[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17288-17325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6216]



[[Page 17287]]

Vol. 76

Monday,

No. 59

March 28, 2011

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 72 and 75



Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements 
for Air Emission Testing; Final Rule

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

[[Page 17288]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 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, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#592a3a3138323c373b383a317733363137193c2938773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1764747f767c72797576747f397d787f795772677639707861">[email protected]</span></a>. 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Examples of potentially regulated
                Category                         NAICS code                           industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................  221112 and others.........  Electric service providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by 
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  72.6, 72.7, and 72.8 of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 <plus-minus> 2% performance specification. A 
2003 EPA audit (see Document ID<greek-i>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 <plus-minus> 2% standard in Part 75. A 2009 EPA 
Inspector General (IG) audit (see Document ID<greek-i> 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 Sec.  75.21(g) 
have been finalized as proposed. Significant

[[Page 17290]]

changes to the PGVP provisions in Sec.  75.21(g) are discussed below.
2. Cost
Background
    EPA proposed several rule changes that added a small number of 
PGVP-related 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, SO<INF>2</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF> 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<greek-i> 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<greek-i> 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<greek-i> 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<greek-i> 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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, Sec.  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 Sec.  75.64(a)(5) of the final rule 
require

[[Page 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 Sec.  75.59(a)(9)(x)(A) and to revise Sec.  
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 Sec.  
75.59(a)(9)(x)(B) and Sec.  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, Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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<greek-i>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

[[Page 17292]]

complying with the PGVP (see Document ID<greek-i>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 Sec.  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 single-blend CO<INF>2,</INF> and 
``NSCC'' for an EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of four 
certified components, NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, 
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 CO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> can be certified as NO, NO<INF>2</INF> or NO and 
NO<INF>2,</INF> EPA has added three codes to the list to represent the 
quad blend NO<INF>X</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF> and CO and a 
balance gas: SNCC representing SO<INF>2</INF>, NO, CO and 
CO<INF>2</INF> and a balance gas, SN2CC representing SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>2</INF>, CO and CO<INF>2</INF> and a balance gas, and SNXCC 
representing SO<INF>2</INF>, NO, NO<INF>2</INF>, CO and CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>2</INF> combination may be possible. However, if an 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO, ``SN2'' for 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>2,</INF> and ``SNX'' for SO<INF>2</INF>, NO, 
and NO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-
minus>2.0% uncertainty for the NIST audit results defeats the purpose 
of the PGVP. The Part 75 accuracy standard for EPA Protocol gases is 
<plus-minus>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 Sec.  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

[[Page 17294]]

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 re-analyses 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 re-certified 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 
Sec.  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 cost-
containment 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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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<greek-i>s EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-
0015, -0016, -0062, and -0063, and Document ID<greek-i> 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<greek-i> 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.59 and Sec.  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

[[Page 17296]]

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 Sec.  75.59(a)(9)(xi), Sec.  75.59(a)(15), 
Sec.  75.59(b)(6), and Sec.  75.59(d)(4) to require that AETB-related 
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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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: Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.19 or Appendix E to this 
part (or portion of such a RATA or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as 
defined in Sec.  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

[[Page 17298]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  72.2 and other units with previously certified monitoring 
systems. The commenter suggested that the addition of

[[Page 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 Sec.  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, 
Sec.  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 Sec.  75.4(e)(2) to provide a similar 
approach for monitoring compliance deadlines and missing data 
substitution for new stack construction and add-on SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  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 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  75.4 
(e)(1).
    EPA also revised Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emission levels is 
consistently achieved. During this period of time (known as the 
``shakedown'' period), a significant percentage of the data from the 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
short-term events such as startup and shutdown, and these data are 
accepted as quality-assured.
    Revised Sec.  75.4(e)(2)(ii) allows conditional data validation 
procedures in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  75.20(b)(3)(iv).
    A new paragraph, (e)(4), has also been added to Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 quality-

[[Page 17300]]

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 Sec.  75.4(e)(2), to the extent additional testing 
requirements are triggered by the installation of the new add-on 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
Sec.  75.4(e).
2. Reference Method 7E
Background
    EPA proposed to add Sec.  75.22(a)(5)(v) to disallow multiple 
sampling runs to be conducted before performing the post-run 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 post-
run 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

