```

[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 33391-33420]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-23]                         

[[Page 33391]]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 72 and 75

Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum 
Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing; Proposed Rule

[[Page 33392]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 72 and 75

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837; FRL-9148-1]
RIN 2060-AQ06

 
Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum 
Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: Recent EPA gas audit results indicate that some gas cylinders 
used to calibrate continuous emission monitoring systems on stationary 
sources do not meet EPA's performance specification. Reviews of stack 
test reports in recent years indicate that some stack testers do not 
properly follow EPA test methods or do not correctly calculate test 
method results. Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend its Protocol Gas 
Verification Program (PGVP) and the minimum competency requirements for 
air emission testing (formerly air emission testing body requirements) 
to improve the accuracy of emissions data. EPA is also proposing to 
amend other sections of the Acid Rain Program continuous emission 
monitoring system regulations by adding and clarifying certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, removing the provisions 
pertaining to mercury monitoring and reporting, removing certain 
requirements associated with a class-approved alternative monitoring 
system, disallowing the use of a particular quality assurance option in 
EPA Reference Method 7E, adding an incorporation by reference that was 
inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008 final rule, and 
clarifying the language and applicability of certain provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2010. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before July 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0837 (which includes Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0132, and 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0800), by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0837. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, 
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 
for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schakenbach, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone 
(202) 343-9158, e-mail at schakenbach.john@epa.gov. Electronic copies 
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by this action primarily are 
fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that 
serve generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate 
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities 
include:

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

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

[[Page 33393]]

mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For 
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically 
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as 
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in locating 
information in this preamble.

I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Revisions
    A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program
    B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air 
Emission Testing
    C. Other Amendments
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule Revisions

    On January 24, 2008, revisions to 40 CFR part 75, the Acid Rain 
Program continuous emission monitoring regulations, were published in 
the Federal Register (see 73 FR 4340 January 24, 2008). These 
amendments included provisions requiring that EPA Protocol gases used 
for Part 75 purposes be obtained from specialty gas producers that 
participate in a PGVP. The final rule further provided that only PGVP 
participants were allowed to market calibration gas as ``EPA Protocol 
gas''. The January 24, 2008 rulemaking also included a provision 
requiring minimum competency requirements for air emission testing 
bodies (AETBs). The PGVP and AETB provisions became effective on 
January 1, 2009.
    The Administrator received a Petition for Review, and a Petition 
for Reconsideration, claiming that EPA had not properly promulgated the 
PGVP. The Agency also received a Petition for Review challenging the 
AETB requirements. Subsequently, EPA published a final rule in the 
Federal Register staying the AETB requirements (73 FR 65554, November 
4, 2008). EPA also posted a notice on an Agency Web site stating that 
the PGVP is not in effect, and a revised PGVP would not be effective 
until EPA goes through notice and comment rulemaking on any revised 
procedure. EPA is today announcing its reconsideration of certain 
aspects of the January 24, 2008 final rule and is proposing to amend 
the PGVP and AETB requirements. If these revisions become final, the 
amended rule will replace the existing AETB requirements, effectively 
removing the stay.
    EPA is also proposing to amend other sections of Part 75 by adding 
several data elements associated with EPA's Emissions Collection and 
Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) software, clarifying the requirements 
for including cover letters with monitoring plan submittals, 
certification applications, and recertification applications, removing 
the provisions pertaining to mercury monitoring and reporting, removing 
certain requirements associated with a class-approved alternative 
monitoring system, disallowing the use of a particular quality 
assurance option in EPA Reference Method 7E, adding an incorporation by 
reference that was inadvertently left out of the January 24, 2008 final 
rule, and clarifying the language and applicability of certain 
provisions.

A. Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program

    The purpose of the proposed EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program 
(PGVP) is to ensure the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. EPA proposes to 
require that the owner or operator of a Part 75 affected source ensure 
that all calibration gases used to quality assure the operation of 
instrumentation meet the definition of calibration gas contained in 
Sec.  72.2, and the relevant provision in Section 5.1 of Appendix A of 
Part 75. In turn, Sec.  72.2 defines calibration gas to include, among 
other things, EPA Protocol gas. EPA Protocol gas is a calibration gas 
mixture prepared and analyzed according to Section 2 of the ``EPA 
Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous 
Calibration Standards,'' or such revised procedure as approved by the 
Administrator. All of the other calibration gases defined in Sec.  72.2 
are analyzed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) or are produced following a more rigorous procedure and are 
presumed more accurate (and costly) than EPA Protocol gases. Therefore, 
only EPA Protocol gases are included in the PGVP described in today's 
proposed rule. The proposed rule would revise Sec.  75.21 to require a 
Part 75 affected source that uses EPA Protocol gas to obtain it from an 
EPA Protocol gas production site which is on the EPA list of sites 
participating in the PGVP at the time the owner or operator procures 
the gases.
    EPA is proposing that any EPA Protocol gas production site that 
chooses to participate in the PGVP must notify the Administrator of its 
intent to participate. EPA would then issue a unique vendor 
identification number (ID) to the EPA Protocol gas production site 
(e.g., a company's four participating EPA Protocol gas production sites 
might be issued vendor IDs: 75.1, 75.2, 75.3 and 75.4). Affected units 
would report the vendor ID as a required data element in each 
electronic quarterly report, thus confirming that the affected unit's 
calibration gases are being supplied by a participating EPA Protocol 
gas production site.
    Proposed Sec.  75.21(g) would require an EPA Protocol gas 
production site to notify EPA of its participation in the

[[Page 33394]]

PGVP by following the instructions on the Forms page of the Clean Air 
Markets Division (CAMD) Web site (notification will likely be through 
an official EPA e-mail box). Initial participation in the program would 
commence on the date of notification and would extend from that date 
through the remainder of the calendar year. An EPA Protocol gas 
production site that elects to continue participating in the PGVP in 
the next calendar year would be required to notify the Administrator of 
its intent to continue in the program by December 31 of the current 
year. The names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in 
the PGVP would be made publicly available by posting on official EPA 
Web sites. EPA believes that annual posting will be frequent enough to 
allow EPA Protocol gas users to verify that their calibration gases are 
being provided by PGVP participants.
    The contents of the initial notification and subsequent re-
notification(s) would be as follows:
    (i) The specialty gas company name which owns or operates the EPA 
Protocol gas production site;
    (ii) The name and address of that participating EPA Protocol gas 
production site owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and
    (iii) The name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact 
person for that participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
    If any of the above information changes during the year, updates 
may be sent to EPA, and Agency Web sites will be amended accordingly.
    Under the PGVP as proposed, the Agency may annually audit up to 
four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each participating EPA Protocol 
gas production site. The same number and type of cylinders (i.e., 
cylinders with the same certified components, approximately the same 
certified component concentration, and same number of certified 
components) would be obtained from each participating EPA Protocol gas 
production site that produces such cylinders to allow for better 
intercompany comparisons.
    Each year, EPA intends to audit all participating EPA Protocol gas 
production sites that produce the type of gas being audited, and to 
obtain EPA Protocol gas cylinders that are as representative of the 
normal production process as possible, given the limited sample size. 
To achieve this goal, the Agency intends to obtain cylinders in such a 
way that an EPA Protocol gas production site is not aware that its 
cylinders are being audited. In the past, the Agency has hired a 
company that uses EPA Protocol gas cylinders as part of its normal 
business to purchase cylinders. It is possible that EPA would hire a 
different company each year for this purpose. The Agency specifically 
requests comment on how it can better ensure that cylinders are 
obtained from each production site without raising suspicion that the 
cylinders are being audited. One possibility is to place cylinder 
orders from locations that are geographically close to a production 
site. However, there is no guarantee that EPA can always find a 
purchaser in such a location.
    After obtaining all of the EPA Protocol gas cylinders to be 
audited, EPA would notify each participating EPA Protocol gas 
production site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited 
and would identify the purchaser as an EPA representative or contractor 
participating in the audit process. EPA proposes that each 
participating EPA Protocol gas production site would then either cancel 
that purchaser's invoice or credit the purchaser's account for the 
purchase of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and provide funding to 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for analysis 
of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, for their portion of an electronic 
NIST audit report on all audited cylinders for the current audit, for 
demurrage, and for return shipment of their cylinders. The rule as 
proposed would require that at the EPA Protocol gas production site's 
own cost, audit results be submitted electronically by NIST to EPA upon 
completion of NIST's analyses of all audit cylinders. A copy of NIST's 
analysis of EPA Protocol gas cylinders from an EPA Protocol gas 
production site could also be provided to that site, if that provision 
is part of the production site's agreement with NIST.
    Section 75.21(g) of the proposed rule provides minimum criteria for 
auditing cylinders and reporting the results to EPA at cost to the 
production site. As proposed each participating EPA Protocol gas 
production site would reach formal agreement with and pay NIST to 
analyze its EPA Protocol gas cylinders within two weeks of NIST's 
receipt of the batch containing those cylinders (or as soon as possible 
thereafter) using procedures at least as rigorous as the ``EPA 
Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous 
Calibration Standards'' (Traceability Protocol), September 1997 (EPA-
600/R-97/121) or equivalent written cylinder analysis protocol that has 
been approved by EPA. The two week deadline assumes that EPA Protocol 
gas cylinders would be sent to NIST in manageable batches, which EPA 
intends to do.
    Each cylinder's concentration would be determined and the results 
compared to the cylinder's certification documentation and tag value 
and for conformity to Section 5.1 of Appendix A. After NIST analysis, a 
participant would then have to assure that each cylinder has a NIST 
analyzed concentration with an uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent 
(inclusive) or better, unless otherwise approved by EPA. The Agency 
notes that especially with very low concentration cylinders, it may not 
be possible to meet the 1.0 percent uncertainty and reserves the right 
to make appropriate adjustments. Further, the proposed rule would 
require that the certification documentation must be verified in the 
audit report as meeting the requirements of the Traceability Protocol 
or such revised procedure as approved by the Administrator.
    All of the information described in Sec. Sec.  75.21(g)(9)(ii)-(v) 
would be provided in an audit report submitted electronically by NIST 
to EPA at the end of the current (annual) audit. The Agency would post 
on EPA Web sites the results of the NIST analysis in the same format as 
Figure 3 (or the Note below Figure 3, as applicable) or a revised 
format approved by EPA.
    EPA believes that owners or operators of Part 75 affected units 
will use the results of the NIST analysis to better inform their EPA 
Protocol gas purchase decisions. We specifically request comment on 
whether the format and information contained in proposed Figure 3 and 
the Note below Figure 3 are useful for this purpose.
    In proposed Sec.  75.21(g)(4), EPA would reserve the right to 
remove an EPA Protocol gas production site from the list of PGVP 
participants for any of the following reasons:
    (1) If the production site fails to provide all of the information 
required by Sec.  75.21(g)(1), specifically, items (i) through (iii), 
listed above;
    (2) If, after being notified that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders 
are being audited by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to 
cancel its invoice or to credit the purchaser's account for the 
cylinders; or
    (3) Any participating EPA Protocol gas production site whose 
cylinders were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis but are not in the 
electronic audit report submitted by NIST to EPA.
    EPA would relist an EPA Protocol gas production site as follows:
    (1) An EPA Protocol gas production site may be relisted 
immediately, after its failure is remedied, if the only failure is not 
providing all of the information required by Sec.  75.21(g)(1);

[[Page 33395]]

    (2) If EPA fails to receive from the participating EPA Protocol gas 
production site a written invoice cancellation or a hardcopy credit 
receipt for the cylinders within two weeks of notifying the production 
site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the cylinders would 
be returned to the production site and that production site would not 
be eligible for relisting until December 31 of the current year and 
until it submits to EPA the information required by Sec.  75.21(g)(1), 
in accordance with the procedures in Sec. Sec.  75.21(g)(2) and 
75.21(g)(3); and
    (3) Any participating EPA Protocol gas production site whose 
cylinders were sent to NIST by EPA for analysis, but are not in the 
electronic audit report submitted by NIST to EPA, would not be eligible 
for relisting until December 31 of the next year and until it submits 
to EPA the information required by Sec.  75.21(g)(1), in accordance 
with the procedures in Sec. Sec.  75.21(g)(2) and 75.21(g)(3). The 
eligible relisting date of December 31 of the next year is later than 
the eligible relisting date in (2), above, because EPA will not know 
whether a particular EPA Protocol gas production site is missing from 
the NIST audit report until the last half of the calendar year. Thus, a 
production site would potentially be removed from the list of 
participants for only a few months if the eligible relisting date were 
December 31 of the current year, which may not be sufficient to prevent 
gaming of the program.
    EPA believes that removing EPA Protocol gas production sites from 
the participants list for cause will provide sufficient incentive for 
good faith participation. However, EPA specifically requests comment on 
whether there are better mechanisms to ensure good faith participation 
once a company elects to participate in the PGVP.
    EPA notes that some EPA Protocol gas production sites produce EPA 
Protocol gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability for both NO and 
NOX concentrations in the same cylinder. If, as provided in 
the proposed rule, such cylinders were analyzed by NIST for the PGVP, 
they would have to be analyzed and the results reported for both the NO 
and NOX components, where total NOX is determined 
by NO plus NO2. The Agency believes that this requirement 
would better assure NIST traceability, regardless of whether NO or 
NOX is used when performing QA/QC tests.
    The Agency believes that there are approximately 14 specialty gas 
companies in the U.S. Some companies have multiple production sites, 
resulting in approximately 30 potential EPA Protocol gas production 
sites. If all production sites were to participate in the PGVP and EPA 
were to audit 4 cylinders from each production site, NIST would have to 
analyze 120 cylinders each year. If it takes NIST two weeks to analyze 
20 cylinders, and if EPA shipped a batch of 20 cylinders every two 
weeks, it would take NIST 3 months to analyze all 120 cylinders (six 
batches). NIST would need additional time to produce an analysis report 
and submit it electronically to EPA. NIST has indicated that it can 
analyze 120 cylinders and submit an analysis report to EPA within six 
months.
    However, if cylinder analyses and report submittal ever take longer 
than one year to complete, an annual PGVP would not be possible. To 
address this and other possibilities, the Agency specifically requests 
comments on the following options.
    Option 1: EPA could interpret that an ``EPA Protocol gas production 
site that is on the EPA list of sites participating in the PGVP at the 
time the owner or operator procures such gases'' has the literal 
meaning that an EPA Protocol gas production site simply has to be on 
the EPA list to be able to provide EPA Protocol gases to owners or 
operators of Part 75 affected units. Therefore, if EPA does not procure 
gases for audit in a given year (and consequently NIST does not analyze 
the gases), an EPA Protocol gas production site could still market its 
EPA Protocol gases to Part 75 sources. Option 1 would also allow NIST 
to take longer than 12 months to analyze and report on all audit 
cylinders. However, a downside would be that audit results would be 
posted at less than an annual frequency, and Part 75 sources would not 
be able to determine the best performing EPA Protocol gas production 
sites as frequently.
    Option 2: EPA could reduce the number of cylinders audited per 
production site in a year so that NIST could analyze and report on all 
audit cylinders, and EPA could post results on an annual basis. While 
each production site would still be represented in the audit, a 
downside to Option 2 would be that fewer cylinders per production site 
would be audited.
    Option 3: Instead of procuring cylinders from all production sites, 
EPA could select fewer production sites from each specialty gas 
company. A downside would be that not all production sites would be 
audited, even though each specialty gas company would still be 
represented in the audit sample.
    Option 4: EPA could use any of the above three options or some 
combination in a given year. The Agency prefers this option because of 
the increased flexibility it provides. This flexibility might be 
required to address certain situations, e.g., an expansion in the 
number of EPA Protocol gas production sites, unforeseen delays in 
cylinder analyses or logistics, and possible Federal budget 
constraints.
    EPA proposes that if an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed 
from the list of PGVP participants after EPA Protocol gas cylinders 
have been purchased from that site, the owner or operator would be 
allowed to use the cylinders for Part 75 applications until the earlier 
of the cylinder's expiration date or until the cylinder gas pressure 
reaches 150 psig.\1\ Further, if on the effective date of Sec.  
