allow temporary reporting of data on a 

certified high measurement scale in the 

case of installing and operating new 

add-on SO2 or NOX controls, primarily 

because it often takes several days or 

weeks to stabilize a new add-on 

emissions control device so that the 

desired percentage reduction in the SO2

or NOX emission levels is consistently 

achieved. During this period of time 

(known as the ‘‘shakedown’’ period), a 

significant percentage of the data from 

the SO2 or NOX monitor (as applicable) 

is likely to be too high to be read on the 

low scale. Further, even data that can be 

recorded on the low scale during the 

shakedown period cannot be reported as 

quality-assured, because a RATA must 

be performed on the low scale in order 

to certify it, and this test cannot be done 

until the control device has been 

stabilized. The Agency believes that 

accepting low readings recorded on a 

certified high scale for a short period of 

time will not adversely impact the 

overall accuracy of the emissions data. 

Other certified CEMS that have only one 

(high) measurement scale record data on 

the lower part of the scale during shortterm events such as startup and 

shutdown, and these data are accepted 

as quality-assured. 

Revised § 75.4(e)(2)(ii) allows 

conditional data validation procedures 

in § 75.20(b)(3) to be used for the entire 

90 operating day/180 calendar day 

window associated with new stack 

construction or addition of a new 

emissions control device, rather than 

limiting the amount of time available to 

complete the required testing to the 

shorter timelines in § 75.20(b)(3)(iv). 

This is appropriate for new stack 

construction because the monitoring 

systems on the new stack are brand new 

systems that must undergo certification 

testing. The provisions of § 75.20(b)(3) 

and sections 6.3.1(a), 6.3.2(a), 6.6.4(a), 

and 6.5(f) of Appendix A to Part 75 

clearly allow conditional data validation 

to be used for the entire window of time 

specified in § 75.4, for the initial 

certification of monitoring systems. For 

the installation and operation of add-on 

emissions controls, it is also appropriate 

to allow the use of conditional data 

validation for the entire 90 operating 

day/180 calendar day window, because 

instability during the shakedown period 

prevents the required RATAs associated 

with the control device addition from 

being done during that time period, and 

the shakedown period often extends 

beyond the shorter conditional data 

validation timelines provided in 

§ 75.20(b)(3)(iv). 

A new paragraph, (e)(4), has also been 

added to § 75.4(e) to address special 

requirements that apply, in addition to 

the requirements in paragraph (e)(2), to 

a project involving both a new stack and 

a new add-on SO2 or NOX control 

device. For such a project, the emissions 

data recorded by each CEMS on the new 

stack, starting on the date and hour on 

which emissions first exit to the 

atmosphere through the new stack and 

ending on the hour before the date and 

hour on which reagent is first injected 

into the control device, may be reported 

as quality assured (as provided in 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii) and (iv)) only if (1) 

a RATA of the CEMS (as described in 

paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) or (ii)(A), 

depending on the CEMS involved) is 

successfully completed either prior to 

the first injection of reagent into the 

control device or in a period after the 

first injection when the control device is 

not operating; and (2) the rest of the 

required certification tests are 

successfully completed within the 90 

operating day/180 calendar day 

compliance window that begins with 

the initial routing of flue gas through the 

new stack. For example, if the 

certification testing is done this way and 

conditional data validation is used in 

accordance with paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the 

CEMS data may be reported as qualityVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 25, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\28MRR3.SGM 28MRR3

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

assured, starting at the hour of the 

probationary calibration error test, 

provided that all of the major tests are 

passed in sequence, with no failures. 

The RATA must be performed prior to 

the initial injection of reagent into the 

control device, or in a period after the 

first injection when the control device is 

not operating, because the 

characteristics of the stack gas matrix 

(e.g., gas concentrations, temperature, 

moisture content, and concentration and 

flow profiles) when the control device is 

brought on-line will differ significantly 

from the stack characteristics of the 

uncontrolled unit. Therefore, to validate 

CEMS data in the uncontrolled time 

period between the first use of the new 

stack and the initial injection of reagent, 

a RATA that represents the actual stack 

conditions during that time interval 

must be performed and passed. The 

other, required certification tests, i.e., 7- 

day calibration error tests, cycle time 

tests, and linearity checks, are not 

affected by the characteristics of the 

stack gas matrix, and can be performed 

at any time during the allotted window 

of time, whether or not reagent is being 

injected. 

Of course, under § 75.4(e)(2), to the 

extent additional testing requirements 

are triggered by the installation of the 

new add-on SO2 or NOX controls in a 

project involving both a new stack and 

such new controls, these tests must be 

successfully completed during the 90 

unit operating day/180 calendar day 

window that begins with the initial 

injection of reagent. Note that EPA 

intends to revise Questions 15.4, 15.6, 

and 15.7 in the ‘‘Part 75 Emissions 

Monitoring Policy Manual’’ to be 

consistent with today’s revisions to 

§ 75.4(e). 

2. Reference Method 7E 

Background 

EPA proposed to add § 75.22(a)(5)(v) 

to disallow multiple sampling runs to be 

conducted before performing the postrun system bias check or system 

calibration error check described in 

section 8.5 of EPA Reference Method 7E 

(40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4), when 

this method is used to perform testing 

on part 75 affected sources. 

Summary of Comments and Responses 

Comment: One commenter thought 

that although drift corrections at some 

point may become less accurate 

following multiple runs, it is not 

significant enough to require a post-run 

check after every run. A requirement to 

perform a post run bias or system 

calibration error check after every three 

runs would be sufficient to ensure 

accurate drift corrections without 

needlessly adding to the length of the 

test. EPA should limit the number of 

runs allowed before performing a postrun check to three, rather than 

prohibiting multiple runs altogether. 

Two other commenters stated that 

Method 7E already requires all test runs 

conducted since the previous bias check 

to be invalidated if the subsequent bias 

check reveals drift in excess of the 

required specification. These 

commenters further stated that 

invalidation of multiple test runs would 

extend the duration of the test period, 

leading to additional expense and 

potential operational difficulties (i.e., 

billing of additional hours by the test 

contractor, overtime for plant employees 

responsible for monitoring the testing, 

continuing to run the unit at the 

specified operating level rather than 

releasing the unit back to load control, 

and in some cases continuing to run the 

unit solely for the purpose of 

conducting the required test). According 

to the commenters, the potential for 

invalidation of multiple test runs is 

enough of a deterrent to discourage the 

use of equipment and/or testing firms 

that would have difficulty meeting the 

applicable bias and drift specifications. 

These two commenters also thought that 

the ability to validate multiple runs 

with one pair of bias and drift checks is 

of great value to facilities that are 

required to conduct both RATA and 

compliance tests. The ability through 

this provision to combine RATA and 

compliance testing reduces the overall 

amount of time required for testing and 

is of value to the industry as it prevents 

additional expense and potential 

operational difficulties. The 

commenters thought that the existing 

provision does not complicate the bias 

and drift correction calculations. Once 

these calculations are programmed into 

a spreadsheet, they are easy to apply. 

The commenters stated that EPA has not 

provided any substantive evidence for 

its reasoning that less accurate results 

will occur other than the statement that 

‘‘less accurate gas concentration 

measurements are likely to result’’ (75 

FR 33400). Finally, the commenters 

asserted that EPA should provide field 

evidence which shows that less accurate 

results have occurred as a result of this 

less time-consuming procedure before it 

proceeds with any rulemaking on this 

issue. 