[[Page 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-by-run 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 SO<INF>2</INF>) and to Method 3A (the instrumental method 
for O<INF>2</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF>), 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 Sec.  75.53(e)(1)(iv), which refers to reporting 
of information on Hg monitors and sorbent trap monitoring systems, and 
Sec.  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 re-promulgate 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 Sec.  75.53(e) which EPA apparently 
overlooked. In addition, the Agency has identified a third reference in 
Sec.  75.53(e) and one other reference in Sec.  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 Sec.  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/reporting-instructions.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

[[Page 17302]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Hours per      Number of
 Information collection activity     Mean hourly rate    activity/     respondents     Respondent    Total labor
                                                            year      (facilities)     hours/year     cost/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARP Respondents One Time Rule      $80.71/Hr..........            1           1,249           1,249     $100,807
 Review.

[[Page 17303]]

 
ARP Respondents Compliance with    $80.71/Hr..........          0.5           1,249           624.5       50,444
 Modified Reporting Requirements.
CAIR Respondents One Time Rule     $80.71/Hr..........            1             253             253       20,420
 Review.
CAIR Respondents Compliance with   $80.71/Hr..........          0.5             253           126.5       10,210
 Modified Reporting Requirements.
    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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Previously       Increased       Number of       Increased
         Information collection activity            established   cont./O&M cost    respondents     total cost/
                                                  cont./O&M cost  per respondent      (units)          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 Upgrade\1\........................  ..............             500             631         315,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Non ARP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only
 States:
    --Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS                 31,200             312             102          31,824
     (units)....................................
    --Gas-Oil: NOX CEMS and App D (units).......          17,400             174             493          85,782
    --Gas-Oil Peaking Units: App D, App E, or              1,800              18             150           2,700
     LME methods (units)........................
One Time DAHS Upgrade \1\.......................  ..............             500             119          59,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Non ARP Sources in O3 Only States:
    --Solid Fuel: SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS                 20,800             208               4             832
     (units)....................................
    --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              1,800              18               0               0
     LME methods (units)........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              PGVP Increased Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6       ..............              12           4,513          54,156
 cylinders per year)............................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............       1,278,608
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To 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

[[Page 17304]]

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

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651, et seq.

0
2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)'', 
``EPA Protocol Gas'', ``EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program'', and 
``Qualified individual'';
0
b. Revising the introductory text of the definition of ``Continuous 
emission monitoring system or CEMS'';
0
c. Removing paragraph (7) of the definition of ``Continuous emission 
monitoring system or CEMS'';
0
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
0
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:


Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, or 
CO<INF>2</INF> 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 Sec.  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 = ku<INF>c.</INF> Typically, k is in the range 2 to 3. 
When the normal distribution applies and u<INF>c</INF> is a reliable 
estimate of the standard deviation of y, U = 2 u<INF>c</INF> (i.e., k = 
2) defines an interval having a level of confidence of approximately 
95%, and U = 3 u<INF>c</INF> (i.e., k = 3) defines

[[Page 17306]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 u<INF>c</INF> 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 u<INF>c</INF>(y) by a coverage factor, 
suggested symbol k. Thus U = ku<INF>c</INF>(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 <plus-
minus<ls-thn-eq> 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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 72.13 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(5); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b), to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  72.2.

PART 75--CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING

0
4. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  75.2  [Amended]

0
5. Section 75.2 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
0
6. Section 75.4 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (e), to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  75.20, for 
an affected unit which, on the applicable compliance date, is either in 
long-term cold storage (as defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  75.61(a)(3) or Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, 
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 Sec.  
75.61(a)(3) or Sec.  75.61(a)(7), as applicable. The owner or operator 
shall determine and report SO<INF>2</INF> concentration, NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission rate, CO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> (as 
defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this part), the maximum 
potential NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate, as defined in Sec.  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 
CO<INF>2</INF> concentration, as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of appendix 
A to this part; or
* * * * *
    (e) In accordance with Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>,

[[Page 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 add-on NO<INF>X</INF> emission controls, the date that 
reagent is first injected into the flue gas desulfurization system or 
the add-on NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration, NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate, CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
Sec. Sec.  75.31 through 75.37;
    (ii) The conditional data validation procedures of Sec.  
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 Sec.  
75.20(b)(3)(iv);
    (iii) Reference methods under Sec.  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., SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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., 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  75.20(b)(3)(vii).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 75.6 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(38), (a)(43), and (a)(44);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and (f)(3); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (g), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.6  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) The following materials are available for purchase from the 
following address: American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM)

[[Page 17308]]

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 Sec.  75.21, Sec.  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 Sec.  75.21, and appendix A to this part.