75.21(g), a Part 75 affected source, or an emissions testing group or 
testing company has in its possession EPA Protocol gases from an EPA 
Protocol gas production site that is not participating in the PGVP, use 
of those cylinder gases would also be permitted for Part 75 
applications until the earlier of the cylinder's expiration date or 
until the cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. EPA believes that 
these proposed rule provisions help clarify the liability of Part 75 
affected sources in such cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2.1.6.4 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay 
and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' establishes a 
minimum compressed gas cylinder pressure of 150 pounds per square 
inch gravimetric, below which the cylinder gas concentration cannot 
be assured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analysis, each EPA Protocol gas cylinder would be returned to 
the EPA Protocol gas production site that provided it. The EPA Protocol 
gas cylinders being returned to the production site would be almost 
full and have an accompanying NIST analyzed concentration with an 
uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 percent (inclusive) or better, which 
more than meets the Part 75 EPA Protocol gas plus or minus 2.0 percent 
of cylinder tag value requirement.
    In order to help contain the cost of NIST's cylinder analyses, NIST 
has agreed to implement the following cost containment measures:
    (1) The concentrations of the gaseous components of interest in 
each batch of cylinders will be within predefined concentration ranges. 
This will allow NIST to setup instrumentation and form calibration 
curves more efficiently.
    (2) The arrival of each batch of cylinders will be coordinated with 
the work schedules of key NIST personnel. This will allow NIST to more 
efficiently manage its resources.
    (3) NIST has modeled the cross interactions of the analytical 
species on

[[Page 33396]]

its instrumentation. Future work can make use of that modeling, so that 
NIST needs only to confirm that the correction factors are still good 
before using them.
    (4) Since NIST's uncertainty \2\ requirements for intermediate gas 
standards are quite stringent (i.e., less than 0.5% uncertainty, and 1% 
expanded), NIST can use intermediate standards for all of this work. 
This keeps the cost down, because expensive primary standards do not 
have to be used. In addition, NIST has invested in tri-mix working 
standards that will allow them to validate their methods much more 
quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Like any measurement, cylinder gas concentration is subject 
to uncertainty due to instrument measurement accuracy and 
repeatability, operator error, measurement methodology, accuracy of 
reference standards used, and other sources of error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) For the future, NIST is considering using a Fourier Transform 
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) method, which might further reduce costs 
by consolidating all of the analytical work in a single automated 
instrument.
    NIST has agreed to analyze audit cylinders to 0.5% uncertainty (1% 
expanded uncertainty). The reason for this uncertainty goal is to allow 
reasonable certainty when judging an audited cylinder with a 2.0% 
uncertainty requirement under Part 75. No reasonable cost savings will 
be achieved by increasing the uncertainty to 1% (2% expanded).
    According to NIST, high concentration cylinders will always cost 
less to analyze. The lowest concentration cylinders will cost NIST 
approximately 25% more to analyze.
    Based on 2009 cost data from NIST and recent cylinder shipping 
costs, EPA estimates that the average cost for NIST to analyze one EPA 
Protocol gas cylinder, produce a report and return ship a cylinder is 
approximately $1,800. This cost assumes implementation of cost 
containment measures 1 through 3 described above. The 
cost may decrease further as a result of implementing measures 
4 and 5.
    EPA proposes to add the following simple recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements under Sec. Sec.  75.59 and 75.64 to enable the 
Agency to verify that Part 75 affected sources are using EPA Protocol 
gases from EPA Protocol gas production sites that are participating in 
the PGVP, and to inform the gas cylinder selection for the PGVP audits:
    (i) Gas level code;
    (ii) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used for each gas 
monitor that uses EPA Protocol gas for daily calibrations;
    (iii) A code for type of EPA Protocol gas used for each gas monitor 
that uses EPA Protocol gas for quarterly linearity checks;
    (iv) Start and end date and hour for EPA Protocol gas type code for 
gases used on CEMS;
    (v) A code for type of EPA Protocol gas used with EPA Reference 
Methods 3A and/or 6C and/or 7E, when those methods are used to perform 
relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) for certification, 
recertification, routine quality assurance, or diagnostic testing of 
Part 75 monitoring systems; and
    (vi) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA.
    EPA specifically requests comments on the following proposed codes 
for the type of EPA Protocol gas used. These codes would not be 
specified in the rule, but rather in the electronic reporting 
instructions:

SO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single 
certified component, SO2, and a balance gas.
NOX = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single 
certified component, NOX, and a balance gas.
NO = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single certified 
component, NO, and a balance gas.
CO2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single 
certified component, CO2, and a balance gas.
O2 = EPA Protocol gas standard consisting of a single 
certified component, O2, and a balance gas.
SC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, SO2 and CO2, and a balance gas.
SN = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, SO2 and NO and a balance gas.
SN1 = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two 
certified components, SO2 and NOX and a balance 
gas.
NC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, NO and CO2, and a balance gas.
N1C = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two 
certified components, NOX and CO2, and a balance 
gas.
NCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, NO and CO, and a balance gas.
N1CO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two 
certified components, NOX and CO, and a balance gas.
OC = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, O2 and CO2, and a balance gas.
OCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, O2 and CO, and a balance gas.
SO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, SO2 and O2, and a balance gas.
SCO = EPA Protocol gas bi-blend standard consisting of two certified 
components, SO2 and CO, and a balance gas.
SN2 = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of 
three certified components, SO2, NO, and NOX and 
a balance gas.
N2C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of 
three certified components, NO, NOX, and CO2, and 
a balance gas.
N2CO = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of 
three certified components, NO, NOX, and CO, and a balance 
gas.
SNC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified 
components, SO2, NO, and CO2, and a balance gas.
SN1C = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of 
three certified components, SO2, NOX, and 
CO2, and a balance gas.
NCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified 
components, NO, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
N1CC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of 
three certified components, NOX, CO2, and CO, and 
a balance gas.
NSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified 
components, SO2, NO, and CO, and a balance gas.
N1SC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of 
three certified components, SO2, NOX, and CO, and 
a balance gas.
OCC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified 
components, O2, CO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
OSC = EPA Protocol gas tri-blend standard consisting of three certified 
components, O2, SO2, and CO, and a balance gas.
SN2C = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of 
four certified components, SO2, NO, NOX, and 
CO2, and a balance gas.
N2CC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of 
four certified components, NO, NOX, CO2, and CO, 
and a balance gas.
N2SC = EPA Protocol gas quad-blend standard consisting of 
four certified components, SO2, NO, NOX, and CO, 
and a balance gas.

[[Page 33397]]

    EPA proposes to allow participation in the PGVP on and after the 
effective date of the rule. The proposed rule would require PGVP-
related recordkeeping requirements to start six months after the 
effective date of this rule. On and after January 1, 2011, the new 
PGVP-related data elements in Sec.  75.64 (described in items (i) 
through (vi) listed above) would be submitted prior to or concurrent 
with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report. 
However, if the final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the right to amend 
the reporting deadline. The Agency believes that this will provide both 
EPA and the regulated community adequate time to reprogram 
recordkeeping/reporting software.
    The Agency is also proposing to amend Section 6.5.10 of Appendix A 
to Part 75 to require that the EPA Protocol gases used when performing 
Methods 3A, 6C, and/or 7E must be from EPA Protocol gas production 
sites participating in the PGVP. The Agency anticipates that this will 
help improve the data quality when these test methods are used at Part 
75 affected sources.

B. Amendments to the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission 
Testing

    EPA proposes to add minimum competency requirements for air 
emission testing under Sec.  75.21(f). This proposed section describes 
where the minimum competency requirements apply and where they do not.
    EPA proposes to add simple recordkeeping requirements under Sec.  
75.59 and reporting requirements under Sec. Sec.  75.63 and 75.64 to 
enable the Agency to verify that Qualified Individuals and Air Emission 
Testing Bodies (AETBs) meet the requirements of this rule should we 
take final action. On and after January 1, 2011, the new AETB-related 
data elements in Sec.  75.64 would be submitted prior to or concurrent 
with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report 
required under Sec.  75.64. However, if the final rule is delayed, EPA 
reserves the right to amend the reporting deadline. The Agency believes 
that this will provide both EPA and the regulated community adequate 
time to reprogram recordkeeping/reporting software.
    Proposed revisions to Sections 6.1.2(a), (b), and (c) of Appendix A 
to Part 75 would provide that all relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) 
of Part 75 CEMS and stack tests conducted under Sec.  75.19 and 
Appendix E to Part 75 are to be conducted by an AETB that has provided 
to the owner or operator a certification that as of the time of testing 
the AETB is operating in conformance with ASTM D7036-04. That 
certification is a certificate of accreditation or interim 
accreditation for the relevant test method issued by a recognized 
national accreditation body or a letter of certification for the 
relevant test methods signed by a member of the senior management staff 
of the AETB. The owner or operator would also record and report: (a) 
The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air Emission 
Testing Body; (b) the name of the on-site Qualified Individual; (c) For 
the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that the on-site 
Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant qualification 
exam(s), required by ASTM D 7036-04; and (d) the name and e-mail 
address of the qualification exam provider (see Section 6.1.2(b)). All 
of this information would have to be recorded and kept on site for at 
least 3 years and would be reported to EPA, except for the certificate 
of accreditation or interim accreditation and the letter of 
certification. The certificate of accreditation or interim 
accreditation and the letter of certification would not be reported to 
EPA but would be retained on-site for at least 3 years.
    The AETB must reasonably have all of this information available to 
be in compliance with ASTM D 7036-04, Sec. Sec.  5.4.11 and 8.3.7. 
Section 5.4.11 states that the AETB shall ``be able to provide 
documentation or otherwise demonstrate, on request from the persons or 
organizations evaluating its competence, that it complies with * * * 
this practice.'' Section 8.3.7 states that ``The qualification 
credentials of each qualified individual shall be available for 
inspection at the test site.'' Qualification credentials are defined in 
the ASTM standard as ``evidence that the qualified individual meets the 
requirements of 8.3.2 * * * .'' Section 8.3.2 includes criteria on 
experience, qualification exams, and a statement saying that all test 
projects conducted under the QI's supervision ``will conform to the 
AETB's quality manual and to this practice in all respects.''
    EPA is proposing to remove the reference to sorbent trap testing 
from Section 6.1.2(a) of Appendix A, in view of the vacatur of the 
Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) by the D.C. Court of Appeals. 
Proposed Section 6.1.2(d) of Appendix A recommends that the owner or 
operator of a Part 75 affected source request the following information 
from an AETB:
    (1) The AETB's quality manual;
    (2) The results of any external or internal audits performed by the 
AETB in the prior 12 months;
    (3) A written description of any corrective actions being 
implemented by the AETB in the prior 12 months; and
    (4) Any AETB training records in the prior 12 months. This proposed 
provision is merely a recommendation, will not affect data validation, 
and does not require the owner or operator to review, retain or report 
copies of such records. The provision is simply for the protection of 
the owner or operator. The Agency believes this will provide the owner 
or operator more assurance that the AETB is complying with all the 
requirements of ASTM D 7036-04. The Agency anticipates that testers 
would have this information with them in their vehicles when visiting a 
site in view of the requirements of the ASTM standard.
    If an AETB fails to provide information provided in Section 
6.1.2(d) when requested by an owner or operator, the proposed rule 
provides that EPA can demand that an AETB provide evidence to the 
Administrator that the AETB has provided the information to the owner 
or operator. If the AETB fails to provide such evidence, which EPA 
anticipates would be clearly identified in the demand, EPA would have 
several courses of action. First, as described below, under Section 
6.1.2(g), the EPA could list the offending AETB on its Web sites. 
Secondly, as more fully explained below, since EPA's authority to make 
the demand is premised on Clean Air Act Section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414)(CAA), a non-compliant AETB could be subject to enforcement action 
by EPA under CAA Section 113. The CAA provides for several levels of 
enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. 
The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and 
administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day. EPA believes that 
the availability of these enforcement tools, coupled with the owner or 
operator's express right to require the enumerated information from the 
AETB, are significant deterrents and will result in better quality 
testing.
    Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) of Appendix A states that testing must be 
conducted or overseen on site by at least one Qualified Individual 
(QI), who is qualified in the methods employed in the test project. It 
is expected that when a QI is overseeing a test, that the QI would be 
actively observing the test for its duration. It is also expected that 
if a QI is conducting a test, that a QI would actively conduct the test 
for its duration. However, allowance would be made for normal 
activities of a QI who is overseeing or conducting a test, e.g., 
bathroom breaks, food breaks, etc., and emergencies that may arise 
during a test.

[[Page 33398]]

    Proposed Section 6.1.2(e) also provides that if during the test 
period, it is discovered that a Qualified Individual is not present on 
site either conducting or overseeing the methods employed for the test 
project, that test must be invalidated and repeated with a Qualified 
Individual present. This provision is intended to encourage the owner 
or operator and those observing the test to make it standard operating 
practice to verify that a QI is present while the testing is still in 
progress, thereby preventing potentially large amounts of data from 
being invalidated (e.g., if six months after the completion of a RATA, 
EPA were to discover that a QI was not on site during the test period). 
The Agency notes that an owner or operator could act as an AETB for its 
own source or for other sources, provided that the requirements of 
Section 6.1.2 are met.
    Of course, having a QI on site either conducting or overseeing the 
methods employed in the test project does not guarantee proper 
performance of the test. Third party (e.g., state agency) oversight is 
recommended to help ensure that testing is properly conducted. (The 
Agency notes that even though third party oversight is highly 
recommended, it is not required in today's proposed rule.)
    Proposed Section 6.1.2(f) of Appendix A, states that (in the 
absence of other information such as evidence of collusion during 
testing), test data that otherwise meet the requirements of Part 75 
will be considered valid, provided that the AETB provides to the owner 
or operator a certificate of accreditation (or interim accreditation) 
or letter of certification described in Sections 6.1.2(b)(1) and (2), 
and the Qualified Individual requirements in Section 6.1.2(e) are met.
    The Agency notes that ASTM D7036-04 requires that the QI re-take 
and pass a qualification exam at least once every five years (see Sec.  
8.3.3 of the ASTM standard). Therefore, EPA, State and local air 
agencies will be checking that QI exam certificates are current. The 
Agency recommends, but is not requiring, that owners or operators of 
Part 75 affected sources also check that the exam certificates are 
current.
    EPA believes that requiring submittal of the name and e-mail 
address of the qualification exam provider is important for two 
reasons: (1) It will be a valuable deterrent to an AETB providing false 
qualification exam dates or certifications because the Agency may from 
time to time check with the exam provider; and (2) it allows the Agency 
to more easily verify the QI's credentials.
    EPA understands that it may be unfair to hold an owner or operator 
of an affected source responsible for certain actions (or inactions) 
related to an external AETB's compliance with ASTM D7036-04. Therefore, 
proposed Section 6.1.2(f) also provides that ``The certification 
described in paragraph (b) of this section, and compliance with 
paragraph (e), shall be sufficient proof of validity of test data that 
otherwise meet the requirements of this part.'' Proposed paragraph (g) 
provides that ``[i]f the Administrator finds that an AETB has not 
provided accurate or complete information required by this section to 
an affected source or requested by an affected source under this 
section, the Administrator may post the name of the offending AETB on 
Agency Web sites, and provide the AETB a description of the failures to 
be remedied.'' EPA believes that this would be a deterrent to non-
compliance with ASTM D7036-04. The Agency requests comments on whether 
posting an offending AETB's name on Agency Web sites is an appropriate 
response in these situations.
    Further, EPA would have the express authority under proposed 
Section 6.1.2(h) to require an AETB to provide certain information 
relating to evaluation of the effectiveness of these provisions and the 
accuracy of information provided thereunder. If the Administrator 
learns that an AETB has not provided accurate or complete information 
or has not provided information to an owner or operator upon request as 
recommended in this rule, EPA has the authority under CAA Section 114 
to itself require the AETB to provide evidence to the Agency that the 
AETB has in fact provided such information. EPA's authority under Sec.  
114 is broad, and extends to any person ``who the Administrator 
believes may have information necessary for the purposes'' of carrying 
out the CAA, even if that person is not otherwise subject to the CAA. 
The broad requirement to provide ``such information as the 
Administrator may reasonably require'', can be one-time or on a 
continuous basis.