Response: No rule changes were 

required. The Agency understands that 

under an existing provision of Method 

7E, multiple test runs may be quality 

assured for bias and drift as a group, 

rather than individually. This provision 

allows the user to conduct bias and drift 

checks only at the beginning and end of 

a series of test runs, rather than 

conducting these checks before and after 

each individual run. The rationale is 

that if the tester can pass the quality 

assurance at the beginning and end of 

the series of runs, then the intermediate 

runs must be valid, and the quality of 

the reference method data has not been 

compromised. However this assumption 

is not necessarily true; therefore, 

multiple runs should not be allowed 

between bias and drift checks, as further 

explained in the response to the next 

comment, immediately below. 

Comment: Two commenters favor 

allowing 63 minutes of continuous 

sampling time between bias and drift 

checks. According to the commenters, 

sampling for 63 consecutive minutes at 

a time is desirable because 63 minutes 

corresponds to the time needed to 

perform three 21-minute runs of a CEMS 

relative accuracy test audit (RATA) and 

also is long enough to obtain a complete 

compliance test (i.e., stack test) run. 

Compliance tests often consist of three 

one-hour runs, and many sources have 

both RATA requirements and 

compliance test requirements. The 

commenters favor eliminating the bias 

and drift checks after each RATA run 

because it reduces the amount of time 

required to perform the testing. 

Response: No rule changes were 

required. Generally speaking, it is good 

practice to perform emission testing in 

the most efficient manner possible 

without sacrificing data quality. 

However, EPA believes that the added 

assurance of data quality provided by 

performing bias and drift checks after 

each 21-minute RATA run far outweighs 

the small amount of time that could be 

saved by skipping the intermediate QA 

checks. Further, there is no reason why 

three 21-minute RATA runs cannot be 

averaged together to make one 63- 

minute compliance test run. 

For typical compliance test 

applications of the method where the 

user is only concerned with showing 

compliance with an emissions limit, the 

accuracy of the individual test runs is 

not as essential as it is for Part 75 

applications. The Agency does not 

object to the change made to Method 7E 

when the method is used for 

compliance test applications. Since the 

average of all test runs is used to assess 

compliance, the run-by-run percent 

inaccuracies due to changing bias and 

drift over the course of the testing will 

tend to cancel, resulting in acceptable 

overall average that is only slightly 

different from the average value that 

would have been obtained had the more 

stringent run-by-run quality assurance 

procedures been followed. Thus, for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17301 

compliance testing purposes, the 

commenters are correct in asserting that 

little is gained from performing the 

quality assurance testing before and 

after each run, so long as the overall 

specifications for bias and drift are met 

at the beginning and end of each test 

series. 

However, under Part 75 the reference 

method measurements are generally 

used for a very different purpose and 

the inaccuracy that can be introduced 

by not following the run-by-run quality 

assurance is unacceptable. For Part 75, 

the reference methods are primarily 

used to directly assess the accuracy of 

a continuous emissions monitoring 

system on a run-by-run basis. The 

purpose of the relative accuracy test 

audits (RATA) is to conduct at least 

nine quality-assured independent 

reference measurements and compare 

those measurements to nine 

simultaneous measurements made by a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system in its normal mode of operation. 

Since each run directly compares CEMS 

measurements to reference method 

measurements, any drift in the reference 

monitor during the course of the run 

must be assessed and accounted for. 

Method 7E provides a means of 

adjusting the reference method 

measurements for moderate drift (less 

than 3.0% of the span gas value over the 

course of a run). This correction is 

intended to tie the resulting reference 

value more closely to the EPA Protocol 

calibration gas standards which are 

traceable to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST). The 

correction assumes that over the 

duration of the test run, the profile of 

any drift observed is linear. The longer 

the interval between bias/drift checks, 

the less likely it is that this linear 

approximation will hold true. Because 

the RATA is intended to compare nine 

independent, quality-assured reference 

measurements to nine simultaneous 

measurements from a CEMS, EPA finds 

that performing a bias and drift 

evaluation before and after a series of 

runs increases the uncertainty in the 

individual run measurements and has 

the potential to introduce error that 

would otherwise be eliminated by 

performing the bias and drift evaluation 

before and after each run. EPA believes 

that mass-based regulatory programs, 

such as the trading programs supported 

by Part 75 monitoring, need the added 

assurance of data quality provided by 

run-by-run bias and drift evaluations. 

The run-by-run quality assurance is 

consistent with Method 7E as it was 

originally written, and avoids the risk of 

adding bias and uncertainty to the 

CEMS data through the RATA process. 

EPA does not collect the actual 

reference method test data for Method 

7E electronically in a manner that can 

be further analyzed. Therefore, we 

cannot properly assess how reducing 

the number of required bias and drift 

checks will impact data quality. We 

have no way of knowing how many test 

runs that should be invalidated would 

be assumed to be valid if we were to 

allow bias and drift checks to be done 

only before and after a series of runs. 

However, we do know that we can avoid 

that issue entirely by requiring the 

quality assurance checks to be 

performed before and after each run for 

part 75 applications. 

In summary, EPA maintains that in 

view of the way that Method 7E data are 

used in the part 75 programs, run-byrun system bias and drift checks are 

necessary to eliminate measurement 

error that would otherwise be 

introduced by not quality-assuring each 

run individually. This QA approach 

also applies to Method 6C (the 

instrumental reference method for SO2) 

and to Method 3A (the instrumental 

method for O2 and CO2), when those 

methods are used for part 75 

applications. For a more detailed 

discussion of this issue, refer to the 

Response to Comments document. 

3. Removal of Mercury Provisions 

Background 

As a result of the Clean Air Mercury 

Rule (CAMR) having been vacated by 

the DC Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 

F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008), EPA proposed 

to remove provisions of part 75 that 

were adopted in support of CAMR. To 

achieve this, sections dealing 

exclusively with mercury monitoring 

(CEMS and sorbent trap systems) would 

be removed, and other sections that 

applied both to mercury monitoring 

systems and other types of CEMS would 

be revised and re-promulgated, minus 

the references to mercury. 

Summary of Comments, Responses and 

Rule Changes 

Comment: One commenter found two 

provisions not included in EPA’s 

proposal that should be re-promulgated 

because the portions referencing 

mercury (Hg) monitoring were vacated 

in CAMR. The provisions in question 

are found at § 75.53(e)(1)(iv), which 

refers to reporting of information on Hg 

monitors and sorbent trap monitoring 

systems, and § 75.53(e)(1)(x), which 

refers to information on each stack using 

an Hg component monitor. Although the 

Hg portions of these provisions are no 

longer in effect, to be consistent with 

the other proposed revisions and to 

avoid confusion, the commenter stated 

that EPA should revise and repromulgate these provisions again 

without the references to Hg. The 

commenter also requested that EPA 

ensure that these requirements are 

removed from the electronic data 

reporting format, schema, and 

instructions. 

Response: The proposed rule 

revisions that would remove all 

references to mercury (Hg) monitoring 

from Part 75 have been finalized 

without modification. However, the 

commenter has correctly identified two 

references to Hg monitoring in § 75.53(e) 

which EPA apparently overlooked. In 

addition, the Agency has identified a 

third reference in § 75.53(e) and one 

other reference in § 75.57 that were 

inadvertently overlooked. Section 

75.53(e)(1)(i)(E) refers to Hg emission 

controls, and Method of Determination 

Code (MODC) ‘‘15’’ in Table 4a in 

§ 75.57 refers to ‘‘Hg concentration’’. The 

final rule removes all four of these 

references to Hg monitoring from part 

75. All references to Hg monitoring and 

reporting have also been removed from 

the ‘‘ECMPS Reporting Instructions’’ (see 

the June 17, 2009 version and 

September 16, 2009 addendum, which 

are posted on the Clean Air Markets 

Division Web site at the following 

address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/business/ecmps/reportinginstructions.html. However, certain 

schema elements had already been 

incorporated by the time of the court 

vacatur of CAMR, (e.g., the 

<CalibrationStandardData> record, 

which indicates whether elemental or 

oxidized mercury standards are used for 

daily calibration). EPA continues to 

affirm that it is unnecessary to remove 

such records from the reporting format 

(or schema) since there are no 

requirements to use these fields or any 

of the mercury specific codes. As such 

these records are essentially vestigial 

and need not be revised. 