0
8. Section 75.10 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(3), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.10  General operating requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator shall reduce all SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentrations, volumetric flow, SO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions, 
CO<INF>2</INF> concentration, O<INF>2</INF> concentration, 
CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions (if applicable), NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentration, and NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate data collected by the 
monitors to hourly averages. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Failure of an SO<INF>2</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, or O<INF>2</INF> 
emissions concentration monitor, NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitor, 
flow monitor, moisture monitor, or NO<INF>X</INF>-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. * * *
* * * * *


Sec.  75.15  [Removed and reserved]

0
9. Section 75.15 is removed and reserved.

0
10. Section 75.20 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i);
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii);
0
e. Removing paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(9); and
0
g. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(ix), to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  75.21: the maximum potential concentration of 
SO<INF>2</INF>, as defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this 
part, to report SO<INF>2</INF> concentration; the maximum potential 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate, as defined in Sec.  72.2 of this chapter, 
to report NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in lb/mmBtu; the maximum potential 
concentration of NO<INF>X</INF>, as defined in section 2.1.2.1 of 
appendix A to this part, to report NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in ppm 
(when a NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system is used to 
determine NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, as defined under Sec.  
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 CO<INF>2</INF>, as defined in 
section 2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part, to report CO<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or CO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration, stack gas volumetric flow rate, NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
rate, NO<INF>X</INF> concentration, percent moisture, or opacity, or to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitor, each 
NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system used to determine 
NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, as defined under Sec.  75.71(a)(2), and 
each NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent continuous emission monitoring system:
* * * * *
    (ii) A linearity check, where, for the NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent 
continuous emission monitoring system, the test is performed separately 
on the NO<INF>X</INF> pollutant concentration monitor and the diluent 
gas monitor;
    (iii) A relative accuracy test audit. For the NO<INF>X</INF>-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, the RATA shall be done 
on a system basis, in units of lb/mmBtu. For the NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentration monitoring system, the RATA shall be done on a ppm basis;
* * * * *
    (9) [Reserved]
* * * * *


0
11. Section 75.21 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g), to read as follows:


Sec.  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),

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.19 and section 2.1 of appendix E 
to this part shall be performed by an ``Air Emission Testing Body'', as 
defined in Sec.  72.2 of this chapter. Conformance to the requirements 
of ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
non-participating 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 non-participating 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;

[[Page 17310]]

    (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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  72.2, (coverage factor, as defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6b6a1b0b686a3b6a7e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="69190e1f19290c1908470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2a2b5a4a292b7a2b3fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa8a9d8c8aba9f8a9bd49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>, unless otherwise provided by the Administrator. The 
final audit report on all cylinders in the current audit shall be 
submitted electronically by NIST to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6010071610200510014e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb8b9c8d8bbb9e8b9ad59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentrations in the same cylinder, if analyzed by NIST for the PGVP, 
such cylinders must be analyzed by NIST for both the NO and 
NO<INF>X</INF> components (where total NO<INF>X</INF> is determined by 
NO plus NO<INF>2</INF>) 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 Sec. Sec.  2.1.4, 2.2.3, 
and 2.3.2 of appendix B to this part apply.

0
12. Section 75.22 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v)
0
d. Removing paragraph (a)(7);
0
e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
0
f. Removing paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(8), to read as follows:


Sec.  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; 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission tests of low mass emission units under Sec.  
75.19(c)(1)(iv); NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
* * * * *

[[Page 17311]]


0
13. Section 75.24 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.24  Out-of-control periods and adjustment for system bias.

* * * * *
    (d) When the bias test indicates that an SO<INF>2</INF> monitor, a 
flow monitor, a NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent continuous emission monitoring 
system, or a NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system used to 
determine NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, as defined in Sec.  
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.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 75.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  75.31  Initial missing data procedures.