    By specifically authorizing EPA to collect information from persons 
subject to any requirement of the CAA, as well as any person whom the 
Administrator believes may have necessary information, Congress clearly 
intended that EPA could gather information from persons not otherwise 
subject to CAA requirements. In an effort to resolve problems which 
affected sources have had with air emissions testing bodies, EPA is 
proposing these amendments to Parts 72 and 75, and information to be 
available to owners or operators from AETBs is an integral part of that 
regulatory structure. Therefore, a clear statement of EPA's authority 
to obtain information relevant to that which an owner or operator might 
solicit from an AETB is merited.
    Further, if following demand, an AETB fails to provide evidence to 
the Agency that (1) it has provided accurate or complete information or 
(2) it has in fact made information available to the owner or operator 
upon request, an AETB could be subject to enforcement action by EPA 
under CAA Section 113. As structured, the proposed rule provides that 
upon learning of an AETB's deviation from the rule, EPA would provide 
notice to the offender and provide a reasonable period for the AETB to 
correct the deviation. If an AETB does not comply, EPA has the 
authority to bring an enforcement action. EPA's enforcement authority 
includes injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and 
administrative penalties of up to $32,500 per day. Deviations from the 
rule that could ultimately be considered violations include, but are 
not limited to, failure to provide such information as a certification 
of accreditation or interim accreditation, or a letter of certification 
and the date on which the on-site QI took and passed the qualification 
exam for the relevant test method, assuring that the QI meets the 
periodic timing requirement of examinations to retain his QI status. 
Additionally, as discussed above, EPA also would have the authority to 
publish the name of the offending AETB on its Web sites.
    EPA is also attempting to clarify internal and external audit 
provisions in ASTM D 7036-04, self certification, and accreditation by 
a recognized, national accreditation body provisions in this preamble. 
EPA also specifically requests comment on whether AETBs should be 
required to be accredited.
    If the AETB chooses to be accredited by a recognized, national 
accreditation body (neither the January 24, 2008 final rule nor today's 
proposed rule requires such accreditation), compliance with ASTM D7036-
04 is determined by that accreditation body. If an AETB fails to meet 
the requirements of ASTM D7036-04, the accreditation body may revoke 
the AETB's accreditation.
    However a revoked or denied accreditation might not affect 
compliance with the Part 75 AETB requirements. Section 4 of the ASTM 
practice states that the ``quality manual and its implementation 
(including test protocols, reports, and personnel testing)'' will 
provide the ``sole basis'' for determining conformance of the AETB with 
the practice. Under Section 7.4 of

[[Page 33399]]

the practice, AETBs are required to conduct annual internal audits to 
identify any deficiencies and determine and document the effectiveness 
of corrective action. Under Sections 18 and 19 of the practice, the 
AETB also must have policies and procedures, and designate appropriate 
authorities, for implementing corrective action when nonconforming work 
or departures from its quality system are identified. For purposes of 
the Part 75 rule, an AETB that is conducting internal (or external) 
audits and implementing its policies and procedures for corrective 
action is operating in conformance with the ASTM practice, despite any 
deficiencies in the AETB certification or certificate of accreditation 
or interim accreditation required under Section 6.1.2(b) of Appendix A 
that might be discovered by the AETB or by a third party during an 
audit.
    EPA intends to post a list of activities on Agency Web site(s) to 
assist sources in complying with ASTM D7036-04. Additionally, EPA plans 
to similarly post questions and answers (Qs&As) related to the air 
emission testing minimum competency requirements. Such Qs&As will be 
developed and made available as implementation of the air emission 
testing minimum competency requirements progresses.
    Regarding the AETB-related recordkeeping requirements, EPA believes 
that a commencement date of six months after the effective date of a 
final rule would allow sufficient time for stack testers and stack 
testing companies to become fully compliant with the AETB provisions. 
Affected sources and air emission testing bodies have known that EPA 
would impose AETB requirements since August 22, 2006, when the first 
AETB-related rule was proposed (see 71 FR 49300, August 22, 2006). On 
and after January 1, 2011, the new AETB-related data elements in Sec.  
75.64 would be submitted to EPA prior to or concurrent with the 
submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report. However, if 
the final rule is delayed, EPA reserves the right to amend the 
reporting deadline. The Agency believes that this will provide both EPA 
and the regulated community adequate time to reprogram recordkeeping/
reporting software.

C. Other Amendments

1. Compliance Dates
    EPA is proposing to amend paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) of Sec.  
75.4 to remove the 90 unit operating days provision pertaining to the 
monitoring system certification deadline for new Acid Rain Program 
(ARP) units and newly-affected units that lose their ARP-exempt status 
under 40 CFR 72.6. A new ARP unit would have 180 calendar days after 
the date the unit commences commercial operation to complete 
certification tests of all monitoring systems, and would, according to 
Sec.  72.9(c)(3)(iv), be required to commence holding SO2 
allowances when the 180 day window expires. A newly-affected ARP unit 
would also have 180 days to complete monitor certification testing and 
begin holding allowances, except that in this case, the reference point 
would be the date on which the unit becomes subject to the ARP, rather 
than the date on which the unit commenced commercial operation. Since 
Sec.  75.61(a)(2) requires the owner or operator to notify EPA of the 
date on which a new unit commences commercial operation or the date on 
which a previously ARP-exempt unit loses its exempt status, the Agency 
believes the proposed amendments to Sec. Sec.  75.4(b) and (c) will 
clarify and simplify the determination of when new and newly-affected 
ARP units must complete certification testing and commence holding 
SO2 allowances.
    EPA is also proposing to amend Sec.  75.4(e), chiefly to clarify 
the applicability of this section. Section 75.4(e) applies to the 
construction of a new stack or the installation of add-on 
SO2 or NOX emission controls (or both) at an 
existing Acid Rain Program (ARP) unit after the compliance date 
specified in Sec.  75.4(a). For these events, the owner or operator is 
given 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever occurs 
first) after gases first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack, 
flue, or emission control device to complete all necessary monitoring 
system certification testing.
    Under 40 CFR 72.2, a ``new'' ARP unit is defined as one that 
commences commercial operation on or after November 15, 1990. Since 
Sec.  75.4(e) applies only to ``existing'' units, it only covers Phase 
I and Phase II ARP units that commenced commercial operation prior to 
November 15, 1990.
    Therefore, to ensure that the owner or operator of a new ARP unit 
that commences commercial operation after November 15, 1990 is given 
the same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to 
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is 
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOX emission 
controls are installed, EPA proposes to amend Sec.  75.4(e), as 
follows:
     First, the reference to the compliance date in Sec.  
75.4(a), which applies only to existing units, would be expanded to 
include the compliance date in Sec.  75.4(b), which applies to new 
units.
     Second, the reference to ``certification testing'' of the 
monitoring systems would be expanded to include the terms 
``recertification'' and ``diagnostic testing,'' because new stack 
construction and/or addition of emission controls does not necessarily 
require a full battery of certification tests to be performed.
     Third, the exact starting time of the 90 operating day/180 
calendar day window would be clarified. For construction of a new 
stack, no change is proposed--the clock will start when gases first 
exit to the atmosphere through the new stack. However, for 
SO2 or NOX control device addition, the clock 
would start when reagent is first injected into the gas stream. In 
cases where there is both new stack construction and control device 
addition, the start of the clock would be governed by the new stack 
construction.
     Finally, the allowable data reporting options during the 
flexible 90 operating day/180 calendar day window of time would be 
clarified.
2. Incorporation by Reference
    The Agency is proposing to amend Sec.  75.6 by including reference 
to Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition, of the American 
Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, 
Chapter 4--Proving Systems. Section 3 was inadvertently left out of the 
January 24, 2008 final rule.
3. Miscellaneous Recordkeeping Requirements
    EPA is proposing to amend certain recordkeeping and reporting 
provisions in Sec. Sec.  75.53(g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(E), 
(g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(v)(F), (g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(J), (h)(2)(i), and 
(h)(5), Sec. Sec.  75.58(d)(4)(iii)(A)-(H), Sec. Sec.  
75.59(a)(1)(iii), (a)(5)(ii)(L), (a)(5)(iii)(H), (a)(12)(iv)(G), 
(d)(3)(xii) and (xiii), Sec.  75.62(d), and Sec.  75.63(d) by adding 
various data elements that were inadvertently left out of the August 
22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final rule. These data 
elements have already been included in the data acquisition and 
handling systems of Part 75 affected units, and are needed to make 
EPA's new reporting software data requirements consistent with the 
regulatory requirements. Because there was zero tolerance for reporting 
errors during the transition to the EPA's re-engineered reporting 
software system (ECMPS), the Agency is confident that all Part 75 
affected sources have already met the reporting deadlines for these 
data elements.

[[Page 33400]]

4. Reference Methods
    In Sec.  75.22(a)(5)(iv), the Agency is proposing to disallow 
multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before conducting the post-run 
bias or system calibration error check. EPA is concerned that if the 
use of this option, which is described in Section 8.5 of Method 7E, 
were allowed, less accurate gas concentration measurements are likely 
to result; and correction of the run-level data for calibration bias 
would become unnecessarily complex and prone to error.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA instrumental Method 7E was developed and validated with 
a requirement to conduct a system bias or calibration error check 
before and after each run to ensure that each reference method run 
is accurate. Method 7E also includes a procedure to correct for 
drift if the drift is less than the allowable specification. This 
mathematical correction assumes (not always correctly) that the 
drift over the duration of the testing run is uniform and therefore 
adjusts the run measurement to the average system bias calibration 
response. In a recent revision to Section 8.5 of Method 7E, an 
option was added to allow testers to forgo the run-by-run quality 
assurance (QA) and instead only test the calibration of the 
reference method measurement equipment at the beginning and end of a 
series of runs. This change lengthens the interval between QA checks 
and thus increases the likelihood that the uniform drift assumption 
is not true. Furthermore, even if the uniform drift assumption were 
true, the resulting correction would be appropriate for the middle 
runs but not for the early or later runs of a test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Alternative Monitoring Systems
    EPA is proposing to remove the requirement for an owner or operator 
to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved alternative 
monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis from Sec.  75.47(b). EPA 
believes that the de minimis emissions concept is not appropriate for 
Subpart E petitions because in order to be approved, an AMS must be 
shown to be equivalent to a continuous emission monitoring system 
(CEMS). In the Acid Rain Program and in other Part 75 emissions trading 
programs, the de minimis emissions concept has been used only to 
justify allowing the use of less rigorous monitoring methods for low-
emitting units (such as the Appendix E methodology for gas-fired and 
oil-fired peaking units and the low mass emissions (LME) methodology in 
Sec.  75.19) rather than for justifying the use of CEMS or AMS shown to 
be equivalent to CEMS. There are also potential problems defining de 
minimis emissions for a class of units, and tracking the available 
increment. The Agency notes that today's proposed revision to Sec.  
75.47(b) does not imply that it will be easier to get a class-approved 
AMS petition granted under Subpart E.
    The Agency is also proposing to remove the self-imposed requirement 
for EPA to publish a Federal Register notice for a 30-day public 
comment period prior to granting a class-approved AMS in Sec.  
75.47(c). This Federal Register notice is unnecessary in view of EPA's 
authority under Subpart E to approve alternative monitoring systems, 
and the rigorous requirements in Sec. Sec.  75.40 through 75.48 that an 
AMS must meet in order to be certified.
6. Cover Letters
    EPA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec.  75.62 and 75.63, regarding the 
need for cover letter text to accompany official monitoring plan 
submittals, certification applications, and recertification 
applications. Sections 72.21 and 72.22 of the Acid Rain Program core 
rules require each official Program submittal to come from the 
Designated Representative (DR) or the Alternate Designated 
Representative (ADR), and to include a certification statement 
attesting that the information in the submittal is, to the best of his 
or her knowledge, true and accurate.
    In past years, EPA had required a hard copy form (i.e., EPA form 
7610-14) to be included with all initial monitoring plan submittals, 
and with all certification and recertification applications. Form 7610-
14 included a certification statement and a signature block for the DR 
or ADR. However, the form eventually became outdated, and in the 
January 24, 2008 rulemaking, EPA removed the requirement to include it 
in future monitoring plan, certification application, and 
recertification application submittals. Although discontinuing the use 
of Form 7610-14 was appropriate, it resulted in a loss of the official 
status of these submittals.
    Today's proposed rule would add a new paragraph, (d), to both Sec.  
75.62 and Sec.  75.63. Section 75.62(d) would require the DR or ADR to 
enclose a hard copy cover letter with each hard copy monitoring plan 
submittal. The cover letter would be submitted to the EPA Regional 
Office and to the State or local air agency. Consistent with Sec.  
72.21(b), the cover letter would include the DR's (or ADR's) signature 
and a certification statement. Section 75.63(d) would similarly require 
a hard copy cover letter and a signed certification statement from the 
DR or ADR to accompany the hard copy portion of each certification or 
recertification application.
    In contrast, for electronic monitoring plan submittals and the 
electronic portions of certification and recertification applications, 
there is no need for cover letter text. For these official Program 
submittals, the requirements of Sec. Sec.  72.21 and 72.22 are met by 
means of the DR's (or ADR's) electronic signature and electronic 
certification statements. However, the DR or ADR may wish to provide 
important explanatory text and comments along with an official 
electronic submittal. In view of this, EPA proposes to include in 
Sec. Sec.  75.62(d) and 75.63(d) provisions allowing such text and 
comments to accompany both electronic monitoring plan submittals and 
the electronic portions of certification and recertification 
applications, provided that the information is communicated in an 
electronic format compatible with the rest of the data required under 
Sec. Sec.  75.62 and 75.63. This is consistent with Sec.  75.64(g), 
which allows the DR or ADR to provide EPA with similar textual 
information in electronic format, so long as it is compatible with the 
rest of the data in the quarterly emissions reports.
7. Recordkeeping and Reporting Formats
    EPA proposes to amend Part 75, Appendix A, Section 4 to update 
recordkeeping and reporting formats.
8. Calibration Gas Tag Values
    EPA proposes to amend Part 75, Appendix A, Sections 5.1.4(b) and 
5.1.5 to clarify the meaning of the plus or minus 2.0 percent 
performance specification for EPA Protocol gases and research gas 
mixtures.
    Section 5.1.4(b) currently requires calculation of a 95 percent 
confidence interval which may provide justification for a specialty gas 
company to claim that it is permissible for an EPA Protocol gas 
cylinder tag value to be more than 2.0 percent different than the 
actual cylinder gas concentration. The Agency generally does not assign 
an uncertainty to a performance specification, e.g., cylinder 
concentration must be within 2.0% of cylinder tag value, because 
performance specifications are used to determine compliance.
    Proposed Section 5.1.4(b) would state that ``EPA Protocol gas 
concentrations must be certified by a specialty gas company to have an 
analytical uncertainty to be not more than plus or minus 2.0 percent 
(inclusive).''
    Section 5.1.5 currently states that research gas mixtures (RGM) 
must be vendor certified to be within 2.0 percent of the cylinder tag 
value. This statement may be confusing because the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (rather than a specialty gas vendor) 
actually certifies an RGM concentration.
    Proposed Section 5.1.5 would state: ``Concentrations of research 
gas

[[Page 33401]]

mixtures, as defined in Sec.  72.2 of this chapter, must be certified 
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to be within plus 
or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive) of the concentration specified on the 
cylinder label (i.e., the tag value) in order to be used as calibration 
gas under this part.''
    The Agency requests comments on these proposed changes to Sections 
5.1.4(b) and 5.1.5, particularly regarding the appropriateness of the 
2.0 percent specification for very low gas concentrations. Would an 
alternative specification (e.g., in terms of absolute difference) be 
more appropriate for very low concentration gases?
9. Removal of Mercury Monitoring Provisions
    EPA is proposing to remove the mercury (Hg) monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions from Parts 72 and 75. These 
provisions were originally published in May 2005, in support of the 
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) (see 70 FR 28606, May 18, 2005), and were 
subsequently amended on September 7, 2007 and January 24, 2008 (see 72 
FR 51494, September 7, 2007 and 73 FR 4312, January 24, 2008).
    CAMR provided a blueprint for a national Hg emissions reduction 
program, using a ``cap and trade'' approach. However, the rule was 
challenged, and on February 8, 2008, the District of Columbia Court of 
Appeals in New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008) vacated the 
rule. The sole purpose of the Part 75 Hg monitoring provisions was to 
facilitate the implementation of CAMR. EPA appealed the Court's ruling 
on CAMR, but the petition for a rehearing was denied.