Finally, note that minor changes have 

been made to a few of the rule sections 

in which the Hg monitoring provisions 

were found. These changes were 

described under ‘‘Miscellaneous 

Corrections and Additions’’ in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, and have 

been finalized without modification. 

4. Miscellaneous Amendments 

EPA proposed to revise the 

Incorporation by Reference section 

75.6(f)(3) to add Section 3—Small 

Volume Provers, First Edition, but 

inadvertently omitted the publication 

date, and failed to revise section 2.1.5.1 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

of appendix D to part 75 to include 

Section 3 in the American Petroleum 

Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum 

Measurement Standards citation. The 

final rule includes the Section 3 

publication dates of July 1988, 

reaffirmed Oct 1993, and includes 

Section 3 in the API citation in section 

2.1.5.1 of appendix D to part 75. 

EPA has added definitions in section 

72.2 for ‘‘Coverage Factor k’’ and 

‘‘Expanded Uncertainty’’. These 

definitions are consistent with the 

language used by the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 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 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 2203.04. 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 2203.04 

reflect the revisions to the requirements 

in 40 CFR Parts 72, and 75 that are being 

finalized in this action. 

Basic information on the identity of 

EPA Protocol gas production sites and 

on the type of cylinders used by sources 

subject to part 75 will be collected by 

the Agency. These data will allow the 

Agency to verify that a source subject to 

part 75 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 

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 

(sources subject to part 75, primarily 

large electric utility and industrial 

companies), and the Agency notes that 

these costs will be partially 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 units subject to part 75, 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. 

EPA received several comments that 

the costs were underestimated in the 

ICR and that more supporting detail was 

needed. The Agency has revised the ICR 

for the final rule to include (a) 600 

hours of contractor time in Agency costs 

to account for ECMPS software changes, 

(b) additional one time DAHS upgrade 

respondent costs of $378,500, and (c) 

additional supporting detail. 

The final 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 

$1,460,489. 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 and 75. 

Most of these costs are expected to be 

borne by the private sector and will be 

passed through to the customers 

(sources subject to part 75, primarily 

large electric utility and industrial 

companies, or the rate payers). The 

Agency notes that some 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 (2203.04) 

supporting statement for revisions to 40 

CFR parts 72 and 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 AND 75 

Information collection activity Mean hourly rate 

Hours per 

activity/ 

year 

Number of 

respondents 

(facilities) 

Respondent 

hours/year 

Total labor 

cost/year 

ARP Respondents One Time Rule Review $80.71/Hr ....................................... 1 1,249 1,249 $100,807 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17303 

EXHIBIT 1—INCREASED RESPONDENT BURDEN/COST (LABOR ONLY) ESTIMATES RELATED TO REVISIONS OF 40 CFR 

PARTS 72 AND 75—Continued 

Information collection activity Mean hourly rate 

Hours per 

activity/ 

year 

Number of 

respondents 

(facilities) 

Respondent 

hours/year 

Total labor 

cost/year 

ARP Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements.$80.71/Hr ....................................... 0.5 1,249 624.5 50,444 

CAIR Respondents One Time Rule Review $80.71/Hr ....................................... 1 253 253 20,420 

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements.$80.71/Hr ....................................... 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 AND 75 

Information collection activity 

Previously 

established 

cont./O&M 

cost 

Increased 

cont./O&M 

cost per respondent 

Number of 

respondents 

(units) 

Increased total 

cost/year 

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance 

Model A (CEMS) .............................................................................................. $31,949 $319 1,046 $333,674 

Model C (App D—NOX CEM) ......................................................................... 17,818 178 2,107 375,046 

Model D (App D and E) ................................................................................... 1,843 19 438 8,322 

Model E (LME) ................................................................................................. 1,991 20 145 2,900 

One Time DAHS Upgrade1 ............................................................................. ........................ 500 631 315,500 

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance 

• Non ARP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States: 

—Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS (units) .................................... 31,200 312 102 31,824 

—Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units) ............................................... 17,400 174 493 85,782 

—Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or LME methods (units) .......... 1,800 18 150 2,700 

One Time DAHS Upgrade 1 ............................................................................. ........................ 500 119 59,500 

• Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States: 

—Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS (units) .................................... 20,800 208 4 832 

—Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units) ............................................... 17, 400 174 28 4,872 

One Time DAHS Upgrade 1 ............................................................................. ........................ 500 7 3,500 

—Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or LME methods (units) .......... 1,800 18 0 0 

PGVP Increased Costs 

($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year) .................. ........................ 12 4,513 54,156 

Total ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,278,608 

1To calculate the number of units required to perform a DAHS upgrade, it was assumed that 80% of applicable CEMS units would be covered 

by an existing service contract and not subject to the annualized $1500 fee. 

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. 

When this ICR is approved by OMB, 

the Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

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 rule on small 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-for-profit 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 $972.36 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 rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. All 

but one of the 620 small electric utilities 

directly affected by this final rule are 

expected to experience costs that are 

well under one percent of their 

estimated revenues. 

The 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 

partially 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. 

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 $1,460,489. 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 

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 and 75. The costs 

incurred by AETBs and PGVP vendors 

will be passed through to their 

customers (sources subject to Part 75, 

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 

rule would generally affect large electric 

utility or industrial companies. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule 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 final 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 final rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This final 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 final 

rule. 

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 final rule is not subject 

to EO 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

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, 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17305 

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 

final 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, as 

amended August 25, 1999, EPA–600/R– 

97/121 or such revised procedure as 

approved by the Administrator. 

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 final 

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 final 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. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

Agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective on April 27, 2011. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under Clean Air Act section 307(b)(1), 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 27, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review, nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such a rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2) of the Administrative 

Procedures Act.) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 72 

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, 

Incorporation by reference. 

40 CFR Part 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, 

Incorporation by reference. 

Dated: March 10, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 72 and 75 of chapter I 

of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are 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 the 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 ‘‘Coverage Factor k’’, 

‘‘EPA Protocol Gas Production Site’’, 

‘‘Expanded uncertainty’’, and ‘‘Specialty 

Gas Company’’, to read as follows: 

§ 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 

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: 

* * * * * 

Coverage Factor k means, in general, 

a value chosen on the basis of the 

desired level of confidence to be 

associated with the interval defined by 

U = kuc. Typically, k is in the range 2 

to 3. When the normal distribution 

applies and uc is a reliable estimate of 

the standard deviation of y, U = 2 uc

(i.e., k = 2) defines an interval having a 

level of confidence of approximately 

95%, and U = 3 uc (i.e., k = 3) defines 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

an interval having a level of confidence 

greater than 99%. 

* * * * * 

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, as 

amended August 25, 1999, EPA–600/R– 

97/121 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 72.13) 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, as 

amended August 25, 1999, EPA–600/R– 

97/121 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 72.13) 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). 