    (a) During the first 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours 
following initial certification of the required SO<INF>2</INF>, 
CO<INF>2</INF>, O<INF>2</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF>-
diluent, NO<INF>X</INF> 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) SO<INF>2,</INF> CO<INF>2</INF>, or O<INF>2</INF> concentration 
data, and moisture data. For each hour of missing SO<INF>2</INF> or 
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration data (including CO<INF>2</INF> 
data converted from O<INF>2</INF> data using the procedures in appendix 
F of this part), or missing O<INF>2</INF> or CO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, or O<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
CO<INF>2</INF>, or O<INF>2</INF> concentration data or moisture data 
exist, the owner or operator shall substitute, as applicable, for each 
hour of missing data, the maximum potential SO<INF>2</INF> 
concentration or the maximum potential CO<INF>2</INF> concentration or 
the minimum potential O<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate, 
substitute the maximum potential moisture percentage, as specified in 
section 2.1.6 of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 75.32 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) introductory text, to read as follows:


Sec.  75.32  Determination of monitor data availability for standard 
missing data procedures.

    (a) Following initial certification of the required SO<INF>2</INF>, 
CO<INF>2</INF>, O<INF>2</INF>, 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.* * *
* * * * *

0
16. Section 75.33 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. Revising Table 1 and the footnotes below Table 1, to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.33  Standard missing data procedures for SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 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       Duration (N) of CEMS
            (percent)                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 H2O\X\, the   HB/HA.
                                                             lesser of:
                                                            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 H2O\X\, the
                                                             lesser of:
                                                            Average................  HB/HA.
                                                            5th Percentile.........  720 hours.*
80 or more, but below 90........  N > 0                     For SO2, CO2, and H2O
                                                             **,
                                                            Maximum value\1\.......  720 hours.*
                                                            For O2 and H2O\X\:

[[Page 17312]]

 
                                                            Minimum value\1\.......  720 hours.*
Below 80........................  N > 0                     Maximum potential
                                                             concentration\3\ or %
                                                             (for SO2, CO2, and
                                                             H2O**) or
                                                            Minimum potential        None.
                                                             concentration or %
                                                             (for O2 and H2O\X\).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HB/HA = hour before and hour after the CEMS outage.
* Quality-assured, monitor operating hours, during unit operation. May be either fuel-specific or non-fuel-
  specific. For units that report data only for the ozone season, include only quality assured monitor operating
  hours within the ozone season in the lookback period. Use data from no earlier than 3 years prior to the
  missing data period.
\1\ Where a unit with add-on SO2 emission controls can demonstrate that the controls are operating properly
  during the missing data period, as provided in Sec.   75.34, the unit may use the maximum controlled
  concentration from the previous 720 quality-assured monitor operating hours.
\2\ During unit operating hours.
\3\ Where a unit with add-on 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 Sec.   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.

* * * * *

0
17. Section 75.34 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii); and
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.34  Units with add-on emission controls.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) For the purposes of the missing data lookback periods 
described under Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  75.31(c)(3) and 75.72(c)(3), 
the owner or operator shall keep records of information as described in 
Sec.  75.58(b)(3) to verify the proper operation of all add-on 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emission controls, during all periods 
of SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emission missing data. * * *


Sec. Sec.  75.38-75.39  [Removed and reserved]

0
18. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are removed and reserved.

0
19. Section 75.47 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (c), to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
20. Section 75.53 is amended by:
0
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);
0
b. Adding paragraph (g)(1)(vi)(J); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(5), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.53  Monitoring plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Type(s) of emission controls for SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and particulates installed or to be installed, 
including specifications of whether such controls are pre-combustion, 
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., SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant 
concentration monitor, flow monitor, moisture monitor; NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, O<INF>2</INF>, 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)

[[Page 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 cross-sectional area (ft\2\) 
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 
cross-section(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 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 Sec.  75.19, the 
applicable SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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).
* * * * *

0
21. Section 75.57 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
0
d. Revising Table 4a; and
0
e. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.57  General recordkeeping provisions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (5) The current monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  75.53, 
beginning with the initial submission required by Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hourly emissions/flow measurement or
             Code                          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[dash]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).