    In view of vacatur of CAMR, today's proposed amendments would not 
only remove the more visible Hg monitoring sections of the rule, such 
as Subpart I (Hg mass emissions monitoring options), Sec.  75.15 
(operation of sorbent trap monitoring systems), Sec. Sec.  75.38 and 
75.39 (Hg missing data provisions), Sec. Sec.  75.57(i) and (j) (Hg 
recordkeeping provisions), Section 9 of Appendix F (Hg mass emissions 
calculations), and Appendix K (QA procedures for sorbent trap systems), 
but would also remove a myriad of less obvious references to Hg 
monitoring scattered throughout the rule text, Tables, and Figures.
    The rule texts affected by the proposed amendments are as follows: 
Sec.  72.2, Sec.  75.2(d), Sec.  75.4(d), Sec.  75.6, Sec.  75.10(d), 
Sec. Sec.  75.20(a) through (d), Sec.  75.21(a), Sec. Sec.  75.22(a) 
and (b), Sec.  75.24(d), Sec. Sec.  75.31(a) and (b), Sec.  75.32(a), 
Table 1 in Sec.  75.33, Sec. Sec.  75.34(a) and (d), Sec.  75.38, Sec.  
75.39, Sec.  75.53(g), Sec. Sec.  75.57(i) and (j), Table 4a in Sec.  
75.57, Sec.  75.58(b), Sec. Sec.  75.59(a), (c) and (e), Sec.  
75.60(b), Sec. Sec.  75.61(a) and (b), Sec. Sec.  75.80 through 75.84, 
Appendix A, Sections 1.1, 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, 2.2.3, 
3.1(c), 3.2(3), 3.3.8, 3.4.3, 4 introductory text, 5.1.9, 6.2 
introductory text, (g) and (h), 6.3.1 introductory text, 6.4 
introductory text, 6.5 introductory text, (c), (e), and (g), 6.5.1, 
6.5.6(c), 6.5.10, 7.3 introductory text, 7.6 introductory text, 7.6.1, 
7.6.5(b) and (f), Appendix B, Sections 1.1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1 through 1.5.6, 
2.1.4(a), 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1(a), 2.3.1.3(a), 2.3.2(d) and (i), 2.3.4, 2.6, 
Figures 1 and 2, Appendix F, section 9, and Appendix K.
10. Miscellaneous Corrections and Additions
    EPA also proposes to make several minor corrections and additions 
to Part 75, most of which are in the rule sections cited immediately 
above. Many of the proposed revisions are simply grammatical in nature, 
for added clarity. The more substantive proposed revisions are as 
follows. First, in Sec. Sec.  75.21 and 75.22 and Section 6.5.10 of 
Appendix A, corrections would be made to the citations of the 
Appendices to Part 60 in which the EPA reference methods are found. 
Second, Equation A-7 in Appendix A would be corrected. Third, 
references to SO2-diluent monitoring systems, which are no 
longer used for Part 75 reporting, would be removed from Sec.  75.59, 
Section 2.3.1.1(a) of Appendix B, and from Figure 2 of Appendix B. 
Fourth, the reference to moisture sensors, which are not required to 
perform daily calibration error tests, would be removed from Section 
2.1.4(a) of Appendix B. Fifth, a reference to the NOX 
emission tests of low mass emissions units, which had been 
inadvertently omitted, would be added to Sec.  75.22. Sixth, in Table 
4a in Sec.  75.57, the reference to the maximum potential flow rate 
(MPF) would be removed from the description of Method of Determination 
Code (MODC) ``23''. Code 23 pertains to data reporting for an 
unmonitored bypass stack. Section 75.16(c)(3) states that during bypass 
hours, the standard missing data procedures are to be used for stack 
gas flow rate, rather than reporting the MPF. Finally, a new MODC, 
``53'', would be added to Table 4a. This code would be used for certain 
alternative emissions data approved by petition. MODC ``53'' differs 
from existing code ``54'', in that the hours in which code ``53'' is 
reported would be considered ``available'' hours that do not affect the 
percent monitor data availability (PMA). An example of a case where 
code ``53'' might be used is a situation where a developing problem 
with a monitor (e.g., a dilution probe leak) is undetectable by means 
of daily or quarterly QA tests, but it is later discovered, at the time 
of the annual RATA. Ordinarily, this could result in an extended period 
of missing data substitution, including the use of maximum potential 
values, and a sharp reduction in the PMA. However, if the probe leak 
could be reasonably quantified, EPA would consider a petition under 
Sec.  75.66 to make an upward adjustment to the data recorded by the 
monitor during the leak period and to report the adjusted data using 
MODC ``53'' instead of applying the standard Part 75 missing data 
routines.

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 proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2203.03. The currently approved Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA reflects the January 
24, 2008 rule (EPA ICR Number 2203.02; OMB No.: 2060-0626). (OMB 
control numbers for EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.) The 
information requirements covered by EPA ICR Number 2203.03 reflect the 
revisions to the requirements in 40 CFR parts 72, and 75 that are being 
proposed in this action.
    Basic information on the identity of EPA Protocol gas production 
sites and on the type of cylinders used by Part 75 affected sources 
will be collected by the Agency. These data will allow the Agency to 
verify that a Part 75 affected source is using EPA Protocol gases from 
EPA Protocol gas production sites that are participating in the 
Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP), and to inform the gas 
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits. This same type of information 
will be collected when EPA Protocol gases are used to perform certain 
EPA test methods. The Agency anticipates that this will help improve

[[Page 33402]]

the quality of results when these test methods are used.
    EPA has added simple recordkeeping and reporting requirements to 
enable the Agency to verify that Qualified Individuals and Air Emission 
Testing Bodies meet the requirements of this rule. EPA maintains that 
the main costs for air emission testing bodies to comply with the 
minimum competency requirements in ASTM D7036-04 are associated with 
taking qualified individual (QI) competency exams, and the development 
and revision of quality assurance manuals. The costs will be passed 
through to the customers (Part 75 affected sources, primarily large 
electric utility and industrial companies), and the Agency notes that 
these costs will be offset by the savings generated by fewer failed or 
incorrectly performed relative accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer 
repeat tests required.
    EPA is also requiring certain recordkeeping and reporting 
provisions for various data elements that were inadvertently left out 
of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final 
rule. These data elements have already been incorporated in the data 
acquisition and handling systems of Part 75 affected units, and are 
required to make EPA's new reporting software data requirements 
consistent with the regulatory requirements.
    All of the above data collections are mandatory under 40 CFR part 
75. None of the data are considered confidential business information 
under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This proposed rule does not significantly change the existing 
requirements in 40 CFR Parts 72, and 75 and thus does not significantly 
change the existing information collection burden. The total annual 
respondent burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, with total annual 
labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,081,989. This estimate includes 
the burden associated with the increase in fees from AETBs and PGVP 
vendors resulting from their compliance with the new requirements in 
the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources to review the 
new requirements and comply with the modified recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b). The respondent burden for this collection of information 
is estimated to be a small fraction of both the 124,976 labor hours, 
and the $8,581,420 total cost that were calculated for the existing 
supporting statement (ICR 2203.02) for revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 
75.
    Most of these costs are expected to be borne by the private sector 
and will be passed through to the customers (Part 75 affected sources, 
primarily large electric utility and industrial companies, or the rate 
payers). The Agency notes that much of the overall cost will be offset 
by the savings generated by fewer failed or incorrectly performed daily 
calibration error tests, quarterly linearity checks, and relative 
accuracy test audits (RATAs), and fewer repeat tests required.
    Exhibits 1 and 2 summarize the respondent burden and cost estimates 
performed for the ICR (2203.03) supporting statement for revisions to 
40 CFR Parts 72 & 75. EPA estimates that: (a) 1,249 ARP sources and 253 
additional CAIR sources will need to review the revised requirements 
and comply with the modified reporting requirements; and (b) 3,736 ARP 
sources and 777 additional CAIR sources will need to perform quality 
assurance testing and maintenance tasks. Low mass emissions units will 
not have to modify their DAHS, and sources with only new units already 
have their initial startup burdens and costs accounted for in the 
underlying program ICRs. Exhibit 1 shows the total burden and total 
cost based on this respondent universe.

 Exhibit 1--Increased Respondent Burden/Cost (Labor Only) Estimates Related to Revisions of 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
 Information collection activity    Mean hourly      Hours per      respondents     Respondent      Total labor
                                       rate       activity/ year   (facilities)     hours/year       cost/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARP Respondents One Time Rule              80.71               1           1,249           1,249         100,807
 Review.........................
ARP Respondents Compliance with            80.71             0.5           1,249           624.5          50,444
 Modified Reporting Requirements
CAIR Respondents One Time Rule             80.71               1             253             253          20,420
 Review.........................
CAIR Respondents Compliance with           80.71             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 & 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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)........................

[[Page 33403]]

 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
    --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.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............         900,108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0837. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit 
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after June 11, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it by July 12, 2010. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small 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 then paired with facility 
owner and associated affiliates data (owners with net generation over 4 
million were disregarded) resulting in a total of 620 small entities 
with a 2008 average net generation of 650,169 megawatt hours. 
Multiplying net generation by the 2009 EIA average retail price of 
electricity (9.72 cents per kilowatt hour), the average revenue stream 
per small entity was determined to be $63,196,427 dollars. In contrast 
the average respondent costs burden for this rule was determined to be 
$720.37 per year, which is considerably less than one percent of the 
estimated average revenue stream per entity. All of the 620 small 
entities except for one had respondent costs that were less than one 
percent of the estimated revenue stream.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. All but one 
of the 620 small electric utilities directly affected by this proposed 
rule are expected to experience costs that are well under one percent 
of their estimated revenues.
    The proposed rule revisions represent minor changes to existing 
monitoring requirements under Part 75. There will be some small level 
of annual costs to participate in a gas audit program, taking a 
qualified stack test individual competency exam and developing or 
revising a quality assurance manual, and a slight up-front cost to 
reprogram existing electronic data reporting software used under Part 
75. The Agency notes that these costs will be offset by the savings 
generated by fewer failed or incorrectly performed daily calibration 
error tests, quarterly linearity checks, and relative accuracy test 
audits (RATAs), and fewer repeat tests required.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,254 hours, with 
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,081,989. This 
estimate includes the burden associated with the increase in fees from 
AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the new 
requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources 
to review the new requirements and comply with the modified 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (See Exhibits 1 and 2). The 
respondent burden for this collection of

[[Page 33404]]

information is estimated to be a small fraction of both the 124,976 
labor hours, and the $8,581,420 total cost that were calculated for the 
existing supporting statement (ICR 2203.03) for revisions to 40 CFR 
Parts 72 & 75. The costs incurred by AETBs and PGVP vendors will be 
passed through to their customers (Part 75 affected sources, primarily 
large electric utility and industrial companies, or the rate payers). 
The Agency notes that much of the costs will be offset by the savings 
generated by fewer failed or incorrectly performed daily calibration 
error tests, quarterly linearity checks, and relative accuracy test 
audits (RATAs), and fewer repeat tests required. Thus, this rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed rule 
would generally affect large electric utility or industrial companies.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule primarily amends 
the Protocol Gas Verification Program, and the minimum competency 
requirements for air emission testing (first promulgated on January 24, 
2008 (See 73 FR 4340, 4364, and 4365)) by having specialty gas company 
funds go to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who has 
statutory authority to receive such funds, to fund gas cylinder 
analyses, by changing the rule language to rely on certain 
documentation provided at the time of stack testing as sufficient proof 
of validity of test data that otherwise meets the requirements of Part 
75, by adding simple recordkeeping/reporting requirements, and by 
extending relevant compliance deadlines. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed 
rule primarily amends the Protocol Gas Verification Program, and the 
minimum competency requirements for air emission testing (first 
promulgated on January 24, 2008 (See 73 FR 4340, 4364, and 4365)) by 
having specialty gas company funds go to the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, who has statutory authority to receive such 
funds, to fund gas cylinder analyses, by changing the rule language to 
rely on certain documentation provided at the time of stack testing as 
sufficient proof of validity of test data that otherwise meets the 
requirements of Part 75, by adding simple recordkeeping/reporting 
requirements, and by extending relevant compliance deadlines. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal 
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended 
to mitigate health or safety risks.

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 potentially applicable voluntary 
consensus standards. The Agency found an applicable voluntary consensus 
standard, ASTM D 7036-04, Standard Practice for Competence of Air 
Emission Testing Bodies, for use with the air emission testing body 
provisions of the proposed rule. However, EPA could not identify any 
applicable voluntary consensus standard for the Protocol Gas 
Verification Program. Therefore, for the PGVP, EPA has decided to use 
``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous 
Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, EPA-600/R-97/121 or such 
revised procedure as approved by the Administrator.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this proposed regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. This proposed rule primarily amends the Protocol Gas 
Verification Program, and the minimum competency requirements for air 
emission testing (first promulgated on January 24, 2008 (See 73 FR 
4340, 4364, and 4365)) by having specialty gas company funds go to the 
National

[[Page 33405]]

Institute of Standards and Technology, who has statutory authority to 
receive such funds, to fund gas cylinder analyses, by changing the rule 
language to rely on certain documentation provided at the time of stack 
testing as sufficient proof of validity of test data that otherwise 
meets the requirements of Part 75, by adding simple recordkeeping/
reporting requirements, and by extending relevant compliance deadlines.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 72 and 75

    Environmental protection, Acid rain, Administrative practice and 
procedure, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Carbon dioxide, 
Continuous emission monitoring, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Reference test methods.

    Dated: April 29, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    40 CFR parts 72 and 75 are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 72--PERMITS REGULATION

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

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

    2. Section 72.2 is amended by:
    a. Revising definitions of ``Air Emission Testing Body (AETB)'', 
``EPA Protocol Gas'', ``EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program'', and 
``Qualified Individual'';
    b. Revising the introductory text of the definition of ``Continuous 
emission monitoring system or CEMS'';
    c. Removing paragraph (7) of the definition of ``Continuous 
emission monitoring system or CEMS''
    d. Removing the definitions of ``NIST traceable elemental Hg 
standards'', ``NIST traceable source of oxidized Hg'', ``Sorbent trap 
monitoring system'', and ``Specialty Gas Producer''; and
    e. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``EPA Protocol Gas 
Production Site'', and ``Specialty Gas Company'', to read as follows:

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 SO2, NOX, or 
CO2 emissions or stack gas volumetric flow rate. The 
following are the principal types of continuous emission monitoring 
systems required under part 75 of this chapter. Sections 75.10 through 
75.18, and Sec.  75.71(a) of this chapter indicate which type(s) of 
CEMS is required for specific applications:
* * * * *
    EPA Protocol Gas means a calibration gas mixture prepared and 
analyzed according to section 2 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for 
Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' September 
1997, EPA-600/R-97/121 or such revised procedure as approved by the 
Administrator.
    EPA Protocol Gas Production Site means a site that produces or 
blends calibration gas mixtures prepared and analyzed according to 
section 2 of the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, EPA-
600/R-97/121 or such revised procedure as approved by the 
Administrator.
    EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program or PGVP means a calibration 
gas audit program described in Sec.  75.21(g) of this chapter and 
implemented by EPA in cooperation with the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST).
* * * * *
    Qualified Individual (QI) means an individual who is identified by 
an AETB as meeting the requirements described in ASTM D7036-04 
``Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing Bodies'' 
(incorporated by reference under Sec.  75.6 of this part), as of the 
date of testing.
* * * * *
    Specialty Gas Company means an organization that wholly or 
partially owns or operates one or more EPA Protocol gas production 
sites.
* * * * *

PART 75--CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING

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

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

Sec.  75.2  [Amended]

    4. Section 75.2 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
    5. Section 75.4 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2);
    b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
    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 SO2, NOX, CO2, 
opacity, and volumetric flow rate required under this part (or under 
the applicable State or Federal mass emissions reduction program) are 
installed and that all required certification tests are completed no 
later than 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever 
occurs first) after the date that the unit recommences commercial 
operation, notice of which date shall be provided under Sec.  