* * * * * 

Expanded uncertainty means a 

measure of uncertainty that defines an 

interval about the measurement result y 

within which the value of the 

measurand Y can be confidently 

asserted to lie. Although the combined 

standard uncertainty uc is used to 

express the uncertainty of many 

measurement results, for some 

commercial, industrial, and regulatory 

applications (e.g., when health and 

safety are concerned), what is often 

required is an expanded uncertainty, 

suggested symbol U, and is obtained by 

multiplying uc(y) by a coverage factor, 

suggested symbol k. Thus U = kuc(y) 

and it is confidently believed that Y is 

greater than or equal to y ¥ U, and is 

less than or equal to y + U, which is 

commonly written as Y = y ± U. 

* * * * * 

Qualified individual (QI) means an 

individual who is identified by an 

AETB as meeting the requirements 

described in ASTM D 7036–04 

‘‘Standard Practice for Competence of 

Air Emission Testing Bodies’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 72.13), 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 72.13 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b), to read as 

follows: 

§ 72.13 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the 

following address: American Society for 

Testing and Material (ASTM) 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania 19428–2959, phone: 610– 

832–9585, http://www.astm.org/ 

DIGITAL_LIBRARY/index.shtml. 

* * * * * 

(5) ASTM D 7036–04, Standard 

Practice for Competence of Air Emission 

Testing Bodies, for § 72.2. 

(b) A copy of the following material 

is available from http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/emc/news.html (see postings for 

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, Appendices, 

Spreadsheets, and the ‘‘Read before 

downloading Section 2’’ revision posted 

August 27, 1999): EPA–600/R–97/121, 

EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards, September 1997, as amended 

August 25, 1999, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, for § 72.2. 

PART 75—CONTINUOUS EMISSION 

MONITORING 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 75 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601, 7651k, and 

7651k note. 

§ 75.2 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 75.2 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d). 

■ 6. Section 75.4 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(c)(2); 

■ 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 

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, or a flue gas desulfurization 

system or add-on NOX emission 

controls, after the applicable deadline in 

paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section: 

(1) Except as otherwise provided in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17307 

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) For the event of construction of a 

new stack or flue, 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) For the event of installation of a 

flue gas desulfurization system or addon NOX emission controls, the date that 

reagent is first injected into the flue gas 

desulfurization system or the add-on 

NOX emission controls, as applicable, 

notice of which date shall be provided 

under subpart G of this part. 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

determine and report SO2 concentration, 

NOX emission rate, CO2 concentration, 

and volumetric flow rate data for all 

unit or stack operating hours after 

emissions first pass through the new 

stack or flue, or reagent is first 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: 

(i) The applicable missing data 

substitution procedures under §§ 75.31 

through 75.37; 

(ii) The conditional data validation 

procedures of § 75.20(b)(3), except that 

conditional data validation may, if 

necessary, be used for the entire 

window of time provided under 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section in lieu of 

the periods specified in § 75.20(b)(3)(iv); 

(iii) Reference methods under 

§ 75.22(b); 

(iv) Quality-assured data recorded on 

the high measurement scale of the 

monitor that measures the pollutant 

being removed by the add-on emission 

controls (i.e., SO2 or NOX, as 

applicable), if, pursuant to section 2 of 

appendix A to this part, two spans and 

ranges are required for that monitor and 

if the high measurement scale of the 

monitor has been certified according to 

§ 75.20(c), section 6 of appendix A to 

this part, and, if applicable, paragraph 

(e)(4)(i) of this section. Data recorded on 

the certified high scale, including data 

that ordinarily would be required to be 

recorded on the low scale, pursuant to 

section 2.1.1.4(g) or 2.1.2.4(f) of 

appendix A to this part, may be reported 

as quality-assured for a period not to 

exceed 60 unit or stack operating days 

after the date and hour that reagent is 

first injected into the control device. In 

order for the high and low scale 

readings from the monitor to be reported 

as quality-assured for more than 60 unit 

or stack operating days after the date 

and hour that reagent is first injected 

into the control device, all required tests 

of the low measurement scale must be 

performed and passed within the 

window of time provided under 

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section; or 

(v) Another procedure approved by 

the Administrator pursuant to a petition 

under § 75.66. 

(3) If a particular project involves both 

the event of new stack or flue 

construction and the event of 

installation of a flue gas desulfurization 

system or add-on NOX emission 

controls, the owner or operator shall 

either: 

(i) Complete all of the monitoring 

system certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic testing 

requirements of both events within the 

window of time provided under 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; or 

(ii) Complete all of the monitoring 

system certification and/or 

recertification and/or diagnostic testing 

requirements of each event within the 

separate window of time applicable to 

such event provided under paragraph 

(e)(1) of this section. 

(4) For the project described in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the 

emissions data from each CEMS 

installed on the new stack recorded in 

the interval of time starting on the date 

and hour on which emissions first exit 

to the atmosphere through the new stack 

and ending on the hour before the date 

and hour on which reagent is first 

injected into the control device may be 

reported as quality assured: 

(i) For the CEMS that includes the 

monitor that measures the pollutant 

being removed by the add-on emission 

controls (i.e., SO2 or NOX, as 

applicable): 

(A) Only if the relative accuracy test 

audit (RATA) of the high measurement 

scale of the monitor is successfully 

completed either prior to the date and 

hour of the first injection of reagent into 

the emission control device, or after that 

date and hour during a period when the 

control device is not operating, but still 

within the window of time provided 

under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, 

and the rest of the certification tests 

required under § 75.20(c) and section 6 

of appendix A to this part for the high 

measurement scale of the monitor are 

successfully completed within the 

window of time provided under 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; 

(B) Beginning with: 

(1) The first unit or stack operating 

hour after successful completion of all 

of the certification tests in accordance 

with paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) of this 

section; or 

(2) The hour of the probationary 

calibration error test (see 

§ 75.20(b)(3)(ii)), if conditional data 

validation is used and all of the 

certification tests are successfully 

completed in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(4)(i)(A) of this section, 

with no test failures. If any required test 

is failed or aborted or is otherwise not 

in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(4)(i)(A) of this section, data 

validation shall be done according to 

§ 75.20(b)(3)(vii). 

(ii) For a CEMS other than one 

addressed in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this 

section: 

(A) Only if the relative accuracy test 

audit (RATA) of the CEMS is 

successfully completed either prior to 

the date and hour of the first injection 

of reagent into the emission control 

device, or after that date and hour 

during a period when the control device 

is not operating, but still within the 

window of time provided under 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, and 

the rest of the certification tests required 

under § 75.20(c) and section 6 of 

appendix A to this part for the CEMS 

are successfully completed within the 

window of time provided under 

paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section; 

(B) Beginning with: 

(1) The first unit or stack operating 

hour after successful completion of all 

of the certification tests in accordance 

with paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this 

section; or 

(2) The hour of the probationary 

calibration error test (see 

§ 75.20(b)(3)(ii)), if conditional data 

validation is used and all of the 

certification tests are successfully 

completed in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, 

with no test failures. If any required test 

is failed or aborted or is otherwise not 

in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, data 

validation shall be done according to 

§ 75.20(b)(3)(vii). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 75.6 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(38), (a)(43), and (a)(44); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and 

(f)(3); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (g), to read as 

follows: 

§ 75.6 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(a) The following materials are 

available for purchase from the 

following address: American Society for 

Testing and Material (ASTM) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania, 19428–2959, phone: 610– 

832–9585, http://www.astm.org/ 

DIGITAL_LIBRARY/index.shtml. 