[[Page 17314]]

 
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 Sec.   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 Sec.   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
                                Sec.   75.34(a)(5)).
16...........................  SO2 concentration value of 2.0 ppm during
                                hours when only ``very low sulfur
                                fuel``, as defined in Sec.   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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
22. Section 75.58 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(4)(ii); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.58  General recordkeeping provisions for specific situations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Except as otherwise provided in Sec.  75.34(d), for units with 
add-on SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emission controls following the 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  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 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 add-on emission controls are not operating properly.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) For boilers, hourly average boiler O<INF>2</INF> reading 
(percent, rounded to the nearest tenth) (flag if value exceeds by more 
than 2 percentage points the O<INF>2</INF> level recorded at the same 
heat input during the previous NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate test); and
    (iii) On and after April 27, 2011, operating condition codes for 
the following:
    (A) Unit operated on emergency fuel;

[[Page 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.
* * * * *

0
23. Section 75.59 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(5) introductory 
text, and (a)(5)(ii) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(L);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(F) and (G);
0
f. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(H);
0
g. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text;
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(7)(vii);
0
i. Removing the heading of reserved paragraph (a)(7)(viii);
0
j. Removing paragraph (a)(7)(x);
0
k. Revising paragraph (a)(9) introductory text;
0
l. Revising paragraph (a)(9)(vi);
0
m. Adding paragraphs (a)(9)(x) and (xi);
0
n. Revising paragraphs (a)(12)(iv)(E) and (F);
0
o. Adding paragraph (a)(12)(iv)(G);
0
p. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(14);
0
q. Adding paragraph (a)(15);
0
r. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
s. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
t. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(x) and (xi);
0
u. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(xii) and (xiii);
0
v. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
0
w. Removing paragraph (e); and
0
x. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.59  Certification, quality assurance, and quality control 
record provisions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) For each SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> pollutant 
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
concentration monitor (including O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to 
determine CO<INF>2</INF> emissions), or diluent gas monitor (including 
wet- and dry-basis O<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> pollutant 
concentration monitor, CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration monitor 
(including O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to determine CO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions), or diluent gas monitor (including wet- and dry-basis 
O<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitor, flow 
monitor, each CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration monitor (including 
any O<INF>2</INF> concentration monitor used to determine 
CO<INF>2</INF> mass emissions or heat input), each NO<INF>X</INF>-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, each NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentration monitoring system, each diluent gas (O<INF>2</INF> or 
CO<INF>2</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> concentration monitor, flow monitor, 
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration monitor, NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent 
continuous emission monitoring system, diluent gas (O<INF>2</INF> or 
CO<INF>2</INF>) monitor used to determine heat input, NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, or CO<INF>2</INF> 
pollutant concentration monitor, each component of a NO<INF>X</INF>-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, and each CO<INF>2</INF> 
or O<INF>2</INF> 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 Sec.  75.60(b)(6) 
or Sec.  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 O<INF>2</INF>, 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

[[Page 17316]]

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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission testing performed pursuant to section 2.1 of appendix E to 
this part, or Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.74(c).
* * * * *
    (14) [Reserved]
    (15) On and after March 27, 2012, for all RATAs performed pursuant 
to Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  75.6); and
    (iv) The name and e-mail address of each qualification exam 
provider.
    (c) Except as otherwise provided in Sec.  75.58(b)(3)(i), for units 
with add-on SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> emission controls 
following the provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
testing performed pursuant to Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  75.6); and
    (iv) The name and e-mail address of each qualification exam 
provider.


Sec.  75.60  [Amended]

0
24. Section 75.60 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(8).

0
25. Section 75.61 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) introductory text; 
and
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(8), to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
75.19(c)(1)(iv)(A) to establish fuel-and-unit-specific NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.4(b) 
or Sec.  75.4(c), or as specified in a State or Federal SO<INF>2</INF> 
or NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
* * * * *

0
26. Section 75.62 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 17317]]

Sec.  75.62  Monitoring plan submittals.

* * * * *
    (d) On and after April 27, 2011, consistent with Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

0
27. Section 75.63 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  75.63  Initial certification or recertification application.

* * * * *
    (d) Consistent with Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.
0
28. Section 75.64 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xi);
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xii)(D);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xiii);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as paragraph (a)(12); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (g), to read as follows:


Sec.  75.64  Quarterly reports.

    (a) * * *
    (5) The daily calibration error test and daily interference check 
information required in Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  75.59(a)(9)(x) is not required until September 
26, 2011, and reporting of the information in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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]

0
29. Subpart I, consisting of Sec. Sec.  75.80 through 75.84, is 
removed.