75.61(a)(3) or Sec.  75.61(a)(7), as applicable. The owner or operator 
shall determine and report SO2 concentration, NOX 
emission rate, CO2 concentration, and flow rate data (as 
applicable) for all unit operating hours after the applicable 
compliance date until all of the required certification tests are 
successfully completed, using either:
    (1) The maximum potential concentration of SO2 (as 
defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this part), the maximum 
potential NOX emission rate, as defined in Sec.  72.2 of 
this chapter, the maximum potential

[[Page 33406]]

flow rate, as defined in section 2.1.4.1 of appendix A to this part, or 
the maximum potential CO2 concentration, as defined in 
section 2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part; or
* * * * *
    (e) In accordance with Sec.  75.20, if the owner or operator of an 
affected unit completes construction of a new stack or flue, flue gas 
desulfurization system, or add-on NOX emission controls 
after the applicable deadline in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section:
    (1) The owner or operator shall ensure that all required 
certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests of the 
monitoring systems required under this part (i.e., the SO2, 
NOX, CO2, opacity, and volumetric flow rate 
monitoring systems, as applicable) are completed not later than 90 unit 
operating days or 180 calendar days (whichever occurs first) after:
    (i) The date that emissions first exit to the atmosphere through 
the new stack or flue, notice of which date shall be provided under 
subpart G of this part; or
    (ii) The date that reagent is first injected into the flue gas 
desulfurization system or add-on NOX emission controls, 
notice of which date shall be provided under subpart G of this part.
    (2) If the project involves both new stack or flue construction and 
installation of add-on emission controls, the 90 unit operating days 
and 180 calendar days shall be reckoned from the date that emissions 
first exit to the atmosphere through the new stack or flue.
    (3) The owner or operator shall determine and report SO2 
concentration, NOX emission rate, CO2 
concentration, and volumetric flow rate data for all unit operating 
hours after emissions first pass through the new stack or flue, or 
reagent is injected into the flue gas desulfurization system or add-on 
NOX emission controls (as applicable) until all required 
certification and/or recertification and/or diagnostic tests are 
successfully completed, using either:
    (i) The applicable missing data substitution procedures under 
Sec. Sec.  75.31 through 75.37; or
    (ii) The conditional data validation provisions of Sec.  
75.20(b)(3); or
    (iii) Reference methods under Sec.  75.22(b); or
    (iv) Another procedure approved by the Administrator pursuant to a 
petition under Sec.  75.66.
* * * * *
    6. Section 75.6 is amended by:
    a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(38), (a)(43), and (a)(44); 
and
    b. Revising paragraphs (a)(48) and (f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  75.6  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (38) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (43) [Reserved]
    (44) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (48) ASTM D7036-04, Standard Practice for Competence of Air 
Emission Testing Bodies, for Sec.  72.2, Sec.  75.59(a)(9)(xi)(iii), 
(a)(15)(iii), (b)(6)(iii), (d)(4)(iii), and appendix A, Sec.  6.1.2 of 
this part.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum 
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4--Proving Systems, Section 2--Pipe 
Provers (Provers Accumulating at Least 10,000 Pulses), Second Edition, 
March 2001, Section 3--Small Volume Provers, First Edition, and Section 
5--Master-Meter Provers, Second Edition, May 2000, for appendix D to 
this part.
* * * * *
    7. Section 75.10 is amended by:
    a. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1); and
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)(3), to read as 
follows:

Sec.  75.10  General operating requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * * The owner or operator shall reduce all SO2 
concentrations, volumetric flow, SO2 mass emissions, 
CO2 concentration, O2 concentration, 
CO2 mass emissions (if applicable), NOX 
concentration, and NOX emission rate data collected by the 
monitors to hourly averages. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) Failure of an SO2, CO2, or O2 
emissions concentration monitor, NOX concentration monitor, 
flow monitor, moisture monitor, or NOX-diluent continuous 
emission monitoring system to acquire the minimum number of data points 
for calculation of an hourly average in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section shall result in the failure to obtain a valid hour of data and 
the loss of such component data for the entire hour. * * *
* * * * *

Sec.  75.15  [Removed and reserved]

    8. Section 75.15 is removed and reserved as follows:
    9. Section 75.20 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(i);
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b) introductory text;
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text;
    d. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iii);
    e. Removing paragraph (c)(1)(vi);
    f. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(9); and
    g. Removing paragraph (d)(2)(ix), to read as follows:

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 
SO2, as defined in section 2.1.1.1 of appendix A to this 
part, to report SO2 concentration; the maximum potential 
NOX emission rate, as defined in Sec.  72.2 of this chapter, 
to report NOX emissions in lb/mmBtu; the maximum potential 
concentration of NOX, as defined in section 2.1.2.1 of 
appendix A to this part, to report NOX emissions in ppm 
(when a NOX concentration monitoring system is used to 
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined under 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 CO2, as defined in 
section 2.1.3.1 of appendix A to this part, to report CO2 
concentration data; and either the minimum potential moisture 
percentage, as defined in section 2.1.5 of appendix A to this part or, 
if Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A to part 60 of 
this chapter is used to determine NOX emission rate, the 
maximum potential moisture percentage, as defined in section 2.1.6 of 
appendix A to this part; and
* * * * *
    (b) Recertification approval process. Whenever the owner or 
operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in a certified 
continuous emission monitoring system or continuous opacity monitoring 
system that may significantly affect the ability of the system to 
accurately measure or record the SO2 or CO2 
concentration, stack gas volumetric flow rate, NOX emission 
rate,

[[Page 33407]]

NOX 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 SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, each 
NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine 
NOX mass emissions, as defined under Sec.  75.71(a)(2), and 
each NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring system:
* * * * *
    (ii) A linearity check, where, for the NOX-diluent 
continuous emission monitoring system, the test is performed separately 
on the NOX pollutant concentration monitor and the diluent 
gas monitor;
    (iii) A relative accuracy test audit. For the NOX-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, the RATA shall be done 
on a system basis, in units of lb/mmBtu. For the NOX 
concentration monitoring system, the RATA shall be done on a ppm basis;
* * * * *
    (9) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    10. Section 75.21 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and
    b. Adding paragraphs (f) and (g), to read as follows:

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), instead of the procedures specified in appendix B to 
this part.
* * * * *
    (f) Requirements for Air Emission Testing. On and after [DATE THAT 
IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], relative accuracy 
testing under 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, 
referred to in section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this part, section 1.1.4 
of appendix B to this part, and section 2.1 of appendix E to this part 
shall apply only to these tests. Tests and activities under this part 
that do not have to be performed by an AETB as defined in Sec.  72.2 
include daily CEMS operation, daily calibration error checks, daily 
flow interference checks, quarterly linearity checks, routine 
maintenance of CEMS, voluntary emissions testing, or emissions testing 
required under other regulations.
    (g) Requirements for EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program. Any EPA 
Protocol gas production site that chooses to participate in the EPA 
Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP) must notify the Administrator 
of its intent to participate. An EPA Protocol gas production site's 
initial participation shall commence immediately upon such notification 
and shall extend through the end of the calendar year in which 
notification is provided. EPA will issue a vendor ID to each 
participating EPA Protocol gas production site. In each year of the 
PGVP, EPA may audit up to four EPA Protocol gas cylinders from each 
participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
    (1) A production site participating in the PGVP shall provide the 
following information in its initial and ongoing notifications to EPA:
    (i) The specialty gas company name which owns or operates the 
production site;
    (ii) The name and address of that participating EPA Protocol gas 
production site, owned or operated by the specialty gas company; and
    (iii) The name, e-mail address, and telephone number of a contact 
person for that participating EPA Protocol gas production site.
    (2) An EPA Protocol gas production site that elects to continue 
participating in the PGVP in the next calendar year must notify the 
Administrator of its intent to continue in the program by December 31 
of the current year by submitting to EPA the information described in 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (3) EPA Protocol gas production sites shall provide the initial and 
on-going notifications described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section by 
following the instructions on the Forms page of the CAMD Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business/forms.html). A list of the 
names of EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP 
will be made publicly available by posting on EPA Web sites.
    (4) EPA may remove an EPA Protocol gas production site from the 
list of PGVP participants for any of the following reasons:
    (i) If the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to provide all of 
the information required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section;
    (ii) If, after being notified that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders 
are being audited by EPA, the EPA Protocol gas production site fails to 
cancel its invoice or to credit the purchaser's account for the 
cylinders; or
    (iii) If, after the EPA Protocol gas production site is notified 
that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited, EPA does not 
receive an electronic audit report required by paragraph (g)(9)(iv) of 
this section for the EPA Protocol gas production site's cylinders.
    (5) EPA may relist an EPA Protocol gas production site as follows:
    (i) An EPA Protocol gas production site may be relisted immediately 
after its failure is remedied if the only reason for removal from the 
list of PGVP participants is failure to provide all of the information 
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section;
    (ii) If EPA does not receive written proof of a credit receipt or 
of cancellation of the invoice for the cylinders from the EPA Protocol 
gas production site within two weeks of notifying the EPA Protocol gas 
production site that its cylinders are being audited by EPA, the 
cylinders shall be returned to the EPA Protocol gas production site and 
that EPA Protocol gas production site shall not be eligible for 
relisting until December 31 of the current year and until it submits to 
EPA the information required by paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in 
accordance with the procedures in paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this 
section; and
    (iii) Any EPA Protocol gas production site which is notified by EPA 
that its cylinders are being audited and for whom EPA does not receive 
an electronic audit report required by paragraph (g)(9)(iv) of this 
section, shall not be eligible for relisting until December 31 of the 
next year and until it submits to EPA the information required by 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, in accordance with the procedures in 
paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(3) of this section.
    (6) For each affected unit under this part that uses EPA Protocol 
gases, the owner or operator must obtain such gases from either an EPA 
Protocol gas production site that is on the EPA list of sites 
participating in the PGVP at the time the owner or operator procures 
such gases or from a reseller that sells to the owner or operator 
unaltered EPA Protocol gases produced by an EPA Protocol gas production 
site that is on the EPA list of participating sites. In the

[[Page 33408]]

event that an EPA Protocol gas production site is removed from the list 
of PGVP participants after such gases are procured, but before the 
gases have been consumed, the gas cylinders may continue to be used for 
the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder's 
expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure reaches 
150 psig.
    (7) EPA Protocol gas cylinders purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE] from a production site that is not participating in the 
PGVP may be used for the purposes of this part until the earlier of the 
cylinder's expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas 
pressure reaches 150 psig.
    (8) If EPA notifies a participating EPA Protocol gas production 
site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited and 
identifies the purchaser as an EPA representative or contractor 
participating in the audit process, the production site shall then 
either cancel that purchaser's invoice or credit that purchaser's 
account for the purchase of those EPA Protocol gas cylinders, and 
provide sufficient funding to NIST for analysis of those EPA Protocol 
gas cylinders by NIST, and for the production site's pro-rata share of 
a NIST electronic audit report on all cylinders in the current audit, 
as specified in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) through (g)(9)(v) of this section, 
for demurrage, and for return shipment of its cylinders.
    (9) If EPA notifies a participating EPA Protocol gas production 
site that its EPA Protocol gas cylinders are being audited, then:
    (i) Each participating EPA Protocol gas production site must reach 
formal agreement with NIST to analyze its EPA Protocol gas cylinders 
provided for audit as soon after NIST receives the batch containing 
those cylinders as possible, preferably within two weeks, using 
analytical procedures consistent with metrology institute practices and 
at least as rigorous as the ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and 
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards'' (Traceability 
Protocol), September 1997 (EPA-600/R-97/121) or equivalent written 
cylinder analysis protocol that has been approved by EPA.
    (ii) Each cylinder's concentration must be determined by NIST and 
the results compared to each cylinder's certification documentation and 
tag value to establish conformance with section 5.1 of appendix A to 
this part. After NIST analysis, each cylinder must be provided with a 
NIST analyzed concentration with an uncertainty of plus or minus 1.0 
percent (inclusive) or better, unless otherwise approved by EPA.
    (iii) The certification documentation accompanying each cylinder 
must be verified in the audit report as meeting the requirements of the 
Traceability Protocol or a revised procedure approved by the 
Administrator.
    (iv) Each participating EPA Protocol gas production site shall have 
NIST provide all of the information required by paragraphs (g)(9)(ii) 
through (g)(9)(v) of this section in an audit report. The audit report 
shall be submitted electronically by NIST to EPA upon completion of the 
current audit. The audit report shall contain complete documentation of 
the NIST procedures used to analyze the cylinders, including the 
analytical reference standards, analytical method, analytical method 
uncertainty, analytical instrumentation, and instrument calibration 
procedures. The audit report shall include a table with the information 
and in the format specified by Figure 3 (or the Note below Figure 3, as 
applicable) of appendix B to this part or such revised format as 
approved by the Administrator. The Agency will post the results of the 
NIST analyses in the same format on EPA Web sites.
    (v) For EPA Protocol gas production sites that produce EPA Protocol 
gas cylinders claiming NIST traceability for both NO and NOX 
concentrations in the same cylinder, if analyzed by NIST for the PGVP, 
such cylinders must be analyzed by NIST for both the NO and 
NOX components (where total NOX is determined by 
NO plus NO2) and the results of the analyses shall be 
included in the audit report.
    (10) After analysis by NIST, each EPA Protocol gas cylinder shall 
be returned to the EPA Protocol gas production site that provided it.
    (11) The data validation procedures under Sec. Sec.  2.1.4, 2.2.3, 
and 2.3.2 of appendix B to this part apply.
    11. Section 75.22 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(iv);
    c. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(v)
    d. Removing paragraph (a)(7);
    e. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; and
    f. Removing paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(8), to read as follows:

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; 
NOX emission tests of low mass emission units under Sec.  
75.19(c)(1)(iv); NOX emission tests of excepted monitoring 
systems under appendix E to this part; and required quality assurance 
and quality control tests:
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iv) Section 8.6 of the method allowing for the use of ``Dynamic 
Spiking'' as an alternative to the interference and system bias checks 
of the method. Dynamic spiking may be conducted (optionally) as an 
additional quality assurance check; and
    (v) That portion of Section 8.5 of the method allowing multiple 
sampling runs to be conducted before performing the post-run system 
bias check or system calibration error check.
* * * * *
    (b) The owner or operator may use any of the following methods, 
which are found in appendices A-1 through A-4 to part 60 of this 
chapter, as a reference method backup monitoring system to provide 
quality-assured monitor data:
* * * * *
    12. Section 75.24 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (d) When the bias test indicates that an SO2 monitor, a 
flow monitor, a NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring 
system, or a NOX concentration monitoring system used to 
determine NOX 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.
* * * * *
    13. 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 SO2, 
CO2, O2, or moisture monitoring system(s) at a 
particular unit or stack location (i.e., the date and time

[[Page 33409]]

at which quality assured data begins to be recorded by CEMS(s) 
installed at that location), and during the first 2,160 quality assured 
monitor operating hours following initial certification of the required 
NOX-diluent, NOX concentration, or flow 
monitoring system(s) at the unit or stack location, the owner or 
operator shall provide substitute data required under this subpart 
according to the procedures in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. 
The owner or operator of a unit shall use these procedures for no 
longer than three years (26,280 clock hours) following initial 
certification.
    (b) SO2, CO2, or O2 concentration data, and moisture data. For each 
hour of missing SO2 or CO2 emissions 
concentration data (including CO2 data converted from 
O2 data using the procedures in appendix F of this part), or 
missing O2 or CO2 diluent concentration data used 
to calculate heat input, or missing moisture data, the owner or 
operator shall calculate the substitute data as follows:
    (1) Whenever prior quality-assured data exist, the owner or 
operator shall substitute, by means of the data acquisition and 
handling system, for each hour of missing data, the average of the 
hourly SO2, CO2, or O2 concentrations 
or moisture percentages recorded by a certified monitor for the unit 
operating hour immediately before and the unit operating hour 
immediately after the missing data period.