* * * * * 

(38) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(43) [Reserved] 

(44) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(48) ASTM D7036–04, Standard 

Practice for Competence of Air Emission 

Testing Bodies, for § 75.21, § 75.59, and 

appendix A to 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, July 1988, Reaffirmed Oct 

1993, and Section 5—Master-Meter 

Provers, Second Edition, May 2000, for 

appendix D to this part. 

* * * * * 

(g) A copy of the following material is 

available from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

emc/news.html (see postings for 

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, Appendices, 

Spreadsheets, and the ‘‘Read before 

downloading Section 2’’ revision posted 

August 27, 1999): EPA–600/R–97/121, 

EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards, September 1997, as amended 

August 25, 1999, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, for § 75.21, and 

appendix A to this part. 

■ 8. 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] 

■ 9. Section 75.15 is removed and 

reserved. 

■ 10. 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; 

■ 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, 

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] 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 75.21 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g), to 

read as follows: 

§ 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), 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17309 

instead of the procedures specified in 

appendix B to this part. 

* * * * * 

(f) Requirements for Air Emission 

Testing. On and after March 27, 2012, 

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 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6), 

referred to in section 6.1.2 of appendix 

A to this part, shall apply only to these 

tests. Section 1.1.4 of appendix B to this 

part, and section 2.1 of appendix E to 

this part require compliance with 

section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this part. 

Tests and activities under this part not 

required to be performed by an AETB as 

defined in § 72.2 of this chapter 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 participation shall 

commence immediately upon 

notification to EPA 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 in an electronic 

format prescribed by the Administrator 

(see the CAMD Web site http:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/ 

pgvp.html): 

(i) The specialty gas company name 

which owns or operates the 

participating production site; 

(ii) The name, e-mail address, and 

telephone number of a contact person 

for that specialty gas company; 

(iii) The name and address of that 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site, owned or operated by 

the specialty gas company; and 

(iv) 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) A list of the names, contact 

information, and vendor IDs of EPA 

Protocol gas production sites 

participating in the PGVP will be made 

publicly available by posting on EPA 

Web sites (see the CAMD Web site 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

emissions/pgvp.html). 

(4) EPA may remove an EPA Protocol 

gas production site from the list of 

PGVP participants and give notice to the 

production site for any of the following 

reasons: 

(i) If the EPA Protocol gas production 

site fails to provide all of the 

information required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of this section in accordance with 

paragraph (g)(2) 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 within 45 calendar days of 

such notification; or 

(iii) If, after being notified that its EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders are being audited 

by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas 

production site cannot provide to EPA 

upon demand proof of payment to the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) and a valid contract 

with NIST; 

(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 hardcopy 

or electronic proof of a credit receipt or 

of cancellation of the invoice for the 

cylinders from the EPA Protocol gas 

production site within 45 calendar days 

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 free of any 

demurrage, and that EPA Protocol gas 

production site shall not be eligible for 

relisting for 180 calendar days from the 

date of notice that it was removed from 

the list and until it submits to EPA the 

information required by paragraph (g)(1) 

of this section; 

(iii) For any EPA Protocol gas 

production site which is notified by 

EPA that its cylinders are being audited 

and cannot provide to EPA upon 

demand proof of payment to NIST and 

a valid contract with NIST, the 

cylinders may either be kept by NIST or 

returned to the EPA Protocol gas 

production site free of any demurrage 

and at no cost to NIST, and that EPA 

Protocol gas production site shall not be 

eligible for relisting for 180 calendar 

days from the date of notice that it was 

removed from the list and until it 

submits to EPA the information required 

by paragraph (g)(1) of this section. 

(6) On and after May 27, 2011 for each 

unit subject to 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 on the date 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 was on the EPA list 

of participating sites on the date the 

reseller procured such gases. 

(7) An EPA Protocol gas cylinder 

certified by or ordered from any nonparticipating EPA Protocol gas 

production site no later than May 27, 

2011 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 on the 

same date as or after the date on which 

a particular cylinder has been certified 

or ordered, that gas cylinder 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. However, in no case shall a 

cylinder described in this paragraph 

(g)(7) be recertified by a nonparticipating EPA Protocol gas 

production site to extend its useful life 

and be used by a source subject to this 

part. 

(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: 

(i) Either cancel that purchaser’s 

invoice or credit that purchaser’s 

account for the purchase of those EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17310 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Not charge for demurrage for those 

EPA Protocol gas cylinders; 

(iii) Arrange for and pay for the return 

shipment of its cylinders from NIST; 

and 

(iv) Provide sufficient funding to 

NIST for: 

(A) The analysis of those EPA 

Protocol gas cylinders by NIST; 

(B) The production site’s pro rata 

share of draft and final NIST electronic 

audit reports as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(9)(ii) through (g)(9)(v) of this section 

on all cylinders in the current audit; and 

(C) The full cost of a draft redacted 

electronic audit report containing just 

that production site’s results and the 

information as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(9)(ii) through (g)(9)(v) of this section; 

(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 have NIST 

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 of NIST’s receipt, 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, 

as amended August 25, 1999, EPA–600/ 

R–97/121, (incorporated by reference, 

see § 75.6) 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 expanded 

uncertainty, as defined in § 72.2, 

(coverage factor, as defined in § 72.2, 

k=2) of plus or minus 1.0 percent 

(calculated combined standard 

uncertainty of plus or minus 0.5%), 

inclusive, or 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 ‘‘EPA Traceability 

Protocol for Assay and Certification of 

Gaseous Calibration Standards,’’ 

September 1997, as amended August 25, 

1999, EPA–600/R–97/121 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 75.6) 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 draft and final 

electronic audit reports on all cylinders 

in the current audit, and in a draft 

redacted electronic audit report 

containing just that production site’s 

information. The draft audit report on 

all cylinders in the current audit and 

each draft redacted version of the audit 

report shall be submitted electronically 

by NIST to pgvp@epa.gov, unless 

otherwise provided by the 

Administrator, within four weeks of 

completion of all cylinder analyses or as 

soon as possible thereafter. The draft 

and final audit report on all cylinders in 

the current audit shall only be sent to 

EPA. EPA will send the applicable draft 

redacted audit report to each 

participating production site for 

comment. To be considered in the final 

posted audit report, EPA must receive 

comments, and any cylinder re-analyses 

from participating EPA Protocol gas 

production sites within 60 days of the 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site’s receipt of the draft 

redacted audit report. All comments 

from production sites, including any 

cylinder re-analyses, on the draft 

redacted versions of the audit report 

shall be submitted electronically to 

pgvp@epa.gov, unless otherwise 

provided by the Administrator. The 

final audit report on all cylinders in the 

current audit shall be submitted 

electronically by NIST to pgvp@epa.gov, 

unless otherwise provided by the 

Administrator, within 90 days of the 

participating EPA Protocol gas 

production site’s receipt of the draft 

redacted audit report sent by EPA or as 

soon as possible thereafter. EPA will 

post the final results of the NIST 

analyses on EPA Web sites (see the 

CAMD Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

airmarkets/emissions/pgvp.html). Each 

audit report shall include: 

(A) 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; and 

(B) 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. 

(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) An EPA Protocol gas production 

site shall continue to be on the EPA list 

of sites participating in the PGVP and 

may continue to sell EPA Protocol gases 

to sources subject to part 75 if it is not 

notified by EPA that its cylinders are 

being audited under the PGVP if it 

provides the information described in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section in 

accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section. 

(11) The data validation procedures 

under §§ 2.1.4, 2.2.3, and 2.3.2 of 

appendix B to this part apply. 

■ 12. 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 

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: 

* * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17311 

■ 13. 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. 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 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. 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.* * * 

* * * * * 

■ 16. 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 Lookback period 

95 or more ............................................................... N ≤ 24 Average .................................................................. HB/HA. 