0
30. Appendix A to part 75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising section 1.1;
0
b. Removing sections 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, and 2.2.3;
0
c. Removing paragraph (c) of section 3.1 and paragraph (3) of section 
3.2;
0
d. Removing sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.3;
0
e. Removing the introductory text of section 4 and adding paragraphs 
(a), (b), and (c) in its place;
0
f. Revising paragraph (6) of section 4;
0
g. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5.1.4;
0
h. Removing paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 5.1.4;
0
i. Revising the first sentence in Section 5.1.5;
0
j. Removing section 5.1.9;
0
k. Revising section 6.1.2;
0
l. Revising the first sentence of section 6.2 introductory text;
0
m. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 6.2;
0
n. Revising the introductory text of section 6.3.1;
0
o. Revising the introductory text of sections 6.4 and 6.5;
0
p. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of section 6.5;
0
q. Revising section 6.5.1;
0
r. Removing paragraph (c) of section 6.5.6;
0
s. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 6.5.7;
0
t. Revising section 6.5.10;
0
u. Revising the heading and introductory text of section 7.3;
0
v. Revising section 7.3.1;
0
w. Revising the introductory text of section 7.6;
0
x. Revising section 7.6.1; and
0
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 SO<INF>2</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF>, 
O<INF>2</INF>, or NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system or 
NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent CEMS (NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitor, a 
flow monitor, a CO<INF>2</INF> monitor, an O<INF>2</INF> monitor, a 
NO<INF>X</INF> pollutant concentration monitor, a NO<INF>X</INF>-
diluent CEMS, and a moisture monitoring system to produce a 
continuous readout of pollutant emission

[[Page 17318]]

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 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, flow rate, or NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.6).

5.1.5 Research Gas Mixtures

    Concentrations of research gas mixtures, as defined in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  
75.19 and Appendix E to this part shall be overseen and supervised 
on site by at least one Qualified Individual, as defined in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  75.19 or Appendix E to this part (or portion of such a 
RATA or stack test) conducted by an AETB (as defined in Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93f2f6e7f1d3f6e3f2bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9c98899fbd988d9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
CO<INF>2</INF>, and O<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, CO<INF>2</INF> and O<INF>2</INF> 
monitors installed on peaking units (as defined in Sec.  72.2 of 
this chapter);

[[Page 17319]]

and any SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> measurement range with a 
span value of 50 ppm or less. In all other cases, measure the 
calibration error of each SO<INF>2</INF> monitor, each 
NO<INF>X</INF> monitor, and each CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> 
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 high-level 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> 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% 
CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> (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 Sec.  
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 NO<INF>X</INF>-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 CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration monitor 
(including O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to determine CO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions concentration), each SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant 
concentration monitor, each NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring 
system used to determine NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, each flow 
monitor, each NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent CEMS, each O<INF>2</INF> or 
CO<INF>2</INF> diluent monitor used to calculate heat input, and 
each moisture monitoring system. For NO<INF>X</INF> concentration 
monitoring systems used to determine NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, 
as defined in Sec.  75.71(a)(2), use the same general RATA 
procedures as for SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitors; 
however, use the reference methods for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 Sec.  72.2 of this chapter (or, for CEMS installed on common 
stacks or bypass stacks, 168 consecutive stack operating hours, as

[[Page 17320]]

defined in Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF> or CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
concentration monitor, each flow monitor, each CO<INF>2</INF> or 
O<INF>2</INF> diluent monitor used to determine heat input, each 
NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system used to determine 
NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, as defined in Sec.  75.71(a)(2), each 
moisture monitoring system, and each NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent CEMS, 
calculate the relative accuracy, in accordance with section 7.3 or 
7.4 of this appendix, as applicable. In addition (except for 
CO<INF>2</INF>, O<INF>2</INF>, 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> or CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration monitor, 
each CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> diluent monitor used to 
determine heat input, each NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent CEMS, and each 
NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system used to determine 
NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, as defined in Sec.  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, CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> 
monitor, flow monitor, and SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>-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 O<INF>2</INF> diluent monitor is used as a 
CO<INF>2</INF> continuous emission monitoring system, perform a 
CO<INF>2</INF> system RATA (i.e., measure CO<INF>2</INF>, rather 
than O<INF>2</INF>, 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 Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 O<INF>2</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF>; 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 
SO<INF>2</INF>; and Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in appendix A-4 to 
part 60 of this chapter for NO<INF>X</INF>, excluding the exceptions 
to Method 7E identified in Sec.  75.22(a)(5). When using Method 7E 
for measuring NO<INF>X</INF> concentration, total NO<INF>X</INF>, 
including both NO and NO<INF>2</INF>, 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 Sec.  75.21(g)(6). An 
EPA Protocol gas cylinder certified by or ordered from a non-
participating 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF> 
Emissions Concentration Monitors, O<INF>2</INF> Monitors, 
NO<INF>X</INF> Concentration Monitoring Systems, and Flow Monitors