    (2) Whenever no prior quality assured SO2, 
CO2, or O2 concentration data or moisture data 
exist, the owner or operator shall substitute, as applicable, for each 
hour of missing data, the maximum potential SO2 
concentration or the maximum potential CO2 concentration or 
the minimum potential O2 concentration or (unless Equation 
19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this 
chapter is used to determine NOX emission rate) the minimum 
potential moisture percentage, as specified, respectively, in sections 
2.1.1.1, 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.5 of appendix A to this part. If 
Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of 
this chapter is used to determine NOX emission rate, 
substitute the maximum potential moisture percentage, as specified in 
section 2.1.6 of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
    14. Section 75.32 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a) introductory text, to read as follows:

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

    (a) Following initial certification of the required SO2, 
CO2, O2, or moisture monitoring system(s) at a 
particular unit or stack location (i.e., the date and time at which 
quality assured data begins to be recorded by CEMS(s) at that 
location), the owner or operator shall begin calculating the percent 
monitor data availability as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section, and shall, upon completion of the first 720 quality-assured 
monitor operating hours, record, by means of the automated data 
acquisition and handling system, the percent monitor data availability 
for each monitored parameter. * * *
* * * * *
    15. Section 75.33 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading; and
    b. Revising Table 1 and the footnotes below Table 1, to read as 
follows:

Sec.  75.33  Standard missing data procedures for SO2, 
NOX, and flow rate.

* * * * *

Table 1--Missing Data Procedure for SO2 CEMS, CO2 CEMS, Moisture CEMS, and Diluent (CO2 or O2) Monitors for Heat
                                               Input Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Trigger conditions                                      Calculation routines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Monitor data availability       Duration (N) of CEMS
             (percent)                outage (hours) \2\             Method                 Lookback period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 or more........................  N HA.
                                    N > 24...............  For SO2, CO2, and H2O**,   HB/HA.
                                                            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 HA.
                                    N > 8................  For SO2, CO2, and H2O**,   HB/HA.
                                                            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**,   720 hours*.
                                                            Maximum value\1\.
                                                           For O2 and H2O\x\:         720 hours*.
                                                            Minimum value\1\.
Below 80..........................  N > 0................  Maximum potential          None
                                                            concentration\3\ or %
                                                            (for SO2, CO2, and
                                                            H2O**) or
                                                           Minimum potential
                                                            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.

[[Page 33410]]

** Use this algorithm for moisture only when Equation 19-3, 19-4 or 19-8 in Method 19 in appendix A-7 to part 60
  of this chapter is used for NOX emission rate.

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

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 
SO2 or NOX emission controls, during all periods 
of SO2 or NOX emission missing data. * * *

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

    17. Sections 75.38 and 75.39 are removed and reserved.
    18. Section 75.47 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
    b. Removing paragraphs (b)(3) and (c), to read as follows:

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.
    19. Section 75.53 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A), (g)(1)(i)(C), (g)(1)(i)(E), 
(g)(1)(i)(F), (g)(1)(iii) introductory text, (g)(1)(v)(F), 
(g)(1)(v)(G), (g)(1)(vi)(H), and (g)(1)(vi)(I);
    b. Adding paragraph (g)(1)(vi)(J); and
    c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(5), to read as follows:

Sec.  75.53  Monitoring plan.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) A representation of the exhaust configuration for the units in 
the monitoring plan. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 
provide the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) of 
the configuration. Provide the ID number of each unit and assign a 
unique ID number to each common stack, common pipe multiple stack and/
or multiple pipe associated with the unit(s) represented in the 
monitoring plan. For common and multiple stacks and/or pipes, provide 
the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) of each stack 
and/or pipe;
* * * * *
    (C) The stack exit height (ft) above ground level and ground level 
elevation above sea level, and the inside 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 [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide 
the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) for the 
information in this paragraph (g)(1)(i)(C);
* * * * *
    (E) The type(s) of emission controls that are used to reduce 
SO2, NOX, and particulate emissions from each 
unit. Also provide the installation date, optimization date, and 
retirement date (if applicable) of the emission controls, and indicate 
whether the controls are an original installation;
    (F) Maximum hourly heat input capacity of each unit. On and after 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide the activation date and 
deactivation date (if applicable) for this parameter; and
* * * * *
    (iii) For each required continuous emission monitoring system, each 
fuel flowmeter system, and each continuous opacity monitoring system, 
identify and describe the major monitoring components in the monitoring 
system (e.g., gas analyzer, flow monitor, opacity monitor, moisture 
sensor, fuel flowmeter, DAHS software, etc.). Other important 
components in the system (e.g., sample probe, PLC, data logger, etc.) 
may also be represented in the monitoring plan, if necessary. Provide 
the following specific information about each component and monitoring 
system:
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (F) Effective date/hour, and (if applicable) inactivation date/hour 
of each span value. On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 
provide the activation date and deactivation date (if applicable) for 
the measurement scale and dual span information in paragraphs 
(g)(1)(v)(A), (g)(1)(v)(G), and (g)(1)(v)(H) of this section;
    (G) An indication of whether dual spans are required. If two span 
values are required, then, on and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], 
indicate whether an autoranging analyzer is used to represent the two 
measurement scales; and
* * * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (H) Date and hour that the value is no longer effective (if 
applicable);
    (I) For units using the excepted methodology under Sec.  75.19, the 
applicable SO2 emission factor; and
    (J) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], group 
identification code.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Electronic. Unit operating and capacity factor information 
demonstrating that the unit qualifies as a peaking unit, as defined in 
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 [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide the activation date and 
deactivation date (if applicable) for the peaking unit qualification 
information in this paragraph (h)(2)(i).
* * * * *
    (5) For qualification as a gas-fired unit, as defined in 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

[[Page 33411]]

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], provide the activation date and 
deactivation date (if applicable) for the gas-fired unit qualification 
information in this paragraph (h)(5).
* * * * *
    20. Section 75.57 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
    c. Adding paragraph (a)(7);
    d. Revising Table 4a; and
    e. Removing paragraphs (i) and (j), to read as follows:

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 estimation
         Code                                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).
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, Hg concentration, NOX
                        concentration at the corresponding load or
                        operational bin, or NOX emission rate at the
                        corresponding load or operational bin, in the
                        applicable lookback period (See 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.

[[Page 33412]]

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 SO2 or NOX 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 
SO2 or NOX emission data, the proper operation of 
the add-on emission controls, as described in the quality assurance/
quality control program for the unit. The parametric data shall be 
maintained on site and shall be submitted, upon request, to the 
Administrator, EPA Regional office, State, or local agency;
    (ii) A flag indicating, for each hour of missing SO2 or 
NOX emission data, either that the add-on emission controls 
are operating properly, as evidenced by all parameters being within the 
ranges specified in the quality assurance/quality control program, or 
that the add-on emission controls are not operating properly.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) For boilers, hourly average boiler O2 reading 
(percent, rounded to the nearest tenth) (flag if value exceeds by more 
than 2 percentage points the O2 level recorded at the same 
heat input during the previous NOX emission rate test); and
    (iii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], operating 
condition codes for the following:
    (A) Unit operated on emergency fuel;
    (B) Correlation curve for the fuel mixture has expired;
    (C) Operating parameter is outside of normal limits;
    (D) Uncontrolled hour;
    (E) Operation above highest tested heat input rate point on the 
curve;
    (F) Operating parameter data missing or invalid;
    (G) Designated operational and control equipment parameters within 
normal limits; and
    (H) Operation below lowest tested heat input rate point on the 
curve.
* * * * *
    22. Section 75.59 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
    c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(5) 
introductory text, and (a)(5)(ii) introductory text;
    d. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(L);
    e. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(iii)(F) and (G);
    f. Adding paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(H);
    g. Revising paragraph (a)(6) introductory text;
    h. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(7)(vii);
    i. Removing the title of reserved paragraph (a)(7)(viii);
    j. Removing paragraph (a)(7)(x);
    k. Revising paragraph (a)(9) introductory text;
    l. Revising paragraph (a)(9)(vi);
    m. Adding paragraphs (a)(9)(x) and (xi);
    n. Revising paragraphs (a)(12)(iv)(E) and (F);
    o. Adding paragraph (a)(12)(iv)(G);
    p. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(14);
    q. Adding paragraph (a)(15);
    r. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
    s. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    t. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(x) and (xi);
    u. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(xii) and (xiii);
    v. Adding paragraph (d)(4);
    w. Removing paragraph (e); and
    x. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (e), to read as 
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant 
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO2 emissions 
concentration monitor (including O2 monitors used to 
determine CO2 emissions), or diluent gas monitor (including 
wet- and dry-basis O2 monitors used to determine percent 
moisture), the owner or operator shall record the following for all 
daily and 7-day calibration error tests, and all off-line calibration 
demonstrations, including any follow-up tests after corrective action:
* * * * *
    (iii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], date, hour, and 
minute;
* * * * *
    (3) For each SO2 or NOX pollutant 
concentration monitor, CO2 emissions concentration monitor 
(including O2 monitors used to determine CO2 
emissions), or diluent gas monitor (including wet- and dry-basis 
O2 monitors used to determine percent moisture), the owner 
or operator shall record the following for the initial and all 
subsequent linearity check(s), including any follow-up tests after 
corrective action.
* * * * *
    (5) For each SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, flow 
monitor, each CO2 emissions concentration monitor (including 
any O2 concentration monitor used to determine 
CO2 mass emissions or heat input), each NOX-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, each NOX 
concentration monitoring system, each diluent gas (O2 or 
CO2) monitor used to determine heat input, each moisture 
monitoring system, and each approved alternative monitoring system, the 
owner or operator shall record the following information for the 
initial and all subsequent relative accuracy test audits:
* * * * *
    (ii) Individual test run data from the relative accuracy test audit 
for the SO2 concentration monitor, flow monitor, 
CO2 emissions concentration monitor, NOX-diluent 
continuous emission monitoring system, diluent gas (O2 or 
CO2) monitor used to determine heat input, NOX 
concentration monitoring system, moisture monitoring system, or 
approved alternative monitoring system, including:
* * * * *
    (L) Average gross unit load, expressed as a total gross unit load, 
rounded to the nearest MWe, or as steam load, rounded to the nearest 
thousand lb/hr; on and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL

[[Page 33413]]

RULE], for units that do not produce electrical or thermal output, 
record, instead, the average stack gas velocity at the operating level 
being tested; and
* * * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (F) Bias test results as specified in section 7.6.4 of appendix A 
to this part;
    (G) Bias adjustment factor from Equation A-12 in appendix A to this 
part for any monitoring system that failed the bias test (except as 
otherwise provided in section 7.6.5 of appendix A to this part) and 
1.000 for any monitoring system that passed the bias test; and
    (H) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], RATA frequency 
code.
* * * * *
    (6) For each SO2, NOX, or CO2 
pollutant concentration monitor, each component of a NOX-
diluent continuous emission monitoring system, and each CO2 
or O2 monitor used to determine heat input, the owner or 
operator shall record the following information for the cycle time 
test:
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (viii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (9) When hardcopy relative accuracy test reports, certification 
reports, recertification reports, or semiannual or annual reports for 
gas or flow rate CEMS are required or requested under 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 [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], for each gas monitor, for both low and high measurement 
ranges, record the following information for the mid-level or high-
level EPA Protocol gas (as applicable) that is used for daily 
calibration error tests, and the low-, mid-, and high-level gases used 
for quarterly linearity checks. For O2, if purified air is 
used as the high-level gas for daily calibrations or linearity checks, 
record the following information for the low- and mid-level EPA 
Protocol gas used for linearity checks, instead:
    (1) Gas level code;
    (2) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used;
    (3) Start date and hour for EPA Protocol gas type code;
    (4) End date and hour (if applicable) for EPA Protocol gas type 
code;
    (5) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA for the EPA Protocol gas 
production site that supplied the gas cylinder.
    (6) Start date and hour for PGVP vendor ID; and
    (7) End date and hour (if applicable) for PGVP vendor ID.
    (B) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], for each usage of Reference Method 3A in appendix A-2 
to part 60 of this chapter, or Method 6C or 7E in appendix A-4 to part 
60 of this chapter performed using EPA Protocol gas for the 
certification, recertification, routine quality assurance or diagnostic 
testing (reportable diagnostics, only) of a Part 75 monitoring system, 
record the information required by paragraphs (a)(9)(x)(A)(1), (2), and 
(5) of this section.
    (xi) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], for all RATAs performed pursuant to 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 NOX 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 the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in 
Sec.  72.2 of this chapter;
    (C) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date that 
the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant 
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
    (D) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam provider.
* * * * *
    (12) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (E) Type of extension;
    (F) Quarter and year; and
    (G) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], fuel code for 
Ozone Season Only reporters under Sec.  75.74(c).
* * * * *
    (14) [Reserved]
    (15) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], 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 the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in 
Sec.  72.2 of this chapter;
    (iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date 
that the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant 
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
    (iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam 
provider.
    (b) * * *
    (6) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], for all stack testing performed pursuant to section 2.1 
of appendix E to this part, the owner or operator shall record in 
electronic format the following information as provided by the AETB:
    (i) The name, telephone number and e-mail address of the Air 
Emission Testing Body;
    (ii) The name of the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in 
Sec.  72.2 of this chapter;
    (iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date 
that the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant 
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
    (iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam 
provider.
    (c) Except as otherwise provided in Sec.  75.58(b)(3)(i), for units 
with add-on SO2 or NOX 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 [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the number of 
tests for group; and
    (xiii) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the number of 
units in group.
    (4) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE], for all NOX emission testing performed 
pursuant to

[[Page 33414]]

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 the on-site Qualified Individual, as defined in 
Sec.  72.2 of this chapter;
    (iii) For the reference method(s) that were performed, the date 
that the on-site Qualified Individual took and passed the relevant 
qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and
    (iv) The name and e-mail address of the qualification exam 
provider.

Sec.  75.60  [Amended]

    23. Section 75.60 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(8).
    24. Section 75.61 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
    b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(5) introductory 
text; and
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(8), to read as follows:

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 NOX 
emission rates for low mass emissions units. Such notifications are not 
required, however, for initial certifications and recertifications of 
excepted monitoring systems under appendix D to this part.
* * * * *
    (5) Periodic relative accuracy test audits, appendix E retests, and 
low mass emissions unit retests. The owner or operator or designated 
representative of an affected unit shall submit written notice of the 
date of periodic relative accuracy testing performed under section 
2.3.1 of appendix B to this part, of periodic retesting performed under 
section 2.2 of appendix E to this part, and of periodic retesting of 
low mass emissions units performed under 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 SO2 
or NOX mass emission reduction program that incorporates by 
reference, or otherwise adopts, the monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements of subpart F, G, or H of this part. The 
notification shall be submitted no later than 7 calendar days after the 
applicable certification deadline is reached.
* * * * *
    25. Section 75.62 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  75.62  Monitoring plan submittals.

* * * * *
    (d) On and after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], consistent with 
Sec.  72.21 of this chapter, a hardcopy cover letter signed by the 
Designated Representative (DR) or the Alternate Designated 
Representative (ADR) shall accompany each hardcopy monitoring plan 
submittal. The cover letter shall include the certification statement 
described in 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 or ADR may include important 
explanatory text or comments with an electronic monitoring plan 
submittal, so long as the information is provided in an electronic 
format that is compatible with the other data required to be reported 
under this section.
    26. Section 75.63 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

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) or the Alternate 
Designated Representative (ADR) shall accompany the hardcopy portion of 
each certification or recertification application. The cover letter 
shall include the certification statement described in 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 or 
ADR may include important explanatory text or comments with the 
electronic portion of a certification or recertification application, 
so long as the information is provided in an electronic format 
compatible with the other data required to be reported under this 
section.
    27. Section 75.64 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xi);
    c. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(xii)(D);
    d. Adding paragraph (a)(7)(xiii); and
    e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(127) as paragraph (a)(12), to read 
as follows:

Sec.  75.64  Quarterly reports.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Except for the daily calibration error test data, daily 
interference check, and off-line calibration demonstration information 
required in Sec.  75.59(a)(1) and (2), which must always be submitted 
with the quarterly report, the certification, quality assurance, and 
quality control information required in Sec.  75.59 shall either be 
submitted prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the relevant 
quarterly electronic data report. On and after January 1, 2011, the 
information required in Sec.  75.59(a)(9)(x), (a)(15), (b)(6), and 
(d)(4) shall either be submitted prior to or concurrent with the 
submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data report.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (xi) Data and results of RATAs that are aborted or invalidated due 
to problems with the reference method or operational problems with the 
unit and data and results of linearity checks that are aborted or 
invalidated due to problems unrelated to monitor performance;
    (xii) * * *
    (D) The data under 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).