N > 24 For SO2, CO2, and H2O**, the greater of: 

Average .................................................................. HB/HA. 

90th percentile ........................................................ 720 hours.* 

For O2 and H2OX, the lesser of: HB/HA. 

10th percentile ........................................................ 720 hours.* 

90 or more, but below 95 ........................................ N ≤ 8 Average .................................................................. HB/HA. 

N > 8 For SO2, CO2, and H2O **, the greater of: 

Average .................................................................. HB/HA. 

95th percentile ........................................................ 720 hours.* 

For O2 and H2OX, the lesser of: 

Average .................................................................. HB/HA. 

5th Percentile ......................................................... 720 hours.* 

80 or more, but below 90 ........................................ N > 0 For SO2, CO2, and H2O **, 

Maximum value1 ..................................................... 720 hours.* 

For O2 and H2OX: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17312 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—MISSING DATA PROCEDURE FOR SO2 CEMS, CO2 CEMS, MOISTURE CEMS, AND DILUENT (CO2 OR O2) 

MONITORS FOR HEAT INPUT DETERMINATION—Continued 

Trigger conditions Calculation routines 

Monitor data availability (percent) 

Duration (N) of 

CEMS outage 

(hours) 2

Method Lookback period 

Minimum value1 ...................................................... 720 hours.* 

Below 80 .................................................................. N > 0 Maximum potential concentration3 or % (for SO2, 

CO2, and H2O**) or 

Minimum potential concentration or % (for O2 and 

H2OX).

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. 1Where a unit with add-on SO2 emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, as 

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. 

3Where a unit with add-on SO2 emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly during the missing data period, the 

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. 

** 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. 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] 

■ 18. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are 

removed and reserved. 

■ 19. 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 Criteria for a class of affected 

units. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A description of the class of 

affected units, including data describing 

all of the affected units that will 

comprise the class. 

■ 20. Section 75.53 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i)(E), 

(e)(1)(iv) introductory text, (e)(1)(x), 

(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. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Type(s) of emission controls for 

SO2, NOX, and particulates installed or 

to be installed, including specifications 

of whether such controls are precombustion, post-combustion, or 

integral to the combustion process; 

control equipment code, installation 

date, and optimization date; control 

equipment retirement date (if 

applicable); primary/secondary controls 

indicator; and an indicator for whether 

the controls are an original installation; 

* * * * * 

(iv) Identification and description of 

each monitoring system component 

(including each monitor and its 

identifiable components, such as 

analyzer and/or probe) in the CEMS 

(e.g., SO2 pollutant concentration 

monitor, flow monitor, moisture 

monitor; NOX pollutant concentration 

monitor, and diluent gas monitor), the 

continuous opacity monitoring system, 

or the excepted monitoring system (e.g., 

fuel flowmeter, data acquisition and 

handling system), including: 

* * * * * 

(x) For each parameter monitored: 

Scale, maximum potential concentration 

(and method of calculation), maximum 

expected concentration (if applicable) 

(and method of calculation), maximum 

potential flow rate (and method of 

calculation), maximum potential NOX

emission rate, span value, full-scale 

range, daily calibration units of 

measure, span effective date/hour, span 

inactivation date/hour, indication of 

whether dual spans are required, default 

high range value, flow rate span, and 

flow rate span value and full scale value 

(in scfh) for each unit or stack using 

SO2, NOX, CO2, O2, or flow component 

monitors. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) A representation of the exhaust 

configuration for the units in the 

monitoring plan. On and after April 27, 

2011, 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) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17313 

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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 

27, 2011, 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 

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 April 27, 

2011, 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 April 27, 

2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 

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 

after April 27, 2011, provide the 

activation date and deactivation date (if 

applicable) for the gas-fired unit 

qualification information in this 

paragraph (h)(5). 

* * * * * 

■ 21. 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; 

(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 Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method 

1 ........................ Certified primary emission/flow monitoring system. 

2 ........................ Certified backup emission/flow monitoring system. 

3 ........................ Approved alternative monitoring system. 

4 ........................ 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. 

5 ........................ For units with add-on SO2 and/or NOX emission controls: SO2 concentration or NOX emission rate estimate from Agency 

preapproved parametric monitoring method. 

6 ........................ 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. 

7 ........................ 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). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17314 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4A—CODES FOR METHOD OF EMISSIONS AND FLOW DETERMINATION—Continued 

Code Hourly emissions/flow measurement or estimation method 

8 ........................ 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). 

9 ........................ 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). 

10 ...................... 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). 

11 ...................... 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). 

12 ...................... 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). 

13 ...................... Maximum expected concentration of SO2, maximum expected concentration of NOX,, or maximum controlled NOX emission 

rate. (See § 75.34(a)(5)). 

14 ...................... 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). 

15 ...................... 1.25 times the maximum hourly controlled SO2 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)). 

16 ...................... 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. 

17 ...................... Like-kind replacement non-redundant backup analyzer. 

19 ...................... 200 percent of the MPC; default high range value. 

20 ...................... 200 percent of the full-scale range setting (full-scale exceedance of high range). 

21 ...................... Negative hourly CO2 concentration, SO2 concentration, NOX concentration, percent moisture, or NOX emission rate replaced 

with zero. 

22 ...................... Hourly average SO2 or NOX concentration, measured by a certified monitor at the control device inlet (units with add-on emission controls only). 

23 ...................... 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. 

24 ...................... 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. 

25 ...................... Maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER). (Use only when a NOX concentration full-scale exceedance occurs and the diluent monitor is unavailable.) 

26 ...................... 1.0 mmBtu/hr substituted for Heat Input Rate for an operating hour in which the calculated Heat Input Rate is zero or negative. 

40 ...................... Fuel specific default value (or prorated default value) used for the hour. 

53 ...................... 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. 

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. 

55 ...................... 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. 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. 

* * * * * 

(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 April 27, 2011, 

operating condition codes for the 

following: 

(A) Unit operated on emergency fuel; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17315 

(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; 

(G) Designated operational and 

control equipment parameters within 

normal limits; and 

(H) Operation below lowest tested 

heat input rate point on the curve. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. 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 heading 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 

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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 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 April 27, 2011, 

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 September 26, 2011, 

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: 

(1) Gas level code; 

(2) A code for the type of EPA 

Protocol gas used; 

(3) The PGVP vendor ID issued by 

EPA for the EPA Protocol gas 

production site that supplied the EPA 

Protocol gas cylinder; 

(4) The expiration date for the EPA 

Protocol gas cylinder; and 

(5) The cylinder number. 

(B) On and after September 26, 2011, 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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) through (5) of this section. 

(xi) On and after March 27, 2012, 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 each on-site 

Qualified Individual, as defined in 

§ 72.2 of this chapter; 

(C) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date(s) that each 

on-site Qualified Individual took and 

passed the relevant qualification 

exam(s) required by ASTM D7036–04 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6); 

and 

(D) The name and e-mail address of 

each qualification exam provider. 

* * * * * 

(12) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(E) Type of extension; 

(F) Quarter and year; and 

(G) On and after April 27, 2011, fuel 

code for Ozone Season Only reporters 

under § 75.74(c). 

* * * * * 

(14) [Reserved] 

(15) On and after March 27, 2012, for 

all RATAs 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 each on-site 

Qualified Individual, as defined in 

§ 72.2 of this chapter; 

(iii) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date(s) that each 

on-site Qualified Individual took and 

passed the relevant qualification 

exam(s) required by ASTM D7036–04 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6); 

and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of 

each qualification exam provider. 