    Analyze the relative accuracy test audit data from the reference 
method tests for SO<INF>2</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
concentration monitors, CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> monitors 
used for heat input rate determination, NO<INF>X</INF> concentration 
monitoring systems used to determine NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 17321]]

7.3.1 Arithmetic Mean

    Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences of a data set 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MR11.000

* * * * *

7.6 Bias Test and Adjustment Factor

    Test the following relative accuracy test audit data sets for 
bias: SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitors; flow 
monitors; NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring systems used to 
determine NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions, as defined in 75.71(a)(2); 
and NO<INF>X</INF>-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 
SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> pollutant concentration monitor, 
``d<INF>i</INF>'' is, for each paired data point, the difference 
between the SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> concentration value (in 
ppm) obtained from the reference method and the monitor. To 
calculate bias for a flow monitor, ``d<INF>i</INF>'' 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 NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent continuous emission 
monitoring system, ``d<INF>i</INF>'' is, for each paired data point, 
the difference between the NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate values (in 
lb/mmBtu) obtained from the reference method and the monitoring 
system.
* * * * *

7.6.5 * * *

    (b) For single-load RATAs of SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant 
concentration monitors, NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring 
systems, and NO<INF>X</INF>-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 NO<INF>X</INF> concentration CEMS or an SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS 
or a NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent CEMS installed on a low-emitting 
affected unit (i.e., average SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentration during the RATA <= 250 ppm or average NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF>, the 
flow rate, the average NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate, the unit heat 
input, and the calculated mass emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
CO<INF>2</INF> during the quarter and calendar year, as specified in 
subpart G of this part. In addition, when using a NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentration monitoring system and a flow monitor to calculate 
NO<INF>X</INF> mass emissions under subpart H of this part, use 
bias-adjusted values for NO<INF>X</INF> concentration and flow rate 
in the mass emission calculations and use bias-adjusted 
NO<INF>X</INF> concentrations to compute the appropriate 
substitution values for NO<INF>X</INF> concentration in the missing 
data routines under subpart D of this part.
* * * * *

0
31. Appendix B to part 75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising section 1.1.4;
0
b. Removing sections 1.5 and 1.5.1 through 1.5.6;
0
c. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.1.4;
0
d. Adding paragraph (c) to section 2.1.4;
0
e. Revising section 2.2.1;
0
f. Adding paragraph (i) to section 2.2.3;
0
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;
0
h. Adding paragraph (k) to section 2.3.2;
0
i. Revising section 2.3.4;
0
j. Removing section 2.6;
0
k. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and
0
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 Sec.  75.74(c)(2)(ii) 
and to the semiannual and annual RATAs described in section 2.3 of 
this appendix.
* * * * *

2. Frequency of Testing

* * * * *

[[Page 17322]]