* * * * *

Subpart I [Removed]

    28. Subpart I, consisting of Sec. Sec.  75.80 through 75.84 is 
removed.
    29. Appendix A to Part 75 is amended by:

[[Page 33415]]

    a. Revising section 1.1;
    b. Removing sections 2.1.7, 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.7.4, and 2.2.3;
    c. Removing paragraph (c) of section 3.1 and paragraph (3) of 
section 3.2;
    d. Removing sections 3.3.8 and 3.4.3;
    e. Revising the introductory text of section 4;
    f. Revising paragraph (6) of section 4;
    g. Revising paragraph (b) of Section 5.1.4;
    h. Removing paragraph (c) of Section 5.1.4;
    i. In section 5.1.4 by redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c) 
and by revising newly designated paragraph (c);
    j. Revising the first sentence in Section 5.1.5;
    k. Removing section 5.1.9;
    l. Revising section 6.1.2;
    m. Revising the first sentence of section 6.2 introductory text;
    n. Removing paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 6.2;
    o. Revising the introductory text of section 6.3.1;
    p. Revising the introductory text of sections 6.4 and 6.5;
    q. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of section 6.5;
    r. Revising section 6.5.1;
    s. Removing paragraph (c) of section 6.5.6;
    t. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 6.5.7;
    u. Revising section 6.5.10;
    v. Revising the introductory text of section 7.3;
    w. Revising section 7.3.1;
    x. Revising the introductory text of section 7.6;
    y. Revising section 7.6.1; and
    z. Revising paragraphs (b) and (f) of section 7.6.5, to read as 
follows:

Appendix A to Part 75--Specifications and Procedures

1. Installation and Measurement Location

1.1 Gas Monitors

    (a) Following the procedures in section 8.1.1 of Performance 
Specification 2 in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, install 
the pollutant concentration monitor or monitoring system at a 
location where the pollutant concentration and emission rate 
measurements are directly representative of the total emissions from 
the affected unit. Select a representative measurement point or path 
for the monitor probe(s) (or for the path from the transmitter to 
the receiver) such that the SO2, CO2, 
O2, or NOX concentration monitoring system or 
NOX-diluent CEMS (NOX pollutant concentration 
monitor and diluent gas monitor) will pass the relative accuracy 
test (see section 6 of this appendix).
    (b) It is recommended that monitor measurements be made at 
locations where the exhaust gas temperature is above the dew-point 
temperature. If the cause of failure to meet the relative accuracy 
tests is determined to be the measurement location, relocate the 
monitor probe(s).
* * * * *

4. Data Acquisition and Handling Systems

    (a) Automated data acquisition and handling systems shall read 
and record the entire range of pollutant concentrations and 
volumetric flow from zero through full-scale and provide a 
continuous, permanent record of all measurements and required 
information in an electronic format. These systems also shall have 
the capability of interpreting and converting the individual output 
signals from an SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, a 
flow monitor, a CO2 monitor, an O2 monitor, a 
NOX pollutant concentration monitor, a NOX-
diluent CEMS, and a moisture monitoring system to produce a 
continuous readout of pollutant emission rates or pollutant mass 
emissions (as applicable) in the appropriate units (e.g., lb/hr, lb/
mmBtu, tons/hr).
    (b) Data acquisition and handling systems shall also compute and 
record: Monitor calibration error; any bias adjustments to 
SO2, NOX, flow rate, or NOX 
emission rate data; and all missing data procedure statistics 
specified in subpart D of this part.
    (c) For an excepted monitoring system under appendix D or E of 
this part, data acquisition and handling systems shall:
* * * * *
    (6) Provide a continuous, permanent record of all measurements 
and required information in an electronic format.
* * * * *

5.1 Reference Gases

* * * * *

5.1.4 EPA Protocol Gases

* * * * *
    (b) EPA Protocol gas concentrations must be certified by a 
specialty gas company to have an analytical uncertainty to be not 
more than plus or minus 2.0 percent (inclusive).
    (c) A copy of EPA-600/R-97/121 is available from the National 
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, 
VA, 703-605-6585 or http://www.ntis.gov, and from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/news.html.

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 be within plus or minus 2.0 percent 
(inclusive) of the concentration specified on the cylinder label 
(i.e., the tag value) in order to be used as calibration gas under 
this part.* * *
* * * * *

6.1 General Requirements

* * * * *

6.1.2 Requirements for Air Emission Testing

    (a) On and after [DATE THAT IS SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE], all relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) of 
CEMS under this part, and stack testing in 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 an affected 
unit the documentation required in paragraph (b) of this section, 
demonstrating its conformance to ASTM D7036-04 (incorporated by 
reference under Sec.  75.6 of this part).
    (b) The owner or operator shall obtain from the AETB a 
certification that as of the time of testing the AETB is operating 
in conformance with ASTM D7036-04. This certification shall be 
provided in the form of either:
    (1) A certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for 
the relevant test methods issued by a recognized, national 
accreditation body; or
    (2) A letter of certification for the relevant test methods 
signed by a member of the senior management staff of the AETB.
    (c) The owner or operator shall obtain from the AETB the 
information required under paragraphs 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, it is recommended that the owner or 
operator request that the AETB produce the following:
    (1) The AETB's quality manual;
    (2) The results of any external or internal audits performed by 
the AETB during the prior 12 months;
    (3) A written description of any corrective actions being 
implemented by the AETB during the prior 12 months; and
    (4) Any AETB training records for the prior 12 months.
    (e) All relative accuracy testing and stack testing in Sec.  
75.19 and Appendix E to this part shall be conducted or overseen 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. When a QI oversees a test, the QI shall actively observe 
the test for its duration. If a QI conducts a test, the QI shall 
actively conduct the test for its duration. However, allowance is 
made for normal activities of a QI who is overseeing or conducting a 
test, e.g., bathroom breaks, food breaks, and emergencies that may 
arise during a test. If the source owner or operator, or a state, 
local, or EPA observer, discovers during the test period, that the 
QI did not conduct or oversee the entire test (as qualified by this 
paragraph (d)), only those portions of the test that were conducted 
or overseen by the QI as described above may be used under this 
part.
    (f) The certification described in paragraph (b) of this 
section, and compliance with paragraph (e) of this section, shall be 
sufficient proof of validity of test data that otherwise meet the 
requirements of this part.
    (g) If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to 
an affected source by an AETB under this section or the information 
requested by an affected source under this section is either 
incomplete or inaccurate, the Administrator may post the name of the 
offending AETB on Agency Web sites, and provide the AETB a 
description of the failures to be remedied. The AETB name will be 
removed from the EPA Web sites once the failures are remedied.

[[Page 33416]]

    (h) If the Administrator finds that the information submitted to 
an affected source by an AETB under this section or the information 
requested by an affected source under this section is either 
incomplete or inaccurate, the AETB shall, on demand of the 
Administrator, provide to the Administrator evidence within a 
reasonable time of the demand that any missing information has been 
provided to the affected source and/or that any inaccurate 
information has been corrected.

6.2 Linearity Check (General Procedures)

    Check the linearity of each SO2, NOX, 
CO2, and O2 monitor while the unit, or group 
of units for a common stack, is combusting fuel at conditions of 
typical stack temperature and pressure; it is not necessary for the 
unit to be generating electricity during this test. * * *
* * * * *
    6.3 * * *

6.3.1 Gas Monitor 7-Day Calibration Error Test

    The following monitors and ranges are exempted from the 7-day 
calibration error test requirements of this part: the 
SO2, NOX, CO2 and O2 
monitors installed on peaking units (as defined in Sec.  72.2 of 
this chapter); and any SO2 or NOX measurement 
range with a span value of 50 ppm or less. In all other cases, 
measure the calibration error of each SO2 monitor, each 
NOX monitor, and each CO2 or O2 
monitor while the unit is combusting fuel (but not necessarily 
generating electricity) once each day for 7 consecutive operating 
days according to the following procedures. (In the event that unit 
outages occur after the commencement of the test, the 7 consecutive 
unit operating days need not be 7 consecutive calendar days). Units 
using dual span monitors must perform the calibration error test on 
both high- and low-scales of the pollutant concentration monitor. 
The calibration error test procedures in this section and in section 
6.3.2 of this appendix shall also be used to perform the daily 
assessments and additional calibration error tests required under 
sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 of appendix B to this part. Do not make 
manual or automatic adjustments to the monitor settings until after 
taking measurements at both zero and high concentration levels for 
that day during the 7-day test. If automatic adjustments are made 
following both injections, conduct the calibration error test such 
that the magnitude of the adjustments can be determined and 
recorded. Record and report test results for each day using the 
unadjusted concentration measured in the calibration error test 
prior to making any manual or automatic adjustments (i.e., resetting 
the calibration). The calibration error tests should be 
approximately 24 hours apart, (unless the 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. 
In addition, repeat the procedure for SO2 and 
NOX pollutant concentration monitors using the low-scale 
for units equipped with emission controls or other units with dual 
span monitors. Use only calibration gas, as specified in section 5.1 
of this appendix. Introduce the calibration gas at the gas injection 
port, as specified in section 2.2.1 of this appendix. Operate each 
monitor in its normal sampling mode. For extractive and dilution 
type monitors, pass the calibration gas through all filters, 
scrubbers, conditioners, and other monitor components used during 
normal sampling and through as much of the sampling probe as is 
practical. For in-situ type monitors, perform calibration, checking 
all active electronic and optical components, including the 
transmitter, receiver, and analyzer. Challenge the pollutant 
concentration monitors and CO2 or O2 monitors 
once with each calibration gas. Record the monitor response from the 
data acquisition and handling system. Using Equation A-5 of this 
appendix, determine the calibration error at each concentration once 
each day (at approximately 24-hour intervals) for 7 consecutive days 
according to the procedures given in this section. The results of a 
7-day calibration error test are acceptable for monitor or 
monitoring system certification, recertification or diagnostic 
testing if none of these daily calibration error test results exceed 
the applicable performance specifications in section 3.1 of this 
appendix. The status of emission data from a gas monitor prior to 
and during a 7-day calibration error test period shall be determined 
as follows:
* * * * *

6.4 Cycle Time Test

    Perform cycle time tests for each pollutant concentration 
monitor and continuous emission monitoring system while the unit is 
operating, according to the following procedures. Use a zero-level 
and a high-level calibration gas (as defined in section 5.2 of this 
appendix) alternately. To determine the downscale cycle time, 
measure the concentration of the flue gas emissions until the 
response stabilizes. Record the stable emissions value. Inject a 
zero-level concentration calibration gas into the probe tip (or 
injection port leading to the calibration cell, for in situ systems 
with no probe). Record the time of the zero gas injection, using the 
data acquisition and handling system (DAHS). Next, allow the monitor 
to measure the concentration of the zero gas until the response 
stabilizes. Record the stable ending calibration gas reading. 
Determine the downscale cycle time as the time it takes for 95.0 
percent of the step change to be achieved between the stable stack 
emissions value and the stable ending zero gas reading. Then repeat 
the procedure, starting with stable stack emissions and injecting 
the high-level gas, to determine the upscale cycle time, which is 
the time it takes for 95.0 percent of the step change to be achieved 
between the stable stack emissions value and the stable ending high-
level gas reading. Use the following criteria to assess when a 
stable reading of stack emissions or calibration gas concentration 
has been attained. A stable value is equivalent to a reading with a 
change of less than 2.0 percent of the span value for 2 minutes, or 
a reading with a change of less than 6.0 percent from the measured 
average concentration over 6 minutes. Alternatively, the reading is 
considered stable if it changes by no more than 0.5 ppm or 0.2% 
CO2 or O2 (as applicable) for two minutes. 
(Owners or operators of systems which do not record data in 1-minute 
or 3-minute intervals may petition the Administrator under 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 NOX-diluent 
continuous emission monitoring system test, either record and report 
the longer cycle time of the two component analyzers as the system 
cycle time or record the cycle time for each component analyzer 
separately (as applicable). On and after January 1, 2009, record the 
cycle time for each component analyzer separately. For time-shared 
systems, perform the cycle time tests at each probe locations that 
will be polled within the same 15-minute period during monitoring 
system operations. To determine the cycle time for time-shared 
systems, at each monitoring location, report the sum of the cycle 
time observed at that monitoring location plus the sum of the time 
required for all purge cycles (as determined by the continuous 
emission monitoring system manufacturer) at each of the probe 
locations of the time-shared systems. For monitors with dual ranges, 
report the test results for each range separately. Cycle time test 
results are acceptable for monitor or monitoring system 
certification, recertification or diagnostic testing if none of the 
cycle times exceed 15 minutes. The status of emissions data from a 
monitor prior to and during a cycle time test period shall be 
determined as follows:
* * * * *

6.5 Relative Accuracy and Bias Tests (General Procedures)

    Perform the required relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) as 
follows for each CO2 emissions concentration monitor 
(including O2 monitors used to determine CO2 
emissions concentration), each SO2 pollutant 
concentration monitor, each NOX concentration monitoring 
system used to determine NOX mass emissions, each flow 
monitor, each NOX-diluent CEMS, each O2 or 
CO2 diluent monitor used to calculate heat input, and 
each moisture monitoring system. For NOX concentration 
monitoring systems used to determine NOX mass emissions, 
as defined in Sec.  75.71(a)(2), use the same general RATA 
procedures as for SO2 pollutant concentration monitors; 
however, use the reference methods for NOX concentration 
specified in section 6.5.10 of this appendix:
* * * * *

[[Page 33417]]

    (c) For monitoring systems with dual ranges, perform the 
relative accuracy test on the range normally used for measuring 
emissions. For units with add-on SO2 or NOX 
controls that operate continuously rather than seasonally, or for 
units that need a dual range to record high concentration ``spikes'' 
during startup conditions, the low range is considered normal. 
However, for some dual span units (e.g., for units that use fuel 
switching or for which the emission controls are operated 
seasonally), provided that both monitor ranges are connected to a 
common probe and sample interface, either of the two measurement 
ranges may be considered normal; in such cases, perform the RATA on 
the range that is in use at the time of the scheduled test. If the 
low and high measurement ranges are connected to separate sample 
probes and interfaces, RATA testing on both ranges is required.
* * * * *
    (e) Complete each single-load relative accuracy test audit 
within a period of 168 consecutive unit operating hours, as defined 
in Sec.  72.2 of this chapter (or, for CEMS installed on common 
stacks or bypass stacks, 168 consecutive stack operating hours, as 
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 SO2 or CO2 emissions 
concentration monitor, each flow monitor, each CO2 or 
O2 diluent monitor used to determine heat input, each 
NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine 
NOX mass emissions, as defined in Sec.  75.71(a)(2), each 
moisture monitoring system, and each NOX-diluent CEMS, 
calculate the relative accuracy, in accordance with section 7.3 or 
7.4 of this appendix, as applicable. In addition (except for 
CO2, O2, or moisture monitors), test for bias 
and determine the appropriate bias adjustment factor, in accordance 
with sections 7.6.4 and 7.6.5 of this appendix, using the data from 
the relative accuracy test audits.