(b) * * * 

(6) On and after March 27, 2012, 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 each on-site 

Qualified Individual, as defined in 

§ 72.2 of this chapter; 

(iii) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date(s) that each 

on-site Qualified Individual took and 

passed the relevant qualification 

exam(s) required by ASTM D7036–04 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6); 

and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of 

each 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 April 27, 2011, the 

number of tests for group; and 

(xiii) On and after April 27, 2011, the 

number of units in group. 

(4) On and after March 27, 2012, for 

all NOX emission testing performed 

pursuant to § 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 each on-site 

Qualified Individual, as defined in 

§ 72.2 of this chapter; 

(iii) For the reference method(s) that 

were performed, the date(s) that each 

on-site Qualified Individual took and 

passed the relevant qualification 

exam(s) required by ASTM D7036–04 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6); 

and 

(iv) The name and e-mail address of 

each qualification exam provider. 

§ 75.60 [Amended] 

■ 24. Section 75.60 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b)(8). 

■ 25. 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: 

§ 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 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 75.62 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17317 

§ 75.62 Monitoring plan submittals. 

* * * * * 

(d) On and after April 27, 2011, 

consistent with § 72.21 of this chapter, 

a hardcopy cover letter signed by the 

Designated Representative (DR) 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 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. 

■ 27. 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) 

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 

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 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. 

■ 28. 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); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as 

paragraph (a)(12); and 

■ f. Revising paragraph (g), to read as 

follows: 

§ 75.64 Quarterly reports. 

(a) * * * 

(5) The daily calibration error test and 

daily interference check information 

required in § 75.59(a)(1) and (a)(2) must 

always be included in the electronic 

quarterly emissions report. All other 

certification, quality assurance, and 

quality control information in § 75.59 

that is not excluded from electronic 

reporting under paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(7) 

of this section shall be submitted 

separately, either prior to or concurrent 

with the submittal of the relevant 

electronic quarterly emissions report. 

However, reporting of the information 

in § 75.59(a)(9)(x) is not required until 

September 26, 2011, and reporting of 

the information in § 75.59(a)(15), (b)(6), 

and (d)(4) is not required until March 

27, 2012. 

* * * * * 

(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). 

* * * * * 

(g) At his or her discretion, the DR 

may include important explanatory text 

or comments with an electronic 

quarterly report submittal, so long as the 

information is provided in a format that 

is compatible with the other data 

required to be reported under this 

section. 

Subpart I—[Removed] 

■ 29. Subpart I, consisting of §§ 75.80 

through 75.84, is removed. 

■ 30. Appendix A to part 75 is amended 

by: 

■ 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. Removing the introductory text of 

section 4 and adding paragraphs (a), (b), 

and (c) in its place; 

■ f. Revising paragraph (6) of section 4; 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

Section 5.1.4; 

■ h. Removing paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

Section 5.1.4; 

■ i. Revising the first sentence in 

Section 5.1.5; 

■ j. Removing section 5.1.9; 

■ k. Revising section 6.1.2; 

■ l. Revising the first sentence of section 

6.2 introductory text; 

■ m. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h) of 

section 6.2; 

■ n. Revising the introductory text of 

section 6.3.1; 

■ o. Revising the introductory text of 

sections 6.4 and 6.5; 

■ p. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) 

of section 6.5; 

■ q. Revising section 6.5.1; 

■ r. Removing paragraph (c) of section 

6.5.6; 

■ s. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

section 6.5.7; 

■ t. Revising section 6.5.10; 

■ u. Revising the heading and 

introductory text of section 7.3; 

■ v. Revising section 7.3.1; 

■ w. Revising the introductory text of 

section 7.6; 

■ x. Revising section 7.6.1; and 

■ y. Revising paragraphs (b) and (f) of 

section 7.6.5, to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 75—Specifications 

and Procedures 

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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

(a) An 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,’’ September 1997, as 

amended on August 25, 1999, EPA–600/R– 

97/121 (incorporated by reference, see § 75.6) 

or such revised procedure as approved by the 

Administrator. 

(b) EPA Protocol gas concentrations must 

be certified by an EPA Protocol gas 

production site to have an analytical 

uncertainty (95-percent confidence interval) 

to be not more than plus or minus 2.0 percent 

(inclusive) of the certified concentration (tag 

value) of the gas mixture. The uncertainty 

must be calculated using the statistical 

procedures (or equivalent statistical 

techniques) that are listed in Section 2.1.8 of 

the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards,’’ September 1997, as amended on 

August 25, 1999, EPA–600/R–97/121 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6). 

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 have an 

analytical uncertainty (95-percent confidence 

interval) calculated using the statistical 

procedures (or equivalent statistical 

techniques) that are listed in Section 2.1.8 of 

the ‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 

Certification of Gaseous Calibration 

Standards,’’ September 1997, as amended on 

August 25, 1999, EPA–600/R–97/121 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6) to be 

not more than 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 March 27, 2012, all relative 

accuracy test audits (RATAs) of CEMS under 

this part, and stack testing under § 75.19 and 

Appendix E to this part shall be conducted 

by an Air Emission Testing Body (AETB) 

which has provided to the owner or operator 

of a unit subject to this part the 

documentation required in paragraph (b) of 

this section, demonstrating its conformance 

to ASTM D7036–04 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 75.6). 

(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 

(incorporated by reference, see § 75.6). The 

AETB’s certification may be limited in scope 

to the tests identified under paragraph (a). 

The AETB’s certification need not extend to 

other work it may perform. 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 

§§ 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, 

the owner or operator may find it useful to 

request that AETBs complying with 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section provide a 

copy of the following: 

(1) The AETB’s quality manual. For the 

purpose of application of 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B, AETB’s concerned about the 

potential for public access to confidential 

business information (CBI) may identify any 

information subject to such a claim in the 

copy provided; 

(2) The results of any internal audits 

performed by the AETB and any external 

audits of the AETB during the 12 month 

period through the previous calendar quarter; 

(3) Performance data (as defined in ASTM 

D7036–04 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 75.6)) collected by the AETB, including 

corrective actions implemented, during the 

12 month period through the previous 

calendar quarter; and 

(4) Training records for all on-site technical 

personnel, including any Qualified 

Individuals, for the 12 month period through 

the previous calendar quarter. 

(e) All relative accuracy testing 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, and stack testing 

under § 75.19 and Appendix E to this part 

shall be overseen and supervised 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. If the 

source owner or operator, or a State, local, or 

EPA observer, discovers while the test team 

is still on site, that at least one QI did not 

oversee and supervise the entire test (as 

qualified by this paragraph (e)), only those 

portions of the test that were overseen and 

supervised by at least one QI as described 

above may be used under this part. However, 

allowance is made for normal activities of a 

QI who is overseeing and supervising a test, 

e.g., bathroom breaks, meal breaks, and 

emergencies that may arise during a test. 

(f) Except as provided in paragraph (e), no 

RATA 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, and 

no stack test under § 75.19 or Appendix E to 

this part (or portion of such a RATA or stack 

test) conducted by an AETB (as defined in 

§ 72.2) shall be invalidated under this part as 

a result of the failure of the AETB to conform 

to ASTM D7036–04 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 75.6). Validation of such tests 

is determined based on the other part 75 

testing requirements. EPA recommends that 

proper observation of tests and review of test 

results continue, regardless of whether an 

AETB fully conforms to ASTM D7036–04. 