2.1.4 Data Validation

    (a) An out-of-control period occurs when the calibration error 
of an SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> pollutant concentration 
monitor exceeds 5.0 percent of the span value, when the calibration 
error of a CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> monitor (including 
O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to measure CO<INF>2</INF> emissions or 
percent moisture) exceeds 1.0 percent O<INF>2</INF> or 
CO<INF>2</INF>, 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-of-control if [verbar]R-A[verbar], 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 SO<INF>2</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF> monitor for which 
the calibration error exceeds 5.0 percent of the span value shall 
not be considered out-of-control if [verbar]R-A[verbar] in Equation 
A-6 does not exceed 5.0 ppm (for span values <= 50 ppm), or if 
[verbar]R-A[verbar]; 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 Sec.  75.10. A NO<INF>X</INF>-
diluent 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 
Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF>, and NOx pollutant concentration 
monitor and each primary and redundant backup CO<INF>2</INF> or 
O<INF>2</INF> monitor (including O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to 
measure CO<INF>2</INF> emissions or to continuously monitor 
moisture) at least once during each QA operating quarter, as defined 
in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  72.2 of this chapter) for 
each primary and redundant backup SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant 
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
concentration monitor (including O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to 
determine CO<INF>2</INF> emissions), CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> 
diluent monitor used to determine heat input, moisture monitoring 
system, NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring system, or 
NO<INF>X</INF>-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 SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitors, 
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions concentration monitors (including 
O<INF>2</INF> monitors used to determine CO<INF>2</INF> emissions), 
CO<INF>2</INF> or O<INF>2</INF> diluent monitors used to determine 
heat input, NO<INF>X</INF> concentration monitoring systems, and 
NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent 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 multiple-level) 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 K-factor(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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
pollutant concentration monitor, a NO<INF>x-</INF>diluent monitoring 
system, a NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 
Sec.  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 SO<INF>2</INF> pollutant concentration monitor, a 
flow monitor, a NO<INF>X</INF>-diluent CEMS, or a NO<INF>X</INF> 
concentration monitoring system used to calculate NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
* * * * *

[[Page 17323]]



 Figure 1 to Appendix B of Part 75--Quality Assurance Test Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Basic QA test frequency requirements
                               -----------------------------------------
             Test                                            Semiannual
                                   Daily *     Quarterly *   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 (SO[ihel2], NOX,           ............  ............            X
 CO[ihel2], O[ihel2],
 H[ihel2]O)\1\................
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.
\2\ For flow monitors installed on peaking units, bypass stacks, or
  units that qualify for single-level RATA testing under section
  6.5.2(e) of this part, conduct all RATAs at a single, normal load (or
  operating level). For other flow monitors, conduct annual RATAs at two
  load levels (or operating levels). Alternating single-load and 2-load
  (or single-level and 2-level) RATAs may be done if a monitor is on a
  semiannual frequency. A single-load (or single-level) RATA may be done
  in lieu of a 2-load (or 2-level) RATA if, since the last annual flow
  RATA, the unit has operated at one load level (or operating level) for
  >= 85.0 percent of the time. A 3-level RATA is required at least once
  every five years (20 calendar quarters) and whenever a flow monitor is
  re-characterized, except for flow monitors exempted from 3-level RATA
  testing under section 6.5.2(b) or 6.5.2(e) of appendix A to this part.


   Figure 2 to Appendix B of Part 75--Relative Accuracy Test Frequency
                            Incentive System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            RATA                 Semiannual \W\          Annual \W\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 or NOX\Y\...............  7.5% < RA <= 10.0%    RA <= 7.5% or <plus-
                               or <plus-minus>       minus> 12.0 ppm\X\.
                               15.0 ppm\X\.
NOX-diluent.................  7.5% < RA <= 10.0%    RA <= 7.5% or <plus-
                               or <plus-minus>       minus> 0. 015 lb/
                               0.020 lb/mmBtu\X\.    mmBtu\X\.
Flow........................  7.5% < RA <= 10.0%    RA <= 7.5% or <plus-
                               or <plus-minus> 2.0   minus> 1.5 fps\X\.
                               fps\X\.
CO2 or O2...................  7.5% < RA <= 10.0%    RA <= 7.5% or <plus-
                               or <plus-minus>       minus> 0.7% CO2/
                               1.0% CO2/O2\X\.       O2\X\.
Moisture....................  7.5% < RA <= 10.0%    RA <= 7.5% or <plus-
                               or <plus-minus>       minus> 1.0% H2O\X\.
                               1.5% H2O\X\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\W\ The deadline for the next RATA is the end of the second (if
  semiannual) or fourth (if annual) successive QA operating quarter
  following the quarter in which the CEMS was last tested. Exclude
  calendar quarters with fewer than 168 unit operating hours (or, for
  common stacks and bypass stacks, exclude quarters with fewer than 168
  stack operating hours) in determining the RATA deadline. For SO2
  monitors, QA operating quarters in which only very low sulfur fuel as
  defined in Sec.   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 Sec.   75.71.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 17324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28MR11.001

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

0
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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
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 
Gas-Fired 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 
O<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  75.19.
* * * * *

0
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]
* * * * *

0
35. Appendix K to part 75 is removed.

[FR Doc. 2011-6216 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>