6.5.1 Gas Monitoring System RATAs (Special Considerations)

    (a) Perform the required relative accuracy test audits for each 
SO2 or CO2 emissions concentration monitor, 
each CO2 or O2 diluent monitor used to 
determine heat input, each NOX-diluent CEMS, and each 
NOX concentration monitoring system used to determine 
NOX mass emissions, as defined in 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 so they will yield 
results representative of the pollutant concentration, emission 
rate, moisture, temperature, and flue gas flow rate from the unit 
and can be correlated with the pollutant concentration monitor, 
CO2 or O2 monitor, flow monitor, and 
SO2 or NOX CEMS measurements. The minimum 
acceptable time for a gas monitoring system RATA run or for a 
moisture monitoring system RATA run is 21 minutes. For each run of a 
gas monitoring system RATA, all necessary pollutant concentration 
measurements, diluent concentration measurements, and moisture 
measurements (if applicable) must, to the extent practicable, be 
made within a 60-minute period. For NOX-diluent 
monitoring system RATAs, the pollutant and diluent concentration 
measurements must be made simultaneously. For flow monitor RATAs, 
the minimum time per run shall be 5 minutes. Flow rate reference 
method measurements may be made either sequentially from port-to-
port or simultaneously at two or more sample ports. The velocity 
measurement probe may be moved from traverse point to traverse point 
either manually or automatically. If, during a flow RATA, 
significant pulsations in the reference method readings are 
observed, be sure to allow enough measurement time at each traverse 
point to obtain an accurate average reading when a manual readout 
method is used (e.g., a ``sight-weighted'' average from a 
manometer). Also, allow sufficient measurement time to ensure that 
stable temperature readings are obtained at each traverse point, 
particularly at the first measurement point at each sample port, 
when a probe is moved sequentially from port-to-port. A minimum of 
one set of auxiliary measurements for stack gas molecular weight 
determination (i.e., diluent gas data and moisture data) is required 
for every clock hour of a flow RATA or for every three test runs 
(whichever is less restrictive). Alternatively, moisture 
measurements for molecular weight determination may be performed 
before and after a series of flow RATA runs at a particular load 
level (low, mid, or high), provided that the time interval between 
the two moisture measurements does not exceed three hours. If this 
option is selected, the results of the two moisture determinations 
shall be averaged arithmetically and applied to all RATA runs in the 
series. Successive flow RATA runs may be performed without waiting 
in between runs. If an O2 diluent monitor is used as a 
CO2 continuous emission monitoring system, perform a 
CO2 system RATA (i.e., measure CO2, rather 
than O2, with the reference method). For moisture 
monitoring systems, an appropriate coefficient, ``K'' factor or 
other suitable mathematical algorithm may be developed prior to the 
RATA, to adjust the monitoring system readings with respect to the 
reference method. If such a coefficient, K-factor or algorithm is 
developed, it shall be applied to 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 SO2 or 
NOX CEMS data (in lb/mmBtu) and volumetric flow rate data 
with the reference method data, annotate the beginning and end of 
each reference method test run (including the exact time of day) on 
the individual chart recorder(s) or other permanent recording 
device(s).
* * * * *

6.5.10 Reference Methods

    The following methods are from appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter, and are the reference methods for performing relative 
accuracy test audits under this part: Method 1 or 1A in appendix A-1 
to part 60 of this chapter for siting; Method 2 in appendix A-1 to 
part 60 of this chapter or its allowable alternatives in appendices 
A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter (except for Methods 2B and 2E 
in appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter) for stack gas velocity 
and volumetric flow rate; Methods 3, 3A or 3B in appendix A-2 to 
part 60 of this chapter for O2 and CO2; Method 
4 in appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter for moisture; Methods 
6, 6A or 6C in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter for 
SO2; and Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D or 7E in appendix A-4 to 
part 60 of this chapter for NOX, excluding the exceptions 
to Method 7E identified in Sec.  75.22(a)(5). When using Method 7E 
for measuring NOX concentration, total NOX, 
including both NO and NO2, must be measured. When using 
EPA Protocol gas with Methods 3A, 6C, and 7E, the gas must be from 
an EPA Protocol gas production site that is participating in the EPA 
Protocol Gas Verification Program described in Sec.  75.21(g). 
However, EPA Protocol gas cylinders purchased prior to [EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE] from a production site that is not participating 
in the PGVP may be used for the purposes of this part until the 
earlier of the cylinder's expiration date or the date on which the 
cylinder gas pressure reaches 150 psig. In the event that an EPA 
Protocol gas production site is removed from the list of PGVP 
participants after such gases are procured, but before the gases 
have been consumed, the gas cylinders may continue to be used for 
the purposes of this part until the earlier of the cylinder's 
expiration date or the date on which the cylinder gas pressure 
reaches 150 psig.
* * * * *

7.3 Relative Accuracy for SO2 and CO2 Emissions Concentration 
Monitors, O2 Monitors, NOX Concentration Monitoring Systems, and 
Flow Monitors

    Analyze the relative accuracy test audit data from the reference 
method tests for SO2 and CO2 emissions 
concentration monitors, CO2 or O2 monitors 
used for heat input rate determination, NOX concentration 
monitoring systems used to determine NOX

[[Page 33418]]

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.

7.3.1 Arithmetic Mean

    Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences of a data set 
as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN10.000

Where:

davg = Arithmetic mean of the differences
n = Number of data points (test runs)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11JN10.001

di = The difference between a reference method value and 
the corresponding continuous emission monitoring system value 
(RMi - CEMi), for a given data point
* * * * *

7.6 Bias Test and Adjustment Factor

    Test the following relative accuracy test audit data sets for 
bias: SO2 pollutant concentration monitors; flow 
monitors; NOX concentration monitoring systems used to 
determine NOX mass emissions, as defined in 75.71(a)(2); 
and NOX-diluent CEMS using the procedures outlined in 
sections 7.6.1 through 7.6.5 of this appendix. For multiple-load 
flow RATAs, perform a bias test at each load level designated as 
normal under section 6.5.2.1 of this appendix.

7.6.1 Arithmetic Mean

    Calculate the arithmetic mean of the differences of the data set 
using Equation A-7 of this appendix. To calculate bias for an 
SO2 or NOX pollutant concentration monitor, 
``di'' is, for each paired data point, the difference 
between the SO2 or NOX concentration value (in 
ppm) obtained from the reference method and the monitor. To 
calculate bias for a flow monitor, ``di'' is, for each 
paired data point, the difference between the flow rate values (in 
scfh) obtained from the reference method and the monitor. To 
calculate bias for a NOX-diluent continuous emission 
monitoring system, ``di'' is, for each paired data point, 
the difference between the NOX emission rate values (in 
lb/mmBtu) obtained from the reference method and the monitoring 
system.
* * * * *
    7.6.5 * * *
    (b) For single-load RATAs of SO2 pollutant 
concentration monitors, NOX concentration monitoring 
systems, and NOX-diluent monitoring systems, and for the 
single-load flow RATAs required or allowed under section 6.5.2 of 
this appendix and sections 2.3.1.3(b) and 2.3.1.3(c) of appendix B 
to this part, the appropriate BAF is determined directly from the 
RATA results at normal load, using Equation A-12. Notwithstanding, 
when a NOX concentration CEMS or an SO2 CEMS 
or a NOX-diluent CEMS installed on a low-emitting 
affected unit (i.e., average SO2 or NOX 
concentration during the RATA X 
emission rate mmBtu) meets the normal 10.0 percent 
relative accuracy specification (as calculated using Equation A-10) 
or the alternate relative accuracy specification in section 3.3 of 
this appendix for low-emitters, but fails the bias test, the BAF may 
either be determined using Equation A-12, or a default BAF of 1.111 
may be used.
* * * * *
    (f) Use the bias-adjusted values in computing substitution 
values in the missing data procedure, as specified in subpart D of 
this part, and in reporting the concentration of SO2, the 
flow rate, the average NOX emission rate, the unit heat 
input, and the calculated mass emissions of SO2 and 
CO2 during the quarter and calendar year, as specified in 
subpart G of this part. In addition, when using a NOX 
concentration monitoring system and a flow monitor to calculate 
NOX mass emissions under subpart H of this part, use 
bias-adjusted values for NOX concentration and flow rate 
in the mass emission calculations and use bias-adjusted 
NOX concentrations to compute the appropriate 
substitution values for NOX concentration in the missing 
data routines under subpart D of this part.
* * * * *
    30. Appendix B to Part 75 is amended by:
    a. Revising section 1.1.4;
    b. Removing sections 1.5 and 1.5.1 through 1.5.6;
    c. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.1.4;
    d. Adding paragraph (c) to section 2.1.4;
    e. Revising section 2.2.1;
    f. Adding paragraph (i) to section 2.2.3;
    g. Revising paragraph (a) of section 2.3.1.1, paragraph (a) of 
section 2.3.1.3, and paragraphs (d) and (i) of section 2.3.2;
    h. Adding paragraph (k) to section 2.3.2;
    i. Revising section 2.3.4;
    j. Removing section 2.6;
    k. Revising Figures 1 and 2; and
    e. Adding Figure 3, to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 75--Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures

1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program

* * * * *
    1.1.4 The provisions in section 6.1.2 of appendix A to this part 
shall apply to the 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

* * * * *

2.1.4 Data Validation

    (a) An out-of-control period occurs when the calibration error 
of an SO2 or NOX pollutant concentration 
monitor exceeds 5.0 percent of the span value, when the calibration 
error of a CO2 or O2 monitor (including 
O2 monitors used to measure CO2 emissions or 
percent moisture) exceeds 1.0 percent O2 or 
CO2, or when the calibration error of a flow monitor 
exceeds 6.0 percent of the span value, which is twice the applicable 
specification of appendix A to this part. Notwithstanding, a 
differential pressure-type flow monitor for which the calibration 
error exceeds 6.0 percent of the span value shall not be considered 
out-of-control if [bond]R- A[bond], 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 2 or NOX monitor for which 
the calibration error exceeds 5.0 percent of the span value shall 
not be considered out-of-control if [bond]R- A[bond] in Equation A-6 
does not exceed 5.0 ppm (for span values  50 ppm, but X-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)(6) and (7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an 
independent laboratory and shown to meet the requirements of section 
5.1.4(b) of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *

2.2.1 Linearity Check

    Unless a particular monitor (or monitoring range) is exempted 
under this paragraph or under section 6.2 of appendix A to this 
part, perform a linearity check, in accordance with the procedures 
in section 6.2 of appendix A to this part, for each primary and 
redundant backup SO2, and NOx pollutant concentration 
monitor and each primary and

[[Page 33419]]

redundant backup CO2 or O2 monitor (including 
O2 monitors used to measure CO2 emissions or 
to continuously monitor moisture) at least once during each QA 
operating quarter, as defined in 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 from a production 
site that is not participating in the PGVP, except as provided in 
Sec.  75.21(g)(6) and (7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an 
independent laboratory and shown to meet the requirements of section 
5.1.4(b) of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *

2.3.1.1 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 SO2 pollutant 
concentration monitor, flow monitor, CO2 emissions 
concentration monitor (including O2 monitors used to 
determine CO2 emissions), CO2 or O2 
diluent monitor used to determine heat input, moisture monitoring 
system, NOX concentration monitoring system, or 
NOX-diluent CEMS. A calendar quarter that does not 
qualify as a QA operating quarter shall be excluded in determining 
the deadline for the next RATA. No more than eight successive 
calendar quarters shall elapse after the quarter in which a RATA was 
last performed without a subsequent RATA having been conducted. If a 
RATA has not been completed by the end of the eighth calendar 
quarter since the quarter of the last RATA, then the RATA must be 
completed within a 720 unit (or stack) operating hour grace period 
(as provided in section 2.3.3 of this appendix) following the end of 
the eighth successive elapsed calendar quarter, or data from the 
CEMS will become invalid.
* * * * *

2.3.1.3 RATA Load (or Operating) Levels and Additional RATA 
Requirements

    (a) For SO2 pollutant concentration monitors, 
CO2 emissions concentration monitors (including 
O2 monitors used to determine CO2 emissions), 
CO2 or O2 diluent monitors used to determine 
heat input, NOX concentration monitoring systems, and 
NOX-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 SO2 
pollutant concentration monitor, a NOX-diluent monitoring 
system, a NOX concentration monitoring system, or a flow 
monitor is passed, perform a bias test in accordance with section 
7.6.4 of appendix A to this part. Apply the appropriate bias 
adjustment factor to the reported SO2, NOX, or 
flow rate data, in accordance with section 7.6.5 of appendix A to 
this part.
* * * * *
    (k) The results of any certification, recertification, 
diagnostic, or quality assurance test required under this part may 
not be used to validate the emissions data required under this part, 
if the test is performed using EPA Protocol gas from a production 
site that is not participating in the PGVP, except as provided in 
Sec.  75.21(g)(6) and (7) or if the cylinder(s) are analyzed by an 
independent laboratory and shown to meet the requirements of section 
5.1.4(b) of appendix A to this part.
* * * * *

2.3.4 Bias Adjustment Factor

    Except as otherwise specified in section 7.6.5 of appendix A to 
this part, if an SO2 pollutant concentration monitor, a 
flow monitor, a NOX-diluent CEMS, or a NOX 
concentration monitoring system used to calculate NOX 
mass emissions fails the bias test specified in section 7.6 of 
appendix A to this part, use the bias adjustment factor given in 
Equations A-11 and A-12 of appendix A to this part or the allowable 
alternative BAF specified in section 7.6.5(b) of appendix A of this 
part, to adjust the monitored data.
* * * * *

                     Figure 1 to Appendix B of Part 75--Quality Assurance Test Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Basic QA test frequency requirements
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                             Test                                                                 Semiannual or
                                                                   Daily *        Quarterly *         annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calibration Error Test (2 pt.)...............................               X   ...............  ...............
Interference Check (flow)....................................               X   ...............  ...............
Flow-to-Load Ratio...........................................  ...............               X   ...............
Leak Check (DP flow monitors)................................  ...............               X   ...............
Linearity Check* (3 pt.).....................................  ...............               X   ...............
RATA (SO2, NOX, CO2, O2, H2O)\1\.............................  ...............  ...............               X
RATA (flow) 1, 2.............................................  ...............  ...............               X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Daily'' means operating days, only. ``Quarterly'' means once every QA operating quarter. ``Semiannual''
  means once every two QA operating quarters. ``Annual'' means once every four QA operating quarters.
\1\ Conduct RATA annually (i.e., once every four QA operating quarters) rather than semiannually, if monitor
  meets accuracy requirements to qualify for less frequent testing.

[[Page 33420]]

\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%  12.0 ppm \X\.
                                      15.0 ppm \X\.
NOX-diluent.......................  7.5%  0. 015 lb/mmBtu \X\.
                                      0.020 lb/
                                     mmBtu \X\.
Flow..............................  7.5%  1.5 fps \X\.
                                      2.0 fps \X\.
CO2 or O2.........................  7.5%  0.7% CO2/O2 \X\.
                                      1.0% CO2/O2
                                     \X\.
Moisture..........................  7.5%  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.

             Figure 3 to Appendix B of Part 75--Single Component Plus Balance Gas Cylinders EPA Protocol Gas Verification Program Results EPA Cylinder Gas Assays Performed by NIST
                                                                                  [NIST to Insert: Month, Year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Gas Component, e.g., SO2
                                                               ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                EPA protocol gas                                                                        Audit Results                                                               Supplied
Specialty gas   production site     Vendor ID       Stamped       Tag value   ----------------------------------------------------------------      Vendor         Vendor ref       complete
 company name         name                        cylinder ID     (e.g., ppm                                     Re-analyzed                      analytical        std used      documentation
                                                                     SO2)       Orig tag value     Orig tag     value  (pass/    Re-analysis    method  (e.g.,    (e.g., NTRM)      (yes/no)
                                                                                  (pass/fail)      (% diff)         fail)          (% diff)          FTIR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............  ................  .............  ................
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............
              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............  ................  .............
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............
                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               .................  .............  .............  .............  ................  ...........  ................  .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A gaseous component is said to fail only if all available analytical techniques used in the audit indicate greater than a 2.0% difference from the cylinder tag value. Any accuracy assessment
  is an instantaneous snapshot of the process being measured. These results should not be regarded as a final statement on the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases. They can be used as an indicator
  of the current status of the accuracy of EPA Protocol gases as a whole. However, individual results should not be taken as definitive indicators of the analytical capabilities of individual
  producers. EPA presents this information without assigning a rating to the gas vendors, for example, who is the best, who is approved, or is not approved.
% diff = 100 x (Tag Value - NIST Value)/NIST Value
Note: For cylinders with more than one component plus balance gas, change the title appropriately, e.g., ``FIGURE 3 TO APPENDIX B OF PART 75--BI-BLEND PLUS BALANCE GAS CYLINDERS * * * '' and
  add appropriate columns to Figure 3 for the additional components following the same format used in the columns for SO2 above.

    31. 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 
O2 and NOX concentration measurements under 
this appendix, either for units using the excepted methodology in 
this appendix or for units using the low mass emissions excepted 
methodology in Sec.  75.19.
* * * * *

Appendix F to Part 75 [Amended]

    32. Appendix F to Part 75 is amended by removing and reserving 
section 9.

Appendix K to Part 75 [Removed]

    33. Appendix K to Part 75 is removed.

[FR Doc. 2010-10955 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```