(g) An owner or operator who has 

requested information from an AETB under 

paragraph (d) of this part who believes that 

the information provided by the AETB was 

either incomplete or inaccurate may request 

the Administrator’s assistance in remedying 

the alleged deficiencies. Upon such a request, 

if the Administrator concurs that the 

information submitted to a source subject to 

part 75 by an AETB under this section is 

either incomplete or inaccurate, the 

Administrator will provide the AETB a 

description of the deficiencies to be 

remedied. The Administrator’s determination 

of completeness and accuracy of information 

will be solely based on the provisions of 

ASTM D7036–04 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 75.6) and this part. The Administrator 

may post the name of the offending AETB on 

Agency Web sites (including the CAMD Web 

site http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

emissions/aetb.html) if within 30 days of the 

Administrator having provided the AETB a 

description of the deficiencies to be 

remedied, the AETB does not satisfactorily 

respond to the source and notify the 

Administrator of the response by submitting 

the notification to aetb@epa.gov, unless 

otherwise provided by the Administrator. 

The AETB need not submit the information 

it provides to the owner or operator to the 

Administrator, unless specifically requested 

by the Administrator. If after the AETB’s 

name is posted, the Administrator, in 

consultation with the source, determines that 

the AETB’s response is sufficient, the AETB’s 

name will be removed from the EPA Web 

sites. 

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. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

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); 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17319 

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 7- 

day 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 

concentrations. A calibration gas blend may 

be used as both a zero-level gas and an 

upscale (mid- or high-level) gas, where 

appropriate. 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 7- 

day 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 

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: 

* * * * * 

(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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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 

allowed in section 6.5.10 of this appendix 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 allowed in 

section 6.5.10 of this appendix 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 applicable reference method 

allowed in section 6.5.10 of this appendix). 

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 applicable reference method allowed in 

section 6.5.10 of this appendix. If such a 

coefficient, K-factor or algorithm is 

developed, it shall be applied to 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 applicable 

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, pursuant to 

§ 75.21(g)(6). An EPA Protocol gas cylinder 

certified by or ordered from a nonparticipating production site no later than 

May 27, 2011 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; 

however, in no case shall the cylinder be 

recertified by a non-participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site to extend its 

useful life and be used by a source subject 

to this part. In the event that an EPA Protocol 

gas production site is removed from the list 

of PGVP participants on the same date as or 

after the date on which a particular cylinder 

is certified or ordered, that gas cylinder 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; 

however, in no case shall the cylinder be 

recertified by a non-participating EPA 

Protocol gas production site to extend its 

useful life and be used by a source subject 

to this part. 

* * * * * 

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

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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17321 

7.3.1 Arithmetic Mean 

Calculate the arithmetic mean of the 

differences of a data set as follows: 

* * * * * 

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 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 31. 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 

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 

* * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3ER28MR11.000</GPH>
17322 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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)(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 

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 that was 

not from an EPA Protocol gas production site 

participating in the PGVP on the date the gas 

was procured either by the tester or by a 

reseller that sold to the tester the unaltered 

EPA Protocol gas, except as provided in 

§ 75.21(g)(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. 

* * * * * 

2.3.1.1 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 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 Data Validation 

* * * * * 

(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 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

* * * * * 

(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)(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. 

* * * * * 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17323 

FIGURE 1 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75—QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST REQUIREMENTS

Test 

Basic QA test frequency requirements 

Daily * Quarterly * Semiannual 

or annual * 

Calibration Error Test (2 pt.) .................................................................................................................... X .................... ....................

Interference Check (flow) ........................................................................................................................ X .................... ....................

Flow-to-Load Ratio .................................................................................................................................. .................... X ....................

Leak Check (DP flow monitors) ............................................................................................................... .................... X ....................

Linearity Check * (3 pt.) ............................................................................................................................ .................... X ....................

RATA (SO2, NOX, CO2, O2, H2O)1 ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... X 

RATA (flow) 1 2 ......................................................................................................................................... .................... .................... 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. 2For 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

RATA Semiannual W Annual W

SO2 or NOXY ............................... 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 15.0 ppmX ........................... RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 12.0 ppmX. 

NOX-diluent ................................. 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 0.020 lb/mmBtuX ................. RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 0. 015 lb/mmBtuX. 

Flow ............................................. 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 2.0 fpsX ............................... RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 1.5 fpsX. 

CO2 or O2 .................................... 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 1.0% CO2/O2

X ..................... RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 0.7% CO2/O2X. 

Moisture ....................................... 7.5% < RA ≤ 10.0% or ± 1.5% H2OX .......................... RA ≤ 7.5% or ± 1.0% H2OX. 

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, CO2, and O2 monitors, low emitters of 

SO2, NOX, and low flow, only. Y A NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine NOX mass emissions under § 75.71. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3
17324 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

■ 32. Appendix D to part 75 is amended 

by revising Section 2.1.5.1 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix D to Part 75—Optional SO2

Emissions Data Protocol for Gas-Fired 

and Oil-Fired Peaking Units 

* * * * * 

2.1.5.1 Use the procedures in the 

following standards to verify flowmeter 

accuracy or design, as appropriate to the type 

of flowmeter: ASME MFC–3M–2004, 

Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes Using 

Orifice, Nozzle, and Venturi; ASME MFC– 

4M–1986 (Reaffirmed 1997), Measurement of 

Gas Flow by Turbine Meters; American Gas 

Association Report No. 3, Orifice Metering of 

Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon 

Fluids Part 1: General Equations and 

Uncertainty Guidelines (October 1990 

Edition), Part 2: Specification and 

Installation Requirements (February 1991 

Edition), and Part 3: Natural Gas 

Applications (August 1992 edition) 

(excluding the modified flow-calculation 

method in part 3); Section 8, Calibration from 

American Gas Association Transmission 

Measurement Committee Report No. 7: 

Measurement of Gas by Turbine Meters 

(Second Revision, April 1996); ASME–MFC– 

5M–1985 (Reaffirmed 1994), Measurement of 

Liquid Flow in Closed Conduits Using 

Transit-Time Ultrasonic Flowmeters; ASME 

MFC–6M–1998, Measurement of Fluid Flow 

in Pipes Using Vortex Flowmeters; ASME 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3ER28MR11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 17325 

MFC–7M–1987 (Reaffirmed 1992), 

Measurement of Gas Flow by Means of 

Critical Flow Venturi Nozzles; ISO 8316: 

1987(E) Measurement of Liquid Flow in 

Closed Conduits—Method by Collection of 

the Liquid in a Volumetric Tank; 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, July 

1988, Reaffirmed October 1993, and Section 

5—Master-Meter Provers, Second Edition, 

May 2000; American Petroleum Institute 

(API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement 

Standards, Chapter 22—Testing Protocol, 

Section 2—Differential Pressure Flow 

Measurement Devices, First Edition, August 

2005; or ASME MFC–9M–1988 (Reaffirmed 

2001), Measurement of Liquid Flow in 

Closed Conduits by Weighing Method, for all 

other flowmeter types (all incorporated by 

reference under § 75.6 of this part). The 

Administrator may also approve other 

procedures that use equipment traceable to 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology standards. Document such 

procedures, the equipment used, and the 

accuracy of the procedures in the monitoring 

plan for the unit, and submit a petition 

signed by the designated representative 

under § 75.66(c). If the flowmeter accuracy 

exceeds 2.0 percent of the upper range value, 

the flowmeter does not qualify for use under 

this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 33. In Appendix E to Part 75, Section 

2.1 is amended by revising the last 

sentence to read as follows: 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended 

by removing and reserving section 9 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix F to Part 75—Conversion 

Procedures 

* * * * * 

9. [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Appendix K to part 75 is removed. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6216 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES3